Chapter 1, The Middle East since 1918

Chapter 2: The Middle East since 1918
Case Study: Egypt, a stake for the Western powers since 1918
Problematic: How has Egypt tried to become a power in the Middle among the pressures
exerted by the Western powers since 1918?
From a British condominium to independence
Factfile: In 1898, after several treaties and fights with other European countries, the British
decided to reconquer the Sudan. In March 1899, the new Anglo-Egyptian condominium of
Sudan was fixed by agreement. Britain was left with the problem of containing Egyptian and
Sudanese nationalism, but the fiction of Ottoman authority on Egypt was finally abandoned in
1914 when Egypt was declared a protectorate.
Source 1: Anglo-Egyptian condominium left the British the only leaders
Anglo-Egyptian Condominium, the joint British and Egyptian government that ruled the
eastern Sudan from 1899 to 1955. It was established by the Anglo-Egyptian Condominium
Agreements of January 19 and July 10, 1899, and, with some later modifications, lasted until
the formation of the sovereign, independent Republic of the Sudan on January 1, 1956. (The
Anglo-Egyptian Agreement of 1953 had outlined the steps to be taken for Sudanese self-rule
and self-determination.)
The Condominium agreements established an office of governor-general, to be appointed, on
British recommendation, by the khedive of Egypt and vested with supreme civil and military
command. In theory Egypt shared a governing role, but in practice the structure of the
Condominium ensured full British control over the Sudan. The governors and inspectors were
customarily British officers, though technically serving in the Egyptian Army, and key figures
in the government and civil service always remained graduates of British universities and
military schools.
Source: Encyclopedia Britannica, DVD edition 2013.
Source 2: Egypt wanted to be independent
In November 1914 Britain declared war on the Ottoman Empire and in December proclaimed
a protectorate over Egypt […]. Kitchener was succeeded by Sir Henry McMahon, and he by
Sir Reginald Wingate, both with the title of high commissioner. Although Egypt did not have
to provide troops, the people, especially the peasantry, suffered from the effects of war. The
declaration of martial law and the suspension of the Legislative Assembly temporarily
silenced the nationalists. […]
On November 13th, 1918, two days after the Armistice, Wingate was visited by three
Egyptian politicians headed by Saʿd Zaghlūl, who demanded autonomy for Egypt and
announced his intention of leading a delegation (Arabic wafd) to state his case in England.
The British government's refusal to accept a delegation, followed by the arrest of Zaghlūl,
produced a widespread revolt in Egypt; and Sir Edmund Henry Hynman Allenby (later Lord
Allenby), the victor over the Ottomans in Palestine, was sent out as special high
commissioner. Allenby insisted on concessions to the nationalists, hoping to reach a
settlement. [Egyptian nationalists finally] led his delegation to the Paris Peace Conference
(1919–20), where it was denied a hearing to plead for Egypt's independence. The Wafd, in the
meanwhile, had become a countrywide organization that dominated Egyptian politics. […]
Finally, hoping to outmaneuver Zaghlūl1 and to build up a group of pro-British politicians in
Egypt, Allenby pressed his government to promise independence without previously securing
British interests by a treaty. The declaration of independence (Feb. 28, 1922) ended the
protectorate but, pending negotiations, reserved four matters to the British government's
1
Egyptian nationalist leading the movement for the Egyptian independence.
1
Chapter 2: The Middle East since 1918
discretion: the security of imperial communications, defense, the protection of foreign
interests and of minorities, and the Sudan. […]
Source: Encyclopedia Britannica, DVD edition 2013.
Source 3: British vision of Egyptian occupation and independence
Source: Cambridge History of Egypt, vol. 2, 1998, p. 247
Source 4: Egyptian independence, is it real?
Source: Cambridge History of Egypt, vol. 2, 1998, p. 250
Questions:
1. How did the British rule Egypt in the first quarter of the 20th century?
2. On which ideas was based the British domination on Egypt?
3. What did the British have to face in Egypt and push them to give Egypt its independence?
4. Was the independence of Egypt real? Why did the British tried to remain a large control
on Egypt?
2
Chapter 2: The Middle East since 1918
Securing the route to the East and the Suez Canal
Source 1: Britain’s steamship network
Source: Penguin Historical Atlas of the British Empire, p. 90
Source 2: Securing the Canal, the Middle East to 1945
Source: Penguin Historical Atlas of the British Empire, p. 117
3
Chapter 2: The Middle East since 1918
Source 3: Secure the route to the East, a stake from the British
When the Suez Canal opened in 1869, Egypt acquired an even greater strategic importance for
the British Empire. […] Britain had a well-defended main line of communications based on
naval power, strongpoints from Gibraltar to Aden and control adjacent territories. […] At the
end of the war, Egyptian nationalism exploded in revolt (1919). To overcome the difficulties
and expense of direct rule, Britain created a system of control by treaty, allowing
independence (1922) but retaining a key role in Egyptian foreign affairs and defence. A treaty
of 1936 arranged for the withdrawal of British troops, except from the Canal Zone, which was
recognized as a British vital interest. […]
Source: Penguin Historical Atlas of the British Empire, p. 116-117
Questions:
1. Explain why controlling Egypt and the Suez Canal is so important for the British.
2. Explain what kind of new raw material give the Suez Canal a particular importance.
3. Show that the British influence on Egypt was dropping except for the Canal Zone. Try to
figure out why.
4. Did Egypt have the ability to exert a power in the Middle East at that time?
From the British control to the American control
Source 1: The Suez crisis, the end of British control in Egypt
(1956), international crisis in the Middle East, precipitated on July 26, 1956, when the
Egyptian president, Gamal Abdel Nasser, nationalized the Suez Canal. The canal had been
owned by the Suez Canal Company, which was controlled by French and British interests.
The Suez Crisis was provoked by an American and British decision not to finance Egypt's
construction of the Aswan High Dam, as they had promised, in response to Egypt's growing
ties with communist Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union. Nasser reacted to the American
and British decision by declaring martial law in the canal zone and seizing control of the Suez
Canal Company, predicting that the tolls collected from ships passing through the canal would
pay for the dam's construction within five years. Britain and France feared that Nasser might
close the canal and cut off shipments of petroleum flowing from the Persian Gulf to Western
Europe. When diplomatic efforts to settle the crisis failed, Britain and France secretly
prepared military action to regain control of the canal and, if possible, to depose Nasser. They
found a ready ally in Israel, whose hostility toward Egypt had been exacerbated by Nasser's
blockage of the Straits of Tīrān (at the mouth of the Gulf of Aqaba) and the numerous raids by
Egyptian-supported commandos into Israel during 1955–56.
On Oct. 29, 1956, 10 Israeli brigades invaded Egypt and advanced toward the canal, routing
Egyptian forces. Britain and France, following their plan, demanded that Israeli and Egyptian
troops withdraw from the canal, and they announced that they would intervene to enforce a
cease-fire ordered by the United Nations. On November 5 and 6, British and French forces
landed at Port Said and Port Fuad and began occupying the Canal Zone. This move was soon
met by growing opposition at home and by U.S.-sponsored resolutions in the UN (made in
part to counter Soviet threats of intervention), which quickly put a stop to the Anglo-French
action. On December 22 the UN evacuated British and French troops, and Israeli forces
withdrew in March 1957.
Nasser emerged from the Suez Crisis a victor and a hero for the cause of Arab and Egyptian
nationalism. Israel did not win freedom to use the canal, but it did regain shipping rights in the
Straits of Tīrān. Britain and France, less fortunate, lost most of their influence in the Middle
East as a result of the episode.
Source: Encyclopedia Britannica, DVD edition 2013.
4
Chapter 2: The Middle East since 1918
Source 2: Nixon’s vision of cooperation with Anwar Al-Sadat2
[…] As a leader, President Nasser did much to shape the destiny of his nation and the history
of his era. It is significant to us that in his final days, he looked toward the prospects for peace
as offered in the US proposal for a limited cease-fire and for talks between the parties to the
Arab-Israeli conflict. We are encouraged by that constructive choice and by your assurances
to Secretary Richardson that under your leadership, the United Arabic Republic continue to
pursue these goals. The achievement of those goals is among the highest hopes of my country
as well. […]
Source: Letter from Nixon to Sadat, October 14th 1970 (CIA website)
Source 3: Anwar Al-Sadat’s vision of the cooperation with the USA3
[…] We honestly believed, dear President, that Gamal Abdel Nasser was an historic figure,
who transcended, through the formidable role he filled, all the bounds and obstacles of the
[…] narrow differences brought about the political development of events. For he gave his
life and dedicated his effort to the cause of just struggle of his Arab nation and that of other
nations looking forward to, and hoping and struggling or, the realisation of political and social
progresse for subjugated peoples, the prevalence of principles of true freedom [in the lives] of
both nations and individuals, and the vindication of the principles of peace based on justice.
[…]
All these objectives and principles were not Gamal Abdel Nasser’s alone. Nor are they ours
alone as we continue, after him, our only means to [insure] the security of that part of the
world in which we live and the tranquility and well-being of its people – all of which affect
world progress and peace.
It had long been his view, and likewise has been ours, that the achievement of all these
objectives could be brought about through close relations with the people and Government of
the USA.
[…] In his relationship with the USA, President Gamal Abdel Nasser did not ask for much.
Nor do we, after him, ask for much. He stated several times, and I have since confirmed, that
what we seek and desire the most is an understanding of the realities of our position, the
motives of our struggle, and our concern about the security and territorial integrity of our
nation, which have been violated by Israel three times within lifetime of our generation. […]
Source: Letter from Sadat to Nixon, November 23rd 1970 (CIA website)
Source 4: Egypt alliance with the USA:
Egypt is the United States’ most reliable and influential Arab ally. Its size, central geographic
location, and cultural and political leadership render it an indispensable partner for the United
States. Egyptian-American relations are based on common goals and interest and have been
vital for advancing peace and stability in the Middle East. Throughout the last three decades,
Egypt proved that it is prepared to play its role as the foremost regional leader. The Egyptian
American relationship has matured into a partnership based on numerous shared goals and
values. The current persisting challenges in the Middle East necessitate more cooperation
between both countries.
The mutual interests and objectives of both countries continue to drive them to engage each
other into the future. […] Needless to say, Egypt is also situated in an important geo-strategic
location, connecting east and west through the Suez Canal.
The United States as a global power with a wide range of Middle Eastern and international
interests will remain keenly engaged in developing its relations with Egypt in order to
safeguard its long term interests in the region. During the past thirty years, there has been a
2
3
This letter was sent after Nasser’s funeral where an American delegation led by Mr. Richardson was sent.
This letter is the answer to the previous letter sent by president Richard Nixon to Anwar Al-Sadat
5
Chapter 2: The Middle East since 1918
growing common ground of mutual interests on which future relations with the US can be
based. I believe that development, peace and stability are the basis of our common interests.
[…]
Egypt and the Unites States share regional and global common interests. They work closely
on several issues including achieving regional stability, combating terrorism, curbing the
proliferation of W[eapons of] M[ass] D[destruction]s, advancing moderate Islamic values,
participating in peace-keeping operations around the world, expanding trade and increasing
regional economic integration. […]
Egypt is America’s key partner in the Middle East. Egypt is capable of promoting shared
goals of peace and stability not only in the Middle East, but also in Southwest Asia, the Horn
of Africa, and North Africa. The US-Egypt relationship has grown to include working closely
on counter-terrorism; the Israeli-Palestinian peace process; the War of Liberation of Kuwait,
peacekeeping operations in Sudan, Bosnia, East Timor, Somalia and elsewhere mainly in
Africa; expanding bilateral trade and commercial relations; deepening regional economic
integration; and promoting moderate Islamic values and representative governments in the
Arab world. […]
The 1979 Egypt-Israel peace treaty is the basis for all subsequent efforts toward broader peace
in the Middle East and for US-Egypt security cooperation. Progress on Israeli-Palestinian
peace can only be achieved with close cooperation between Egypt and the United States.
Israeli withdrawal from Gaza could not have been achieved without full Egyptian cooperation
and support future progress in this area will require eve greater Egyptian-American
cooperation.
Source: Egyptian embassy to Washington DC (website), January 2013.
Questions:
1. How did the British rule end in the Egypt?
2. How did the relationship between Egypt and the USA evolve throughout the period from
1956 to nowadays? Prove that the peace process between Arabic countries and Israel has
influenced the US-Egyptian relationship since 1948.
3. Which were the main domains of cooperation between the two countries?
4. How did Egypt become one the most important leaders of the region?
The important sanctions on Syria from the USA on the last months show in what ways the
region is a key in the world diplomatic game among the Western countries. Western control
on the region began before WW1 but it increased after the disappearance of the Ottoman
Empire in 1918. The control already appeared with the definition of the Middle-East that
changed by the time (see power point). It was first define by the British during WW2 and with
a large extent from Marocco to Afghanistan by the USA during the Cold War, and after the
collapse of the USSR in 1991. So in what ways the Middle-East has been a permanent stake
for the Western powers since the end of the First World War?
I.
The Middle-East, a key strategic point for the Western powers
A. A key location for the control of the colonial Empires
Voir étude de cas, partie 2
B. Hydrocarbons resources, a growing vital need since 1918
Sources to use: oil production in the different areas of the world (Paul Guiness, IB Diploma
textbook, 2011), The world oil flows through six critical choke points (Paul Guinness, IB
6
Chapter 2: The Middle East since 1918
Diploma textbook, 2011), securing the Suez Canal (source: Penguin Historical Atlas of the
British Empire)
Source 1: oil production in the different areas of the world
“From less than 60 million barrels a day globally in the early 1980s, demand rose steeply to
84.5 million barrels a day in 2008. The largest increase has been in the Asia-Pacific region
which now accounts for 30.1% of consumption. This region now uses more oil than North
America which accounts for 27.45% of the world total. In contrast, Africa consumed only
3.4% of global oil, behind South and Central America with 6.9%.
The pattern of regional production is markedly different from that of consumption. In 2008,
the Middle East accounted for 31.9% of production, followed by Europe and Eurasia (21.7%).
North America (15.8%), and Africa (12.4%). Within the Middle East, Saudi Arabia
dominated production, alone accounting for 13.1% of the world total. Russia accounts for
over half the total production of Europe and Eurasia. […]
In 2008, the Middle East accounted for almost 60% of global proved reserves. […] Europe
and Eurasia held the second largest proved reserves, with 11.3% of the world total. Russia
accounted for over half of the latter figure. […]
The US government’s Energy Information Agency predicts that the demand for oil will rise
by 54% in the first quarter of the 21st century. (…) It is the Newly Industrialised Countries
that are increasing their energy demand at the fastest rate. China alone has accounted for
one-third of the growth in global oil demand since 2000. China passed Japan as the world’s
second largest user of oil in 2004. (…) The demand for oil in China is expected to increase by
5-7% a year. If this occurs, China will take over from the USA as the world’s largest
consumer of oil by 2025.”
Source: Paul GUINNESS, Geography for the IB Diploma, Cambridge UP, 2011
Source 2: The world oil flows through six critical choke points
Source: Paul Guinness, IB Diploma textbook, 2011
Source 3: Securing the canal
7
Chapter 2: The Middle East since 1918
Source: Penguin Historical Atlas of the British Empire
Questions (think about using what we saw on the case study)
1. Identify why the Middle-East is a strategic place in the world?
2. Prove that the Middle-East has been coveted since 1918 by the Western powers.
3. Could the control of hydrocarbons resources have given a particular power to the region?
II.
The period of the Mandates, the Middle-East under British control
A. The Middle-East, between freedom and Mandates
Sources to use: The Middle-East after the post-WWI treaties (Penguin Historical Atlas of the
British Empire, 2010), The League of Nations divided the Middle-East into territories under
western control (League of Nations, article 22 of the Covenant, signed on June 28th 1919).
Source 1: The Middle-East after the post-WWI treaties
8
Chapter 2: The Middle East since 1918
Source: Penguin Historical Atlas of the British Empire, 2010.
Source 2: The League of Nations divided the Middle-East into territories under western
control
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be
under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by
peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern
world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such
peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust
should be embodied in this Covenant.
The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples
should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or
their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to
accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the
League.
[…]
Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of
development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized
subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such
time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal
consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.
[…]
Source: League of Nations, article 22 of the Covenant, signed on June 28th 1919
Questions:
1. Identify the country with the most important control on the Middle-East at that time.
2. Identify the limits of the Mandates.
3. Identify the rights and the obligations the mandatory powers had to respect. Was it the
case?
4. Why was it so important for the British to control this area?
B. The Mandatory powers questioned by the local populations
9
Chapter 2: The Middle East since 1918
Sources to use: The Balfour Declaration (source: British Foreign office, November 2nd 1917),
Arab and Jewish views of British rule in Palestine (In J. Dimbleby, The Palestinians, 1979,
New York Herald Tribune, May 1947)
Source 1: The Balfour Declaration
Dear Lord Rothschild,
I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the
following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted
to, and approved by, the Cabinet.
"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national
home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of
this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the
civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and
political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist
Federation.
Yours sincerely, Arthur James Balfour
Source: British Foreign office, November 2nd 1917
Source 2: Arab and Jewish views of British rule in Palestine
An old Palestinian living in a refugee camp in, Lebanon
“Put this in your book. The British cheated us. They promised us freedom and instead we had
the mandate. And do you know what the policy of the Mandate was? It said we, the people of
Palestine, were not mature enough to govern ourselves… And worse that even, they brought
ruin to our land and made us homeless. You, the British, brought foreigners to Palestine and
made us exiles.” In J. Dimbleby, The Palestinians, 1979
Ben Hecht a leading American Zionist
“The Jews Of America are with you [Zionist in Palestine]… You are the grin4 they wear…
Every time you send a British railroad sky-high… or let go with your guns and bombs at the
British betrayers and invaders of your homeland, the Jews of America make a little holiday in
their hearts.” New York Herald Tribune, May 1947
Questions:
1. Identify the cristicisms made againt the British rule in the Middle-East (don’t forget to use
the case study).
2. Using the example of Palestine, explain what kind of reactions were developed against the
British rule and which consequences did it have for the region.
III.
The Cold War, the turning point to the American control
A. The second world war and the Suez Crisis, the end of the British rule
Sources to use: Angry comments in the USA (The Times, November 2nd 1956), The U.N. tells
Britain to quit Suez (Daily Mirror, 25th November 1956), "... and how long will it take you to
clear away this wreckage, Sir Anthony?" (Daily Mirror, November 20th, 1956), President
Eisenhower: The Eisenhower Doctrine of “vital interests” on the Middle East, A Message to
Congress, January 5, 1957 (Source: from The Department of State Bulletin,, XXXV1, No.
917 (January 21, 1957), p. 83-87.)
Source 1: Angry comments in the USA
4
A wide smile
10
Chapter 2: The Middle East since 1918
President Eisenhower's restrained declaration of a policy of non-involvement in the Middle
East is hardly reflected in the bitter denunciation and anger expressed by most American
commentators on Britain and France for intervening in the Suez Affair by bombing Egyptian
airfields and destroying practically the whole Egyptian air-force on the ground.
Source: The Times, November 2nd 1956
Source 2: The U.N. tells Britain to quit Suez
The United Nations last night demanded the immediate withdrawal of British, French and
Israeli forces from Egypt. The demand came in a resolution put before the General Assembly
by the 17 nation Asian-Africa Group, with the support of the USA. The vote in favour was 65
to 1. Earlier, in the Commons, Sir Anthony Eden told MPs that British troops would not leave
Egypt until a United Nations force took over. A United Nations resolution calling for the
setting up of such a force was passed last night by sixty-five votes to nil.
Source: Daily Mirror, 25th November 1956
Source 3: "... and how long will it take you to clear away this wreckage, Sir Anthony?"
The two people represented are Anthony Eden (British Prime minister) and Hammarskjöld
Dag (General Secretary of the United Nations)
Source: Published in the Daily Mirror, November 20th, 1956
Source 4: President Eisenhower: The Eisenhower Doctrine of “vital interests” on the
Middle East, A Message to Congress, January 5, 1957
The Middle East has abruptly reached a new and critical stage in its long and important
history. […]
Russia's rulers have long sought to dominate the Middle East. […]
11
Chapter 2: The Middle East since 1918
The Soviet Union has nothing whatsoever to fear from the United States in the Middle East,
or anywhere else in the world, so long as its rulers do not themselves first resort to aggression.
That statement I make solemnly and emphatically. . . . The reason for Russia's interest in the
Middle East is solely that of power politics. Considering her announced purpose of
Communizing the world, it is easy to understand her hope of dominating the Middle East. . . .
[…] Thus, we have these simple and indisputable facts:
1. The Middle East, which has always been coveted by Russia, would today be prized more
than ever by International Communism.
2. The Soviet rulers continue to show that they do not scruple to use any incans to gain their
ends.
3. The free nations of the Mid East need, and for the most part want, added strength to assure
their continued independence.
[…] The action which I propose would have the following features. It would, first of all,
authorize the United States to cooperate with and assist any nation or group of nations in the
general area of the Middle East in the development of economic strength dedicated to the
maintenance of national independence.
It would, in the second place, authorize the Executive to undertake in the same region
programs of military assistance and cooperation with any nation or group of nations which
desires such aid.
It would, in the third place, authorize such assistance and cooperation to include the
employment of the armed forces of the United States to secure and protect the territorial
integrity and political independence of such nations, requesting such aid, against overt armed
aggression from any nation controlled by International Communism.
These measures would have to be consonant with the treaty obligations of the United States,
including the Charter of the United Nations and with any action or recommendations of the
United Nations. They would also, if armed attack occurs, be subject to the overriding
authority of the United Nations Security Council in accordance with the Charter.
The present proposal would, in the fourth place, authorize the President to employ, for
economic and defensive military purposes […].
Source: from The Department of State Bulletin,, XXXV1, No. 917 (January 21, 1957), p. 83-87.
Questions (don’t forget to use what was seen in the case study):
1. Identify the consequences of WWI on the British influence in the Middle-East.
2. How did the Suez crisis destroy the British influence in the Middle-East? Which power
took control of the region after that (precise if it was challenged)?
3. Why did the American decided to become a leader of the Middle-East?
B. The USA as a diplomatic leader of the region
Sources to use: sources from the last part of the case study, Camp David agreement, Oslo
agreement.
Source 1: The Camp David Agreement
US President Carter played a leading part in working out the agreement. In November 1977,
Sadat took the unprecedented step of visiting Israel, becoming the first Arab leader to do so
(and implicitly recognizing Israel’s right to exist). Then Carter invited both Sadat and Begin
(Israel new Likud Prime Minister) to a summit at Camp David to negotiate a final peace.
The talks took from September 5 to September 17 1978. Ultimately, the talks succeeded and
Israel and Egypt signed the Israel-Egypt Peace treaty in 1979. Israel withdrew its troops and
settlers from the Sinai, in exchange for normal relations with Egypt and a lasting peace. But
Begin made no move to give the Left Bank to the Palestinians or the Golan Heights to Syria.
12
Chapter 2: The Middle East since 1918
Many in the Arab community were outraged at Egypt’s peace with Israel. Egypt was expelled
from the Arab League. Sadat was even assassinated on October 6, 1979, while attending a
parade, by Army members who were outraged at his negotiations with Israel.
Source: Bryn O' Callaghan, A history of the Twentieth Century, London, 2002
Source2: 1993 Oslo agreement
The intifada had rallied the Palestinian people and the Palestine Liberation Organization
realized that both this method of opposing the Israelis and its own armed struggle would not
be enough to bring political benefits. The Palestinian National Council (a government-inexile) renounced terrorism and started to seek a negotiated settlement based on Resolution
242, which called for Israel to withdraw from territory captured in the 1967 war, and
Resolution 338.
Secret talks encouraged by the Norwegian government took place and these resulted in a
Declaration of Principles. This said they had agreed it was "time to put an end to decades of
confrontation and conflict, recognise their mutual legitimate and political rights, and strive to
live in peaceful coexistence and mutual dignity and security and achieve a just, lasting and
comprehensive peace settlement". It called for a five-year transitional period in which Israeli
forces would withdraw from occupied territories and a Palestinian Authority would be set up,
leading to a permanent settlement. It was signed on the White House lawn in September 1993
in the presence of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat.
It was followed by a peace treaty with Jordan in 1994.
Source: news.bbc.uk.co
Source 3: Middle-East during the Cold War
Questions (use also the case study)
1. Identify the reason why the Middle-East was coveted by the American and by the Soviets.
2. Show that the Middle-East is a key strategic point for both of the countries.
3. How did the conflict between Israel and the Arabic countries become one of the most
important diplomatic concerns for the Western power in the Middle-East? How did the
USA try to solve the problem? Did they act alone?
C. Le Nouvel Ordre Mondial, la région sous pression américaine
Source 1: Oil and military presence in the Caspian and the Middle East region.
13
Chapter 2: The Middle East since 1918
Source 2: American intervention in the Middle East, not a western consent
Characters from the left to the right on the first frame: Jacques Chirac, Gerhard Schroeder, Vladimir
Poutine and G. W. Bush.
Source: The Economist, September 6th, 2003
14
Chapter 2: The Middle East since 1918
Source 3: G. W. Bush’s vision of the Middle-East
The White House Rose Garden, April 4, 2002, 11 a.m.
Good morning. During the course of one week, the situation in the Middle East has
deteriorated dramatically. Last Wednesday, my Special Envoy, Anthony Zinni, reported to me
that we were on the verge of a cease-fire agreement that would have spared Palestinian and
Israeli lives. That hope fell away when a terrorist attacked a group of innocent people in a
Netanya hotel, killing many men and women in what is a mounting toll of terror.
In the days since, the world has watched with growing concern the horror of bombings and
burials and the stark picture of tanks in the street. Across the world, people are grieving for
Israelis and Palestinians who have lost their lives.
When an 18-year-old Palestinian girl is induced to blow herself up, and in the process kills a
17-year-old Israeli girl, the future, itself, is dying -- the future of the Palestinian people and
the future of the Israeli people. We mourn the dead, and we mourn the damage done to the
hope of peace, the hope of Israel's and the Israelis' desire for a Jewish state at peace with its
neighbors; the hope of the Palestinian people to build their own independent state.
Terror must be stopped. No nation can negotiate with terrorists. For there is no way to make
peace with those whose only goal is death.
This could be a hopeful moment in the Middle East. The proposal of Crown Prince Abdullah
of Saudi Arabia, supported by the Arab League, has put a number of countries in the Arab
world closer than ever to recognizing Israel's right to exist. The United States is on record
supporting the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people for a Palestinian state.
Israel has recognized the goal of a Palestinian state. The outlines of a just settlement are clear:
two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side, in peace and security.
This can be a time for hope. But it calls for leadership, not for terror. Since September the
11th, I've delivered this message: everyone must choose; you're either with the civilized
world, or you're with the terrorists. All in the Middle East also must choose and must move
decisively in word and deed against terrorist acts. […]
Source: White house website
Questions:
1. Prove that the Middle-East has still been a key strategic location since the end of the Cold
War
2. Show that the Middle-East is now the theater of counter-terrorism for the USA but that it
is impossible for it to act alone.
3. Show that the vision of the Middle-East developed by G. W. Bush is linked to the idea of
the War on Terror and the Axis of Evil theorized in 2002.
The Middle-East has been considered by the western power a key strategic location in the
control of the commercial maritime routes at the time of the colonial Empires or the control of
hydrocarbon resources, essential for the industrial development. However, western
domination has been fluctuant since 1918. First it was the European domination controlled by
the French and the British. Then, after WW2 and the fact that the mandatory powers were
weakened, the region became a stake between the two superpowers: the USA and the USSR.
Finally, at the end of the Cold War, the USA played a major role in the region, able to
influence peace process, government transformations but causing as well the rise of a deep
anti-Americanism, notably because of their actions during the Iraqi war, the war on
Afghanistan and the resolution of conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
15