Land Divisions in the Sykes-Picot agreement

As seen on this website, the actual allocations of territory in the Sykes-Picot agreement involved Britain getting modern day Jordan, Southern Iraq, and another small area that allowed British access to the Mediterranean Sea. This last territory near Haifa, is evidence of the economical outlook the British took into their negotiations for territory. A port was key for a super power like Britain who had the best Navy in the world. The French took control of southeastern Turkey, Lebanon, Syria, and northern Iraq. The Russian’s were to take control over Constantinople, the Turkish Straits, and the Ottoman Armenian vilayets. All these territories were economically prosperous and would allow each of these nations to have a more controlling hand in the world economy.

The Sykes-Picot agreement

The Sykes-Picot agreement detailed in this BBC article, which was accomplished in 1916, involved Britain and France with the knowledge and approval of Russia. The agreement focused on the manner in which the Middle East was going to be divided once the Ottoman Empire fell during World War I. France and Britain viewed the agreement as essentially dividing the Middle East into western spheres of influence revolving around trade and economic prosperity. The fact that this agreement even existed is evidence of the economic and colonial mindset the Europeans had when they thought about the outcome of World War I. They’re talking about how they’re going to divide up the Ottoman Empire before they’ve even won the war, and they show the fact that their promises in the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence to the Arab people that helped them over throw the Ottoman Empire were completely worthless to begin with.

The McMahon-Hussein Correspondence

The McMahon-Hussein Correspondence, which is described by a Middle Eastern Website here, was a conversation between the Sharif of Mecca Husayn bin Ali and Sir Henry McMahon, the British High Commissioner in Egypt. The conversation was about the political future of the Arab nations, who at the time were under the control of the Ottoman Empire. The Arab nations were already moving in the direction of the large-scale revolt against the Ottomans, and the British took that sentiment as an opportunity to defeat the Ottomans by strongly encouraging the Arab nations to revolt. The Arab nations had previously offered up the idea of an Ottoman Arab revolt in 1914 in the Damascus Protocol, which basically declared that were the Arabs to revolt, the British would guarantee independence for Arabia. Because the Ottomans had not entered World War I on the side of the Germans yet, the British refused this deal because the British wanted to preserve the integrity of the Ottoman Empire. But once the Ottomans entered World War I against the British, the British sought revolt from the Arabs. The Arabs saw their conversation with the British as an agreement, and mobilized a military force that then attacked the Ottomans in 1916.

The Swedish Model

Transparency with the government is the most important aspect to the Swedish model of state.  With no closed doors, everyone can understand exactly was is taking place, and how it will affect them.  I think it's interesting that a government like the Swedish model is quite powerful, given that it decides that fate of children instead of the family, yet there is not a huge aversion to it like most all-powerful governments have received in the past.  Transparency is the most essential part to this phenomenon, and I think that it's importance is evidence that most people don't want to have control over what happens to them, but would rather have someone else makes decisions, as long as the person understands why those decisions are being made.  I argued in an earlier post, in response to Declan, that dictatorships are the most natural form of governments for people, because people are naturally inclined to just give up their responsibility in return for protection.  Where most dictatorships go wrong in where Sweden went right, hiding everything behind lies and the like.  The reason why  most dictators lie is because their policies normally do not benefit the people as much as the people would like or expect, and the dictators are afraid that if the public knows the truth their house of cards will collapse.  The Swedish government doesn't have to worry about this, but it's policies are totally legit, and therefore they are willing to show everyone what's going on.  This means that the people will gladly have no power, which again it something natural for humans.   

Israel and The British

In this post I am going to attempt to talk a little about the conflict that is Israel (with the help of Wikipedia).  I think it’s probably the most hotly debated global issue that involves specific populations, and it was started (not exactly true, but for the purposes of MEH it was) after World War I and the British’s secret treaty that promised many people of Jewish heritage a safe haven in Israel, which was enacted upon when the British allowed the Jewish population to increase in Israel after that had taken control of it.  This is countered by the fact that Arab people had been living in Israel for the past 1300 years, and saw the take over of Jewish people as a horrible result from their help to the British during World War I.  This conflict had, and continues to have, huge ramifications across the world, and especially in the Middle East.  It put the British in a very difficult position, because it neither succumb to the Arab Nationalism, especially considering the rise of Hitler, who threatened the Jewish people, and leave the Jewish nation out to dry, but it couldn’t give the Jewish people complete control and absolutely embitter and anger the Arabs who had been living in the region for so long.  The British in some ways were saved from having to figure it out completely, because the problem was passed along to the United Nations after the Allied victory.  During the period between WWI and WWII, the British essentially tried to play the middle ground and hope that both sides would be comfortable with some sort of compromise.  But, as can been seen currently, the two sides were never able to be satisfied at the same time, and the British were left to try to make the best of a situation they had caused themselves by issuing conflicting promises.  

The Middle East and Europe

During the time between World War I and World War II there were many revolts in the Middle East that were centered around the idea of self-governing (see this Wikipedia article).  The British and French put all of these revolts down, although Egypt did end up becoming an independent nation in 1924.  But, it wasn’t true independence because the British used Cairo during WWII as the base for most its operations in the area, claiming all of their troop presence was legitimate because it needed to protect the Suez Canal.  Most of the revolts were obvious reactions to the hoodwinking British and French who had promised self-governance in return for help during WWI to defeat the Ottomans.  These revolts characterized the Middle Eastern attitude towards the invasion of European control, and it’s clear that the Middle East wasn’t going to succumb without a fight.   The being said, the Middle East didn’t have much success in throwing off the colonial powers because the sheer power Britain and France possessed.  All during the period between the two wars, especially considering the fact that oil was discovered in Persia in 1908, and then in Saudi Arabia in 1938, the colonial powers had their hand economic activity through out the region.  Although many of the states in the region gained independence after WWII, this did not mean they were left completely alone by Europeans.  Oil had clear ramifications for the Europeans because it was so important in maintaining a strong military and economic state.  Oil, much to the dismay of the Middle Eastern people, would keep a foreign hand in the Middle East until the present day.  This combined with the fact that religion has always been a huge dividing factor in the Middle East, has proven to cause more problems than anyone knows how to correct.  

Response to Charlie about Cold war

In response to Charlie's post about the simulation of the cold war we did in class, I felt that the simulation was in many ways pointless because in many ways the cold war was pointless.  When each side has the ability to completely and utterly destroy the opponent, it takes the fun out of trying to figure out how to approach the world from a militaristic stand point.  That combined with the fact that the way to "win" was to not kill the enemy was something I felt was silly, which is of course directly related to the fact that each side has tons of nukes.  I agree with Charlie on his point that there was a "realistic" (I put this in parentheses because Charlie has not idea how the Cold War actually, and nor do I, but nevertheless) aspect to the game in the fact that it was hard to predict what the other side was going to do for their turn.  I think that the game would have been better had there been a prize at the end, or something to truly egg on each side to victory.

But back to my point about how the cold war was pointless.  It's true that the expansionist Communists were something to fear for Americans, who saw that spread of communism as the inevitable fall of capitalism and liberty as they knew it.  But, the Communists power was waning well before the end of the cold war because of the weakness of their party in Russia, and all American's actions, which I agree with Charlie were more aggressive, were taken under the impression that the Russians were going to perpetrate havoc across the land.  It was as if the Americans were preparing to fight and enemy that had ceased to exist by the time they felt they were going to make a difference, making all of it pointless.