Ottoman Empire – Engaging Peace

Final in a series by guest author Dr. Majed Ashy

In Part 3 of this series, we introduced two forces in conflict: one that believes in mixing Islam with politics (internal and international), and one that believes in the separation of Islam from politics (some call it the enlightenment era).

Iranian glazed ceramic tile work, from the ceiling of the Tomb of Hafez. Image used under CC Attribution 3.0 Unported license.

The first view ruled the Middle East for about 1,200 years, from the start of Islam until the fall of the Ottoman Empire at the start of the 20th century. The second view ruled most of the Middle Eastern and North African countries from that point until the start of the Arab revolutions two years ago.

The first era was praised as a period of Islamic self-determination and power and advancement until the rise of some interpretations of Islam in the 18th and 19th centuries that contributed to stagnation and reduction in scientific advancements in Muslim countries.

The second era is praised for fighting colonization and making the newly independent Arab states modern players in the international power, artistic, and educational realms. However, this era was characterized by the rule of militaries and dictators who were supported by various international powers.

Thus, this experienced past, glorified by conflicting groups, contributes to the formation of the two views projected into the future by many in the Middle East. Some dream of a new future of pluralism, peaceful sharing and transition of power, transparency and the rule of law, social and economical development–all in a country that would respect all, be a constructive member in the international community, and be enriched by its religious and cultural diversity.

Some, however, want the establishment of the Islamic Caliphate that will shift the international balance of power. Some long for the militaristic secular national (non-religious) projection of power that will, again, shift the international balance of power in their favor.

Understanding the consequences of the Arab revolutions on the regional and international balance of power can help us understand the dynamics of the various conflicts occurring today.

Dr. Majed Ashy is an assistant professor of psychology at Merrimack College and a research fellow in psychiatry at McLean Hospital/Harvard Medical School.

First in a series by guest author Dr. Dahlia Wasfi

Imperialism is defined as the policy of extending a nation’s authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.

Map of Sykes-Picot territorial divisions — Sykes-Picot territorial divisions. Used under Creative Commons license.

The British Empire’s reign expanded through the invasion of 90% of the countries on Planet Earth, including those of Western Asia (the “Middle East”). This region remains riddled with violent strife.

Duplicity by the Allies during the World War I era is the root of the injustice and accompanying conflict that continue between Western Asia and Western powers. Today, the imperialist drives of the United States and NATO are continuing the bloodshed in this region for the sake of economic exploitation.

By 1916, British forces battling the armies of the Ottoman Empire in Mesopotamia were suffering great losses. Facing defeat, the Crown dispatched British Army officer Thomas Edward (T.E.) Lawrence—also known as “Lawrence of Arabia”—to rally the Arab tribes against their Ottoman rulers. Lawrence promised the native peoples their independence in return for fighting alongside the British. Lured by these guarantees of self-rule, indigenous leaders agreed.

The Arab Revolt of 1916-1918 was instrumental in the defeat of the Ottoman Empire. But the Allied Powers had their own desires to exploit the vast resources of the region. They never intended independence for the Arabs.

Beginning in 1915, representatives from France, England, and Russia conducted clandestine negotiations to divide up Ottoman territories—their anticipated spoils of war—among them. In May 1916, the final deal apportioning control of Arab lands to colonial powers was signed by British politician Sir Mark Sykes and French diplomat Francois Georges-Picot—just as T.E. Lawrence was promising Arabs their independence in exchange for their help.

The stealthy Sykes-Picot Agreement rendered the Crown’s guarantees of self-determination meaningless. (If only the Arabs could have consulted with the indigenous peoples of the Americas on what promises mean to European colonizers.)

(The next installment will discuss ongoing imperialism in the region today.)

The psychology of revolutions, Part 4: Forces in conflict

Imperialism by any other name…still stinks