The Middle East Today

By P. N. MATHUR, M.A.
(Lecturer, Government College, Bhopal)

Before discussing the different problems of the Middle East countries, it will be proper for us to define this region. Nowadays when one says ‘the Near East’ one normally means Egypt, Palestine, Trans-Jordan, Syria. Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yamen and the small State of the Arabian Peninsula, Persia, and the Mediterranean Sea. British usage calls the Balkans and Turkey the Near East and the rest the Middle East, while American usage excludes the Balkans and European Turkey from the Near East and calls Iraq and Iran the Middle East. Instead of going into details on this particular point, it will be better to define the Middle East as the area between Egypt and Afghanistan.

This part of the Asiatic continent, the Biblical cradle of humanity, which once embraced great civilisations, huge empires and an ancient culture, is today one of the most ward regions of the world. Gone are the days of the Califs, of the Thieves of Bagdad, the Thousand and One Nights and the Tower of Babylon. Vast deserts cover the region, and lions and jackals are a danger to man there. Poverty-stricken peoples populate the lands, half of these being nomads on the lowest level of human culture. Diseases and epidemics range to an extent unknown elsewhere. Although enormous mineral resources are hidden beneath the soil, the wardness and poverty of the peoples and the political conditions have left this wealth untapped. The people living in this region are basically Semitic in origin. Their predominant religion is Islam and they speak varying shades of Arabic.

In the political sense these lands are situated between the Russian and the British spheres. The long narrow belt of land which divides their spheres begins at the Dardanelles and ends deep in Central Asia at a point where Russia, Afghanistan and Tibet meet. Most of these territories have been since 1920 under British Protection (Syria was under France and formed a distinct part of the Middle East) and their fate today depends upon the interrelationships among the Big Powers. If today most of the nations are independent in this region it is because of the rivalry of the Big Powers. This is the classical region of Buffer States, of spheres of influence, of political bribery, of industrial concessions and oil diplomacy. Abdur Rahman, one of the rulers of Afghanistan, remarked, on the basis ofhis own experience, about the great Powers: “Every Government strives to seize as much as it can in the largest quantity and therefore the white bear (Russia) is not better than the red dog (Britain).” Britain: and Russia were the masters of the Middle East in the 19th century. Other powers, especially Germany in the time of the Kaiser and later on under Hitler, also tried to gain a foothold here but, after the two wars she was finished. France also tried. After the first World War she got Syria and the Lebanon as mandated territories. Britain conceded to her some oil rights in Iraq. The Arabs, who form an important element among the nations of the Middle East, are becoming nowadays more and more anti-British. This is the attitude even of the Arab League recently established by the Governments of Arab nations. Soviet influence has also made itself felt to some extent in Egypt, Palestine and Iran.

One of the chief means of political penetration into these regions has been the construction of rail-roads to open up the region and act as an economic as well as political magnet. These rail-roads of the ward lands, for instance, the Berlin-Bagdad, the Manchurian and the African rail-roads, were considered political strongholds of the parent nations. Now, since the last three or four decades, their importance as a means of political penetration, has been overshadowed by the development of oil resources. The Middle East is one of the richest oil territories of the world. Its resources have never been thoroughly explored. Some estimate it nearing 50 billion barrels. It is also because of its oil riches that the Middle East has attracted so much interest in recent decades. Were it not for the oil whose importance has been increasing rapidly in the eyes of every power in the world, this region certainly would not be so important today in world politics. Since the industries of every nation depend on oil, the Middle East has been paramount among the objects of their oil policies. It contains the greatest known pool of oil in existence in the world.

The development of oil resources here which began only 40 years has proceeded at such a pace that this region is in the process of becoming one of the most important battle-grounds in the economic wars of the Big Powers. Nearly every world power is represented in the Middle East and the economic battlefronts here correspond to the grouping of the powers elsewhere. England was naturally the first to appear here, followed a little later by Germany and France. The U.S.A. was the last to appear in this region of foreign control. Russia stands aside watching every move of these powers, to counteract them if and when they approached a potential Russian sphere in the Middle East. The companies of different nations have divided the great region into Zones and markets of their separate spheres. Later on American and British companies signed what is called the Red Line Agreement which prohibited these companies from proceeding individually and it embraces the whole of the Middle East except Iran.

The causes of the present day tension in the Middle East are many. The over-all problem is the Soviet effort to penetrate into this area, and this is the reason why the Western powers want to create the Middle East Defence Command. The other important problems are the Anglo-Egyptian dispute over the Sudan and the Suez Canal, the dispute of the Anglo-Iranian Company with the Government of Iran, the problem of Arab-Israeli relations including the Arab refugee problem etc. Let us examine these issues briefly one by one.

So far as the question of Soviet penetration is concerned, we must remember that it cannot be checked simply by establishing the Middle East Defence Command. Communism cannot be checked by violence but only by improving the lot of the masses. No area of the world today needs a large scale development more urgently than the Middle East. International tensions are caused not merely by international rivalry, but often by the internal conditions affecting the well-being of the masses. Poverty and depressed conditions always lead to national disunity and revolutions, which bring imperialistic powers into the field. The whole Asia is characterised today by the abject poverty of the masses and the workers due mostly to the feudal land-system. Ordinary human beings are everywhere conservative and do not wish for riot or revolt. This they welcome only when they have reached the point of desperation. It must be recognised fully that the masses in the Middle East today are reaching this point. Every now and then we read in the papers of the attempts by the peasants to take over the lands and other property of their landlords, as in Egypt, Iraq, Iran and even in India. This shows that social revolution in these countries is in the offing and you cannot check it by wishful thinking. If you want to keep the masses immune from Soviet propaganda, you must try to raise their standard of living by internal reforms sponsored by the Government concerned, and President Truman’s Point Four programme can play a crucial role here. Moreover some of the imperialistic powers like France do not read the writing on the wall and foolishly stick to their old rotten methods as we see in Indo-China, Tunisia and the French Possessions in India. Asia has now awakened and nobody can check the nationalism of Asian nations.

The case of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company is another important cause of tension in the Middle East. Persia has been used as a pawn in the game of international politics since 1907 when, in their effort to check German-Turkish collaboration and the Berlin-Bagdad Railway project of Germany, Czarist Russia and England as members of the Triple Entente wanted to partition Persia. Persia is still a pawn and all Persian nationalists resent the situation. It was in the year 1909 that the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company was formed to exploit Iranian oil up to 1961 by purchasing the oil concessions granted by the Iranian Government to William Knox D’ Aray. In 1914 in order to ensure the supply of oil for the navy, the British Government obtained control of this Company by purchasing more than 60 per cent of its stocks. A royalty of 16 per cent of its net profits was to be paid to the Government of Iran. On April 28, 1933, a new agreement was signed between the Company and the Iranian Government by which the Company was allowed to exploit the oil resources of Iran up to 1951 if she paid a share of net profits at a specific rate per ton of oil, and after 1961 the Company’s property was to revert to Iran. General Harlety gave a hint to the late President Roosevelt that the continued exploitation of Persian oil by the A. I. O. Co. on the present conditions, will result in serious discontent in Persia, which may be used by Russia, and as an alternative he suggested that more profits should be paid to the Middle Eastern Governments. England did not agree and thus we now have the present dispute.

From a realistic point of view, it is quite clear that Iran is fully justified, if she so desires, to nationalise her oil industry and she can sell the concession. If the Labour Government in England can nationalise its coal, iron and steel industries, why not Iran? Of course, Iran must not expropriate private property without due compensation, and on this there can be agreed adjustments betweenthe two countries. England did not accept this position and took the case to the Hague Court, but as everybody knows the Court has decided that they cannot interfere in this case. If England tries force and lands her troops in Iran it will have serious results and it may even lead to World War III, because by the Treaty of 1923 Russia can send her armies in such a case to Iran. The Iranian nationalists are not pro-Soviet, but the probability of their seeking Russian help in these circumstances cannot be ruled out, as it actually happened in the case of China when the proposal of Sun Yat Sen about extra-territorial rights in 1919 was accepted by Russia and no other power accepted it.

Recently England and America submitted to the Iranian Government some proposals with a personal appeal from President Truman and Prime Minister Churchill for solving the oil problem. They accepted the nationalisation of the oil industry and wanted that the compensation question should be decided by the International Court. Dr Mossadeq did not accept the proposals, as he regards them to be an attempt to revive the invalid oil concession agreement of 1933 and as they are inconsistent with the laws of nationalisation of the oil industry. He blamed the British Government for the deadlock. According to him it is an internal question between the Iranian Government and the Company, and not a question between the two Governments. So far as the compensation question is concerned, he is prepared to find a just and equitable solution but he refuses to agree to monopoly purchase of oil from Iran by anyone oil company. He contends that the British restrictions on the export of oil and the use of oil and the use of Sterling by Iran in the Anglo-American proposals are a means of economic pressure on Iran. Iran should be free to sell her oil where she wants. After rejecting the Anglo-American proposals he offered his own scheme for the solution of the whole dispute. He is prepared to go to the World Court for investigating the claims of the Company, provided England agrees to accept the dispute as not between the two Governments, but between the Iranian Government and the Company, and if there is agreement in regard to the basis of the examination of claims, determination of damages and advance payment on account. He is prepared to pay the Company compensation for its property in Iran in installments, by methods based on the law used by any country for nationalising its industries in similar circumstances, which may  be agreed upon by the oil company. But at the same time Iran will also claim damages for losses caused to her by the Company. Dr. Mossadeq wants advance payment on account of 49 millions earmarked in the A. I. O. C. balance sheet for 1950 for royalties, taxes and dividends due to Iran from reserves.

Dr. Mossadeq gave ten days time to Britain to accept the proposals; otherwise he threatened to break off diplomatic relations. England refused to accept the ultimatum proposals for the settlement on the 7th October, but left the door open for further efforts. There was a sudden change in Iran’s attitude towards England on the 7th October, when Dr. Mossadeq agreed to invite a British Mission to settle the whole question and to forget the ultimatum question. But England’s attitude stiffened and she refused to send any mission unless the principles for compensating the Company for loss of its industry were agreed upon between London and Tehran. She rejected the Iranian demands for an immediate advance of 20 millions out of 49 millions claimed by her earlier. As a result of it Dr. Mossadeq also changed his attitude and gave England 5 days’ time for reply after which, in case his proposals were not accepted, diplomatic relations would be broken off. As Britain did not accept his proposals, Iran finally took the fatal plunge and severed her diplomatic relations with Britain, but no mention was made of any period by which the diplomatic breach would become effective. Dr. Mossadeq at the same time expressed the hope that England would change her attitude and eventually resume friendly diplomatic relations.

Since then a number of attempts have been made but with no results. The British have maintained a sort of naval blockade and do not allow any export of oil from Iran. In spite of this, however, some oil has already been exported and the British could not stop it. Dr. Mossadeq, in the meanwhile, to deal with the internal condition, asked the Iranian Majlis to give him dictatorial powers for a period of six months, and after its expiration he again got them for another six months. There are also some differences between him and the Shah about the control of Palace expenditure. But for the time being it has been hushed up. This thing is not very important, as in every Parliamentary country the Head is expected to be a constitutional Head. On the other hand the British are trying the patience of the Iranian Government. They think that Iran is suffering a lot economically because of oil and a time may come when she will have no alternative but to accept their proposals on their own terms. But this is a terrible risk. Moreover the Iranians have become fanatic so far as Britishers are concerned, and they are not prepared to have anything to do with them. This was clear from the riots which took place in the country when the Shah dismissed Dr. Mossadeq and made Ghabam-as-Sultan his Prime Minister, but he was forced to call him .

The main hurdle to the solution of the oil dispute is the question of compensation. Dr. Mossadeq’s objection to the latest proposals of the British-U.S. offer has been that theAnglo-Iranian Company’s profits are unknown, and if compensation is calculated on profits, then the Iranian Government will have to go before the World Court to settle this point, without a clear idea of the extent of the claims against it. After rejecting this offer it is learnt that he is proposing a counter-offer by which the Iranian Government agrees for a specified period (to be settled) to set aside 25 per cent of its oil receipts as compensation to the British Company. If it is accepted then there will be no necessity for any arbitration over this question. Moreover the British will be in a better position, as, with the gradual increase in oil receipts, their share will also increase. We have to see how far this succeeds in solving the problem. Thus though the situation is explosive, it can be settled peacefully. American statesmen, by using their good offices, should try to solve this dispute in such a way that Iranian nationalism may be satisfied; otherwise it may have serious results affecting not only the Middle East but the whole of Asia.

Then there is the question of the State of Israel. I think once the Arab-League Powers recognise that Israel is a fact–and you cannot destroy it by wishful thinking or by force–then it will be of great importance to the future of the Middle East. Once this is recognised Arab hostilities will gradually change to collaboration with Israel, and it is not impossible as it is only a question of sentiment now. The late Emir Feisal welcomed Zionism in the Middle East, as it will help in the future development of the countries of this region. Egypt should do so in her own interest, and somehow or other she must come to terms with Israel, especially in her present critical condition. This co-operation can lead to greater security and progress. So long as Egypt persists in her present blockade of Israel, which has been resented by the European Powers also, there cannot be any peaceful settlement. If the other League Powers reconcile themselves to the existence of Israel, then, even the question of Israel’s swamp reclamation will be regarded as beneficial to the Arabs themselves and it will ultimately become a factor in cementing the friendship. Moreover the Anglo-American Bloc should not play on the racial and religious exclusiveness of Pan-Islamic or anti-Semitic ideas, as it results in making the life of the minorities intolerable and ultimately leads to problems like the Refugee problem. The case of Arab refugees can he best readjusted by making their homes in under-developed and under-populated Arab countries with the aid of internationally administered funds, towhich Israel can also contribute her own share ofcompensation. Theapproach ofcombined re-settlement and development work as suggested by the Clapp Commission should be regarded as the foundation stone of aid to the Arab refugees.

And now we come tothe Anglo-Egyptian problem. To understand this question let us see briefly how and why the present state of affairs came about. In the beginning of the 19th century Egypt was a part of the Turkish Empire. In 1837 Mahomet Ali, a man of outstanding drive, managed to become its Governor and was successful in obtaining from the then powerless Turkish Government the hereditary Governorship for his family. His incompetent successors spent their money lavishly and borrowed freely from the British and French financiers at exorbitant rates of interest. This ultimately brought the country to financial bankruptcy and led directly to foreign domination. By this time the Suez Canal had been opened. To complete the ruin of Egypt, England obtained a financial stake in the country when in 1869 Disraeli, British Prime Minister, bought off the Suez Canal shares from the insolvent Khedive at a fancy price, and thus England took complete control of Egypt even in internal affairs. England was so much interested in Egyptian affairs because of her communications with India. She had reasons to be anxious at this time about her ‘golden bird’, as the French and other European nations were still casting greedy eyes on British possessions. The British occupation of Egypt was accompanied by some of the worst features of foreign domination, specially as regards extra-territorial rights for foreigners. In 1904, due to a rapprochement between France and England, the former generously recognised the latter’s occupation of Egypt.

During the first World War, Egypt was declared a British protectorate which resulted in a bloody revolution led by the Nationalist leader Zaglul Pasha, but it was suppressed with a strong hand. England was unable to stem the tide of this nationalistic revolt in the country forever, and a declaration was made in 1923 to give the Egyptians independence circumscribed with reservations regarding the Sudan, defence, empire communications, etc. The question of the Sudan produced the greatest bitterness. The Sudan is a country bounded on the North by Egypt and on the East by the Red Sea, and through it flows the river Nile in its upper region. Ever since 1899 it is being ruled jointly by Great Britain and Egypt. By controlling the Sudan England can maintain a death-grip on Egypt, as her whole economy is dependent on the Nile. Due to all this, Nationalist Egypt under Zaglul was not satisfied with this declaration and there were widespread revolutionary outbursts in the country which continued up to 1935 without any settlement with England. In that year Fascist Italy attacked Abyssinia. England was in a critical position and she had to make some settlement with Egypt. In that atmosphere the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty of Alliance was signed in 1936. It was not a treaty between equals, and England was left in a privileged position. England had forcibly taken possession of the Sudan in 1924 and this status quo was now accepted. Egypt also conceded Britain’s right to defend the Suez Canal Zone. Though Egypt accepted the status quo in the Sudan at that time, all sections of Egyptian opinion are now clamouring for a revision of this treaty.

After the conclusion of World War II, Egypt demanded the immediate, evacuation of the British forces from the canal area and the permanent unity of the Nile Valley under the Egyptian crown, but England rejected this demand summarily, and in her own turn encouraged the Sudanese people to demand their consultation in any agreement concerning their future. Egypt thereupon referred the matter to the UNO but nothing came out of the reference. As a last resort Egypt under Nahas Pasha, the man who had concluded the Treaty of Alliance in 1936, took a very drastic step when, in October 1951, she abrogated the Treaty unilaterally and declared the King of Egypt as the King of the Sudan also. The situation became very tense and explosive. Nahas Pasha’s Government fomented hatred and violence against foreigners. Caution was thrown to the winds. Riots broke out in Cairo. The British Army welcomed this opportunity for a trial of strength, and riots on full scale started on January 26, 1952, resulting in great loss of life and property. King Farouq interfered and forced Nahas Pasha to resign. Parliament was also dissolved. Since then the situation has gone on deteriorating, with every now and then a change of Ministry. On July 23 the Egyptian Army under General Naguib staged a bloodless coup and forced King Farouq to abdicate in favour of his 7 months’ old infant son and installed Ali Mehr Pasha a the new Prime Minister.

Leaving aside other matters we must remember one thing, that the twin demands of evacuation of the British Forces from the Canal Zone and the unity of the Nile Valley are popular and legitimate, and no Government can even dare to challenge them. Some formula must be devised by which Egyptian national aspirations can be satisfied and which may also be satisfactory to England. So far as the British concern for the Sudanese people’s right of self-determination and minority rights are concerned, every Indian can at least understand its real nature by his own experience. There is nothing in international law to prevent Egypt from nationalising the canal. The real difficulty is that Egypt in control of Suez and allied with Soviet Russia would be highly dangerous to the Atlantic Pact Powers and the forces friendly to them in the Middle East. The Atlantic Powers want to establish the Middle East Defence Command to safeguard, their interests against Russian encroachments and want that Egypt should join it. The British agree to evacuate the Canal Zone if Egypt agrees to join it, but the latter has made it a condition of her joining the Command that her two demands should be accepted. The Command minus Egypt is useless and cannot achieve its purpose. Will Britain rise to the occasion and reconcile her defence requirements with the national aspirations of Egypt? Only time can show.

For the, present both Gen. Naguib and Ali Mehr Pasha are busy in improving the economic condition of their people. They are trying to carry out some drastic reforms in the country and to root outcorruption. On September 8th there was a split between the two and Ali Mehr resigned as a protest against the mass arrests of political leaders in the country. Thereupon Gen. Naguib became the Prime Minister and virtually the military dictator of Egypt. For the present he is trying to consolidate his power and to improve the lot of the poor man. He asked the different political parties to reorganise themselves to suit the new conditions in the country. He declared that he was planning a new approach to solve the Anglo-Egyptian dispute but he contemplated no immediate action, as he first wants to implement social, political and economic reforms in the country for the benefit of the common man. As a final bid to reach accord with Britain on the Sudan question, he opened talks with the British Ambassador on the 2nd October. He also met the different political leaders of the Sudan and arrived at some concrete proposals. He agreed to the British demand that the Sudanese must have the right of self-determination and also dropped the slogan of unity of the Nile Valley which, as Mr. Eden, the British Foreign Secretary said, completely changed the position. The result of all these prolonged negotiations was out on the 12th February, 1953 when the Anglo-Egyptian Pact about the Sudan was signed. The Pact heralds a new era of understanding and co-operation between the two nations. According to this, there will soon be general elections in the Sudan forthe Sudanese Parliament. The Governor-General will be a constitutional Head and will be assisted by a council of ministers. Two subjects, Foreign Relations and Defence, will be under the Governor-General. A mixed Commission consisting of one Britisher, one Egyptian, one Pakistani and two Sudanese will supervise the exercise of the Governor-General’s powers. A seven-man electoral Commission under Indian chairmanship will supervise the elections. There will be one more Commission which will see that the British and Egyptian officials hand over power to Sudanese officials within three years, which is the transitional period. This period will be ended by a resolution of the Sudanese Parliament that it wants self-determination, and this choice will be subject to international supervision which will also decide the question of a Supreme Command for her armed forces. It depends upon the Sudanese whether after three years they decide for complete independence or retain some sort of relations with Egypt. Thus, as General Naguib remarked, “this agreement opens a new page in the relations between Egypt and the Sudan and also between Egypt and England.”

In internal affairs, Gen. Naguib has achieved a lot silently. This part of his work has perhaps been overshadowed by the more spectacular Agreement with Britain on the Sudan and the opening of negotiations about the British evacuation of the Suez Canal. His whole internal policy can be summed up in one word–reform–reform in agriculture, in civil service, in the army, and in the cotton industry which is the foundation of Egypt’s economy. Before embarking upon his reforms he first suppressed all political parties in the country and announced that democratic Government in Egypt will start functioning after three years, and during this period all powers will be in the hands of a council of 31 of which he will be the President. After this he started his reforms and during a short period he has achieved a great deal and restored confidence among the foreigners living in Egypt for business. The land reforms by which he broke up the big estates struck deep at the feudal system and now nobody will be allowed more than 200 acres. It will take time to mature his reform fully. Then he cleaned up the civil services, a step which is very real and spectacular too. The whole administration has been purged of graft and a new impulse has been given to public officials. Nepotism is also declining as the political parties which used to dominate the civil services have been abolished. He has employed German experts to improve the condition of the army and form it in to effective units with officers of a better calibre. Another spectacular reform is his tree plan by which enough trees are to be planted to make Egypt self-sufficient in timber. His cotton policy is also realistic. He is prepared to make trade agreements with other countries based on barter. Thus, on the whole, he and his lieutenants have succeeded in making the life of the Egyptian people more prosperous, but the main question remains for which they have started their negotiations with England, that is, the evacuation of the Canal Zone. We wish them all success. The General, on 22nd March, in the first speech of his 2,500 mile long tour of Egypt, has raised his new slogan-evacuation or death. He made it clear that either the British will go of their own free-will or they will be forced to go, and he was ready for both. He demands evacuation of British troops, immediate total and unconditional. England must rise to the occasion and somehow or other make her peace with Egypt. No question of false prestige should be allowed to come in the way.

Thus everywhere in the whole of the Middle East there is great tension, whether it is the case of Iran or Egypt or Tunisia or Morocco or Kenya. As Shri Bajpai, now the Governor of Bombay has recently remarked, “Giant Asia has awakened and already broken many of its chains. Both Europe and America must reckon with it, not only because of its immense human and material resources, but also because of the ideals and aspirations that stir and inspire its diverse peoples.” Nobody can keep these countries now under their control by force. If the Western Powers do not realise this in time, whatever goodwill they have got there, they will lose it. The Communists are gaining ground in Asia, and if they are not checked in time, of course not by force, the whole of Asia will be soon lost. The Western statesmen must realise that Asia is the key to the future destiny of mankind, and that co-operation between Asia and the Western countries is the most important factor in world politics and one of the best hopes for the future peace of the world. Whether Western statesmanship will be successful or not, time alone will show. Let us hope it will.