|
|
 |
 |
| Sunday, 27 April 2003 |
 |
|
 |
Features |  |
| News Business Features Editorial
|
Iraq's colonial history : The origins of shock and awe by Preethi Sirimanne - von den Driesch With the Iraq war imperial politics seems to become a prerogative for some nations. Those at the vanguard of neo-colonialism prefer to ignore the dark side of colonial history. There are plenty of examples. In 2001, Britain refused to apologize for the colonial past and slavery at the conference against racism. In 2002, Robert Cooper, the foreign policy adviser to Tony Blair, opened a public debate with an essay "Why we still need empires". Recently, Winston Churchill's grandson published an article in the Wall Street Journal titled: "My grandfather invented Iraq." In the article he mentions: "My grandfather's experience has lessons for us" What he failed to disclose was that this so-called "invention" was connected with treachery and betrayal. Britain which built an empire through cruel, greedy and dishonest schemes now behaves self-righteous, making every attempt to conceal the toxic passages of history. It is therefore worthwhile to scrutinize historical facts to understand today's crisis in Iraq, because history ignored will lead to history repeated.
Forces and events that contributed to the creation of Iraq are highly controversial. The Sykes-Picot Agreement, Paris Peace Conference, and Cairo conference are genres of political dominance of the imperial powers, which shifted borders and annexed territories inventing conceptions of dependency through mandates and protectorates. When the British first entered Basra in 1914, their real intentions were to protect the potential oil fields and secure communications routes to India. At World War I the Ottomans, who controlled the Middle East territories, allied with the Germans. This disturbed the British and they planned a campaign against the Ottomans starting in Basra. The British tried to persuade the Arabs to rise up and fight against the Ottoman rulers. This task was left to the British High Commissioner in Egypt, Sir Henry McMahon, who corresponded with the Sharif of Mecca: the Hashemite King Hussein. The Arabs were promised their own state in return for fighting the Ottomans. Sir Henry McMahon wrote to the Sharif of Mecca in 1915: "I am empowered in the name of the government of Great Britain to give the following assurance... Great Britain is prepared to recognize and support the independence of the Arabs in all regions within the limits demanded by the Sharif of Mecca" Unaware of a secret agreement existing at that time, the Sharif of Mecca formally initiated a revolt against the Ottoman rule in 1916 with the help of the British. Sykes-Picot agreement The Sykes-Picot Agreement was a secret convention made during World War I by Britain and France, with the consent of imperial Russia in May 1916. According to the agreement the Middle East was divided into various French-British administrative areas. This secret agreement is a proof of British duplicity as it conflicted with pledges given by the British to the Sharif of Mecca. The Arabs learnt about the agreement only in 1917, when the Bolshevik-regime published it. They were shocked and outraged as the clandestine agreement had disregarded interests and expectations of the Arabs, although they had contributed significantly to the Allied victory. According to the agreement, Arabs were deprived of the right to rule their own territories, instead almost the whole Middle East came under the British and French. The vision of a free and united Arab realm turned into an illusion. The Sykes-Picot Agreement set scenes for a century of border conflicts. The climax was the declaration at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 which legitimized partitions. Britain was entrusted mandatory powers for Iraq and Palestine, while Syria and Lebanon came under the French mandate. This treaty illustrated the dimensions of political chicanery and arrogance the British and French had exercised. They declared at the League of Nations to be responsible for administrating vast tracts of land in the Middle East. Under Article 22 it was stated: "Territories inhabited by peoples unable to stand themselves would be entrusted to advanced nations until such time as the local population can handle matters." Brutality of the British Britain merged the provinces Baghdad, Basra and Mosul into a new entity, the state of Iraq, inhabited by three different groups of people: Shias, Sunnis and Kurds. Problems appeared as the British administration did not give administrative posts to the local people. Soon imperial order penetrated at all levels. Under the British rule the Iraqis were subjected to pay more taxes than to the Ottomans. They armed themselves and revolted against the British rulers in 1920. To crush the rebellion Churchill, at that time the Secretary of State for War, introduced new tactics - bombing as means of shock and awe. He encouraged the usage of mustard gas stating: "I do not understand the squeamishness about the use of gas, I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes". He argued that gas fired from ground-based guns or dropped from aircraft, would cause only discomfort or illness but not death. Others protested saying gas would permanently damage eyesight and kill sickly persons and children who are most vulnerable to such a situation. Churchill remained unimpressed arguing that the usage of gas is a "scientific expedient" and it "should not be prevented by the prejudices of those who do not think clearly". The army men followed their master's policy to the extreme limits. Whole villages were bombed. There was wholesale slaughter. Men, women and children fleeing from villages had been machine gunned. The British Royal Air Force routinely bombed and even used poison gas against the Kurds and Shia tribes. Wing Commander J. A. Chamber: "The attack with bombs and machine guns must be relentless and unremitting and carried out continuously by day and night on houses, inhabitants, crops and cattle." Geoff Simons in his book "Iraq From Sumer to Saddam" writes: "Iraq and Kurdistan were useful laboratories for new weapons devices specially developed by the Air Ministry for use against tribal villages. The ministry drew up a list of possible weapons: Phosphorus bombs, rockets, metal crowsfeet to maim livestock, man-killing shrapnel, liquid fire, delay action bombs... Many of these weapons were first used in Kurdistan". The cruellest was Arthur Harris, known as bomber Harris due to his bombing of Dresden in World War II, who said: "Arabs and Kurds now know what real bombing means, in casualties and damage: they know that within 45 minutes full-sized villages can be wiped out and a third of its inhabitants killed or wounded". This notorious man is now called "Sir Arthur Harris" and a monument stands in the centre of London. In 1920, the Times published an article from the English diplomat, T. E. Lawrence, known as Lawrence of Arabia, who gave a full account of the circumstances in Iraq: "We said we went to Mesopotamia to defeat Turkey. We said we stayed to deliver Arabs from the oppression of the Turkish government, and to make available for the world its resources of corn and oil... We keep 90,000 men with aeroplanes, armoured cars, gunboats and armoured trains... Our government is worse than the old Turkish system... We have killed about 10,000 Arabs in this rising summer... How long will we permit millions of pounds, thousands of imperial troops, tens of thousands of Arabs to be sacrificed on behalf of colonial administration which can benefit nobody but its administrators?" Cairo conference 1921 The parameter for Iraq's future was set at the Cairo Conference. Churchill's main ambition was to preserve the route to India, protect potential oil resources and control Iraq politically through the British mandate. At the conference the British insisted on a constitution similar to that of Britain, but with the amendment that all military, commercial, judicial and financial matters in Iraq should be taken by British advisers. In effect, Iraq was politically and economically dominated by Britain. It soon became apparent to the Arabs that complete independence had not been granted. Arab nationalists demanded independence as a matter of right and considered the mandate laid down by the British as a camouflage for colonialism. The Cairo treaty was viewed by Iraqi nationalists as a threat to the national and economical development of Iraq. The term "perplexing predicament" (al-watha-al-shadh) became very popular which referred to the absurdity of a dual government. They argued there are two governments in Iraq, one foreign and the other national, and that such a regime was an abnormality. Britain appointed Faisal I who came from the Hashemite clan as the king. He was indeed a good choice for them because Faisal though cultured was weak in character. Britain could remote control Iraq till the monarchy was toppled in 1958. It was only then that Iraq became independent. The history of Iraq and the Middle East portrays that it was the prerogative of the self proclaimed "superior" and "advanced" Western powers to conquer territories in the Middle East, exploit resources and subjugate its people. There are reasons to believe that history is going to be repeated. |
|
News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security Produced by Lake House |
