BRITISH EMPIRE At its peak, the British Empire was the largest formal empire that the world

had ever known. As such, its power and influence stretched all over the globe; shaping it in all manner of ways. This site is dedicated to analysing the history of the British Empire: The triumphs, the humiliations, the good that it brought and the bad that it inflicted. For better or worse the British Empire had a massive impact on the history of the world. It is for this reason that this site tries to bring to life the peoples, cultures, adventures and domination that made the Empire such a powerful institution. It is neither an apology for, nor a nostalgic reminiscince of the institution that so dominated the world for over two centuries. Rather, it analyses and describes the vast institution that so influenced the shape of the world that we see today. The Purpose of the Site Of course, the British Empire expanded and contracted wildly over the years. It became fairly large with the ever expanding American colonies in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, particularly after the defeat of the French in the Seven Years War. The American Revolution lost much (but not all) of this territory, but the expansion of British interests in India filled this vacuum. It really was the victory in the Napoleonic Wars that allowed the British to hoover up naval bases and toe holds across the world. These would generally provide the jumping off points for the massive expansion in the Victorian period. Advances in medicine and communications helped open up the last continent of Africa to European Imperialism in the latter half of the Nineteenth Century. World War One appeared to add yet more colonies to the British Empire in the form of mandates. Although economically the Empire would begin to enter its period of decline in this Inter-war years period. But it was still estimated at this time to cover between a quarter and a third of the globe and that it represented an area of over one hundred and fifty times the size of Great Britain itself. The Second World War would see much imperial territory threatened or temporarily lost. Despite being on the winning side, the Empire would not recover from the geo-political shifts caused by this Second World War and would enter into a period of terminal decline. India was the first and largest area to be shed and then the Middle East and then Africa. Various Caribbean and Pacific possessions held on a little longer but most of these also went their seperate way. The last of the major colonies to be lost was that of Hong Kong in 1997. MIDDLE EAST Up until the nineteenth century, European feelings towards the world of Islam was always a complex mix of respect, awe and fear. In the middle ages Islam had even come so far as to threaten the very existence of Christianity in Europe. However, the technological advances of the Industrial revolution meant that European powers had long ceased to see the Middle Eastern countries as being any kind of threat. Instead, the Ottoman empire was seen as a very weak organisation, falling apart at the seams. All the major European Imperialists saw opportunity in the demise of this ailing power. What is surprising is that the Ottomans lasted as long as they did in very unfavourable international waters. France, Russia and Britain were the principal beneficiaries of the gradual sheddings of territory forced upon the Ottomans over the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The Persian Gulf provided Britain with a different set of Imperial pressures. Lacking the strategic importance that oil bestows upon the region in current days, The Persian Gulf was one of the points of a rich Indian Ocean trade triangle. Trade had long prospered between West India, the Gulf and East Africa. Britains domination of the Indian sub-continent meant that it took on the responsibilities of continuing this trade triangle and ensuring its security. The final pressure on Britain to expand its influence in the area again relates to India. The Middle East provided one of the principal lines of communication between the mother country and her principal colony. Even before the construction of the Suez canal Egypt provided the fastest means of communication for the principal axis of Empire. Religious sensibilities in the area meant that the British generally preferred to exercise their power through discrete means. Diplomatic staff preferred to work through proxies and sympathetic leaders; providing the backing of the Royal Navy for any shows of force required. This meant that the Persian Gulf was effectively governed by a single flotilla of ships and a handful of diplomats. This area was actually one of the stablest of the Imperial realms.

EGYPT UNDER THE BRITISH Initial Contacts with the British Trade links had existed between the two countries for as long as anyone could remember. Egypt was a key part of the old spice and trade routes between Europe and Asia. British traders had been loading and unloading their cargoes in Ottoman waters for generations. British military and political interest in Egypt first manifested itself as it became obvious that in the eighteenth century, India was falling under the influence of Britain (and away from France). Despite, the direct sail routes around the Cape of Good Hope, Egypt still provided the quickest way of maintaining communications between Britain and India. It required a brief overland journey, but it was still substantially quicker than circumnavigating Africa. It was the strategic foresight of Napoleon that first pointed out the importance of Egypt to Britain. In 1798, he had the audacity of landing an army in Egypt that promptly defeated the Mameluke Army at the Battle of the Pyramids. All of a sudden, British alarm bells began ringing as they realised that their profitable Indian Empire was under direct threat. Fortunately, the Royal Navy was able to save the day, as Nelson destroyed the French Fleet at the battle of Aboukir Bay. Stranded, there was little that the French army could do and Napoleon promptly abandoned them to their fate. A British Army was landed and defeated the remnants of the French force at the Battle of the Sphinx. The French surrendered in 1801 At this point, it seemed as if the British forces would remain in place and that Egypt would just have remained under British control. Unfortunately for the British, in 1805 a vigorous Egyptian leader came to the fore, known as Muhammed Ali. He took control of the Mameluke army and defeated the British in 1807. This setback forced them to withdraw from Egypt. The British would not formally return for another 75 years. Establishment of Formal Relations For the first part of the nineteenth century, Britain remained rather hostile towards the Egyptians. Partly due to wounded pride, but also because supporting Egypt would have compromised one of their other stated policy aims, that of protecting and bolstering the Ottoman Empire. This stance was primarily undertaken as a counterweight against Russian influence in Eastern Europe, but it meant that the British found themselves defending Turkish interests in a number of unlikely areas. One such area was to be that of Lebanon, Syria and the Holy Lands in the 1830s. In 1832, Muhammed Ali took advantage of a Russia defeat of the Ottomans by declaring Egypt as independent. Emboldened by the plight of the Ottomans, he advanced into their Near East dependencies. At the time, there were serious political implications in Europe as the French and Russians tried to gain capital out of the ailing Ottoman fortunes. Whilst Britain, supported by the Austrians, desperately tried to maintain the last vestiges of Ottoman power in the area. Things turned even worse for the Ottomans as they launched an unsuccessful offensive against Muhammed Ali's Egyptian forces. The Ottomans were defeated at Nisibin and their fleet mutinied and went over to the Egyptians. At this point, the British and Austrians stepped in to save the Ottomans, and landed forces in Lebanon. These forces defeated the sitting Egyptian army and, combined with a fleet despatched to Alexandria, forced Muhammed Ali to submit and to reign back his forces. After this event, British attitudes towards Egypt began to improve. Although the idea that Egypt would become a British colony was regarded by most as being highly fanciful. It was the French who were thought to be the most active in the North Africa region. They funded the Suez Canal and steadily increased their economic base in the country. British interest in Egypt developed during the American Civil War. At this time, British mills were starved of cotton. Alternative sources had to be found and one such source was to be Egypt whose cotton was actually a particularly good quality product. British companies began investing heavily in the production of cotton in Egypt. The hugely ambitious public works programs of the ruling Khedives also attracted British businessmen and their wares. Although, Egypt's inability to pay for these modern conveniences was not yet thought to be a barrier to trade. British strategic interest in Egypt was captured in 1869 when the Suez Canal was officially opened. The sailing times from London to Bombay were dramatically cut. British maps and ideas of the world had to be radically altered. The fact that the canal was controlled by the Khedive and the French government was initially a serious concern to the British. Although, It is from this point on that British decisiveness and speed of actions which consistently outwitted and outmanouevered the French and brought Egypt under Imperial British control. The first opportunity to pull away from the French was in 1875 when it became obvious that

the Khedive had got himself into serious economic difficulties. The only way he could staive off creditors was by raising a seriously large amount of money. It was at this point that Disraeli was able to step in and offer to buy the Khedive's shares in the Suez Canal Company. The speed of action on this event left the French reeling. Overnight, the British went from being a minority shareholder to being the controlling shareholder. Her influence had grown considerably as a result. Suez Canal Shares Unfortunately for Egypt, the money raised buy the sale of her shares, was only enough to keep the government afloat for a few years. In a government reliant on patronage, structural economic reforms were difficult to implement. In only a few years the Egyptian government was again in economic difficulties. This time, the British and French governments initiated a stewardship of the finances of Egypt. In effect, this stewardship was little more than a joint form of colonization. British and French experts were to be sent to the various ministries in order to take control of day to day business of them. The Khedive's unwillingness to agree to such loss of control was rewarded by his forced abdication and replacement by his son Tawfiq. The steady loss of sovereignty was keenly felt by many Egyptians. So much so that in 1882, Arabi Pasha initiated a revolt from inside the Egyptian army. In June of that year, riots broke out against the Europeans in Egypt. From this point on Britain took the initiative. The French refused participation in a bombardment of Alexandria due to political problems back at home. Surprisingly for a Liberal government, The British finally resolved on intervention and sent an expeditionary force to the Suez Canal. The Arabists were rapidly defeated at Tel elKabir in September and Cairo was occupied the next day. Accidentally, the British had found themselves to be masters of Egypt.

Administration The unusual circumstances that conspired to give Britain such power and influence over Egypt also meant that she could not technically be considered a colony. Egypt had not been discovered by the British, nor had they requested British suzerainty. And yet, the British controlled the finances, government personnel and armed forces of the country. This ambivalent status would remain for many years. Internationally, the French were kicking themselves because they let the British take the prize of Egypt from under their noses. In matters concerning the international status of Egypt, the decisions were taken in London, but where the internal administration of the country was concerned, The Consul General's opinions were usually conclusive. Although throughout the occupation the facade of khedivial government was retained, British advisers attached to the various ministries were more influential than their ministers, while the Consul General steadily increased his control over the whole administrative machine. The international status of British control over Egypt remained uncertain for nearly twenty years. It was not until the French and British decided that they needed each other and formed the Entente Cordiale that they decided to come to agreement over the status of Egypt. They basically agreed that Britain should be paramount in Egypt, and Franch should have a free hand in Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria. Educated

Egyptians were less convinced of the merits of European control as they saw all the most important decisions and jobs remaining in British hands. A growing tide of nationalism was beginning to find its leaders. The Great War was to temporarily increase imperial control over Egypt. At the outbreak of war, Britain declared that Egypt was now a protectorate. The fate of the Suez Canal was just too serious to take any chances. Indeed, Britain declared that the Canal was closed to all but allied and neutral shipping - despite international agreements to the contrary. Also, when the Ottomans joined the Central Powers, Egypt found itself on the front line of action. Fortunately, events were to prove that the country was not in serious danger, and the war passed rather uneventfully but for the imposition of martial law. However, with peace came nationalism. The international climate was promoting the ideas of home rule and independence. Egypt's nationalists, temporarily, saw how the rest of the Ottoman Empire was being divided up and wanted to be granted similar rights. Riots broke out and Lord Allenby and Milner were despatched from Britain to try and ascertain what to do next. They quickly came to the conclusion that it was better to grant independence to pro-British Egyptians rather than wait for nationalists to take power for themselves. In 1922, the protectorate was officially ended. However, Britain still reserved four matters to their own discretion: the security of imperial communications, defense, the protection of foreign interests and of minorities, and the Sudan. Technically, Egypt was independent. But the real power behind the throne was never really in question. And, in fact, this was demonstrated in 1942 when the King wanted to appoint some government ministers who were dangerously anti-British. In effect, the British launched a mini-coup and forced the King to reconsider. He was left in no doubt as to who the real power brokers were. Economics of Empire

In the early years of the occupation, when the Egyptian finances were in disarray, it was difficult to take effective action. From 1889 onward there was a budget surplus greater freedom of action for the Egyptians and the British. A degree of international agreement over Egypt was attained by the Convention of London (1885), which secured an international loan for the Egyptian Government. They at least left an infrastructure that was the envy of nearly all other African and Middle Eastern powers. Cotton, Light industry and agriculture were all consistent earners for the government. It was also one of the first non European countries to exploit tourism.
Role within the Empire The British interest in Egypt was always because of its strategic position; it was the fact that Egypt lay between Britain and India that made it so vitally important for the British. It was the communications and transportation hub of the British Empire. During World War I, Egypt was found to be an extremely useful staging post to launch attack on the Ottoman Empire. Whereas, in World War II, it was Italian and German interest in the strategic value of the country that led to it being such a bitter battleground. In 1947, India became independent. In this one action, British rationale for holding on to any power over Egypt and the Suez Canal had been lost. New Superpowers were waiting in the wings to usurp European power and influence. Withdrawal from Empire The tactics by which the Jewish settlers had extracted their concessions from Britain and the wider international scene. Primarily due to the problem of having to renegotiate the treaties of 1922. The prime minister was assassinated in 1948. Guerrilla warfare broke out in the Canal Zone By 1951 a state of emergency had to be declared.

The state of emergency exacerbated their political problems. Egypt was ripe for a coup. It was to be the army who filled the political vacuum. They ousted the Royal family in 1952 by Colonel Nasser, Nassers authority was challenged by General Nequib and their religious right. Nasser was actually a surprisingly moderate and pro - Western leader at first. He negotiated the independence of Sudan in 1954 whereby Britain would gradually withdraw its troops. Israel's repeated mini-attacks on the Gaza strip was one of the first areas of embarrassment to the Nasser regime. The inability of an army led government to defend itself was particularly embarrassing. At this point, Britain was only guilty of association. Israel was a friend of America, America was a friend of Britain. However, this event started a series of dominoes falling. Aggrieved at American support for Israel, Egypt turned to Russia for military aid. When this was granted, the Americans withdrew funding for the High Aswan Dam and requested Britain do the same. When the British complied, Nasser announced the nationalization of the Suez Canal Company in 1956 to finance the dam. In its subsequent attack on Egypt in October 1956, Israel was joined by the British, who were enraged by the nationalization, and the French, who were angered by Egyptian aid to the revolt in Algeria. Pressure on the invading powers by the United States and the Soviet Union, however, soon ended the so-called Suez War, leaving Nasser triumphant (despite his military losses) and with the Suez Canal firmly in Egyptian hands. Britain's power in the Middle East had been lost once and for all. The Superpowers had eclipsed the Colonial powers.

TIME LINE
1798 1799 1801 1805 1807 1827 1832 1839 Napoleon arrives in Egypt to destroy British trade and influence in the area. He defeats a Mameluke army at the Battle of the Pyramids. But, the British destroy his fleet at Aboukir Bay. Napoleon conquers Middle and Upper Egypt before he returns to France. The French in Cairo and Alexandria are compelled to surrender to the British. Mohammed Ali proclaims himself Pasha With the support of the Mamelukes he defeats the British forces which had occupied Alexandria and Rosetta and forces them to withdraw. In the Battle of Navarino in the Greek War of Independence the Turkish and Egyptian fleets are annihilated. After Turks defeated by Russians, Mohammed Ali shakes off Ottoman Suzerainty and advances into Syria. The Turkish Government tries again to enforce its authority over Mohammed Ali. The Turkish Army is annihilated at Nisibin. After the death of Sultan Mahmud II the entire Turkish fleet, under Ahmed Pasha, the Turkish High Admiral, goes over to Mohammed Ali. However, the European powers intervene, and the Egyptians are defeated in Lebanon by a British and Austrian expeditionary force. A fleet appears off Alexandria and compels Mohammed Ali to submit The Turkish Government grants hereditary soveriegnty to Mohammed Ali and his heirs. Mohammed Ali dies. Replaced by Abbas I Said takes over. He is an enthusiastic moderniser and supports construction of the Suez Canal. Ismail is made Khedive of Egypt and achieves political autonomy. However, he embarks on a hugely expensive modernisation programme. Suez Canal opened Disraeli buys the Khedive's 40% holding in the Suez Canal company. Britain is now the largest single shareholder. Khedive Ismail forced to abdicate. British and French stewardship brings finances under control. However, this loss of independence causes a nationalist uprising led by Arabi Bey. British forces land at Alexandria. French forces were intended to take part in the operation but domestic political problems precluded their involvement. The British bombardment of Alexandria and the defeat of the Nationalists at Tel-El-Kebir means that British power is now paramount in Egypt. The Mahdi leads a revolt in the Sudan. His forces defeat two Egyptian columns led by British officers (Hicks Pasha and Baker Pasha) Gordon sent to Khartoum to organise its evacuation. He remains there and is killed by the Mahdi's forces. Britain and France declare the Suez Canal neutral. Abbas II Hilmi becomes the Khedive, but his actions are limited by the British authorities. General Kitchener launches British and Egyptian army to recapture the Sudan. Mahdists defeated at Omdurman. Potential flashpoint with French at Fashoda is averted. Sudan declared to be an Anglo-Egyptian condominium. First Cairo to Khartoum Train runs Aswan Dam completed. French confirm that British power is preeminent in Egypt. Upsurge in Anti-European feeling. Gorst tells Egyptians that they are unripe for self-government Congress of Egyptian Youth demands withdrawal from Egypt Britain orders all foreign vessels out of Suez canal. Also, declares Egypt a protectorate Turkish and Senussi attacks on Egypt are repelled

1841 1848 1854 1867 1869 1875 1879 1881 1882

1883 1884 1885 1892 1896 1898 1899 1900 1902 1904 1908 1909 1914 1915/

17 1918 1919 1921 1922

1929 1935 1936 1929 1940 1942 1945 1946 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956

Ottomans defeated More troops are sent to Egypt to deal with nationalist unrest. Riots in November. Britain grants constitution to Egypt. Allenby appointed Special High Commissioner Rioting in Cairo and Alexandria Egypt declared independent, but with Britian retaining responsibility for maintenance of communications, defence, protection of European interests and the question of Sudan. Sultan Fuad becomes King Fuad I. Tutankhamen discovered. Britain agrees to withdraw some troops from Egypt, but not from canal zone. Anti-British riots. Two dead, 88 hurt. Farouk becomes King. Anglo-Egyptian treaty signed. Farouk declared to be the Caliph Italians bomb Suez Canal and enter Egypt from Libya. British force King to reappoint a more Pro-British government. Premier Ahmed Maher Pasha is shot dead Anti-British riots, bomb explodes in British Services Club in Alexandria. State of Emergency declared Military Coup. General Neguib comes to power. King Farouk leaves Egypt Britain and Egypt discuss future of Suez Canal. British families advised to leave Egypt. Britain agrees to withdrawal of 65,000 servicemen. Nasser ousts Neguib. Israelis raid Egyptian held Gaza strip. Britain and Egypt agree to independence of Sudan. Nasser assumes full executive powers and nationalises Suez Canal Company. Expels British, French and Zionist residents. British, French and Israeli forces react. But, diplomatic problems force the withdrawal of the British and French armies. Israel keeps Gaza strip.

PALESTINE UNDER THE BRITISH Initial Contacts with the British For most of the nineteenth century, the British were considered to be one of the staunchest defenders of the autonomy of the Ottoman empire where Palestine would have been considered a key central province of this sprawling empire. Britain's only real direct political involvement with the area was in the 1830's and only then

as a result of French diplomacy. Mohammed Ali of Egypt temporarily displaced Ottoman rule in the area with the tacit agreement of the French. The French used Ottoman treatment of christians in the holy lands as an excuse to extend their influence over the area. However, Britain and Russia came to the diplomatic rescue of the Ottomans and compelled Mohammed Ali to withdraw from the area. Partly to placate the French, special agreement was made with the Ottomans to allow the French to protect Catholic citizens and the Russians to protect Orthodox citizens of the Ottoman empire. British (and other European) citizens in the area were granted extraterritorial legal status. With the exception of this incident, official British involvement in the area was extremely limited throughout the nineteenth century. As usual, the British government preferred not to interfere in areas that they did not need to do so. Unofficially, the holy land proved a powerful draw and influence to many British scholars, artists and upper class travellers. Establishment of Formal Relations The Great war was to unexpectedly turn the imperial spotlight onto this part of the world. As the Ottomans had thrown in their hand with the Germans, it was inevitable that the British would want to defend their strategic connection with India through the Suez. And, in 1915 they would even try to force a way through to the Russians through the Dardanelles. Palestine was suddenly thrust into an active theatre of war. At this period of time the most important indigenous group that the British had to work with was the Arabs. The number of Jews in Palestine were less than 60,000 at the outbreak of the war. Therefore, initial British contacts were, almost exclusively, aimed at the Arabs. The most important advance at this time was when the British High Commissioner of Egypt, Sir Henry McMahon, tried to co-opt the help of the Sharif of Mecca, in the fight against the Ottomans. He did this through a series of correspondence known as the HusseinMcMahon letters. This correspondence seemed to promise the Arabs their own state stretching from Damascus to the Arabian peninsular in return for fighting the Ottomans. However, not only was the correspondence deliberately imprecise but the status and ability of the Sharif of Mecca to speak for all of the Arabs was itself in question. Despite these problems, the Sharif of Mecca formally declared a revolt against Ottoman rule in 1916. Britain provided supplies and money for the Arab forces led by the Sharif's sons; Abdullah and Faisal. British military advisers were also detailed from Cairo to assist the Arab army that the brothers were organizing. Of these advisers, T.E. Lawrence was to become the best known. To complicate the diplomatic waters, the British entered into an agreement with the French and Russians to divide the entire Middle East into areas of influence for each of the imperial powers but leaving the Holy Lands to be jointly administered by the three powers. This was a secret arrangement that was known as the Sykes Picot agreement of 1916. It directly contradicted many of the promises made to the Sharif of Mecca.

SykesPicot Agreement
Zones of French, British and Russian influence and control established by the Sykes-Picot agreement. The SykesPicot Agreement of 1916 was a secret agreement between the governments of the United Kingdom and France, with the assent of Imperial Russia, defining their respective spheres of influence and control in Western Asia after the expected downfall of the Ottoman Empire during World War I. It effectively divided the Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire outside the Arabian peninsula into areas of future British

and French control or influence. The agreement was concluded on 16 May 1916.The terms were negotiated by the French diplomat Franois Georges-Picot and British Sir Mark Sykes. The Russian Tsarist government was a minor party to the Sykes-Picot agreement and when, following the Russian Revolution of October 1917, the Bolsheviks exposed the agreement, 'the British were embarrassed, the Arabs dismayed and the Turks delighted. Territorial allocations Britain was allocated control of areas roughly comprising the coastal strip between the sea and River Jordan, Jordan, southern Iraq, and a small area including the ports of Haifa and Acre, to allow access to the Mediterranean. France was allocated control of south-eastern Turkey, northern Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. Russia was to get Constantinople, the Turkish Straits and the Ottoman Armenian vilayets. The controlling powers were left free to decide on state boundaries within these areas. Further negotiation was expected to determine international administration pending consultations with Russia and other powers, including the Sharif of Mecca. Conflicting promises Main article: The territorial reservations in the McMahonHussein Correspondence Lord Curzon said the Great Powers were still committed to the Reglement Organique Agreement regarding the Lebanon Vilayet of June 1861 and September 1864, and that the rights granted to France in the blue area under the SykesPicot Agreement were not compatible with that agreement. The Reglement was an international agreement regarding governance and non-intervention in the affairs of the Maronite, Orthodox, Druze, and Muslim communities. In May 1917 W. Ormsby-Gore wrote "French intentions in Syria are surely incompatible with the war aims of the Allies as defined to the Russian Government. If the self-determination of nationalities is to be the principle, the interference of France in the selection of advisers by the Arab Government and the suggestion by France of the Emirs to be selected by the Arabs in Mosul, Aleppo, and Damascus would seem utterly incompatible with our ideas of liberating the Arab nation and of establishing a free and independent Arab State. The British Government, in authorising the letters despatched to King-Hussein before the outbreak of the revolt by Sir Henry McMahon, would seem to raise a doubt as to whether our pledges to King Hussein as head of the Arab nation are consistent with French intentions to make not only Syria but Upper Mesopotamia another Tunis. If our support of King Hussein and the other Arabian leaders of less distinguished origin and prestige means anything it means that we are prepared to recognise the full sovereign independence of the Arabs of Arabia and Syria. It would seem time to acquaint the French Government with our detailed pledges to King Hussein, and to make it clear to the latter whether he or someone else is to be the ruler of Damascus, which is the one possible capital for an Arab State, which could command the obedience of the other Arabian Emirs." Many sources report that this agreement conflicted with the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence of 1915 1916. It has also been reported that the publication of the SykesPicot Agreement caused the resignation of Sir Henry McMahon. However, the Sykes-Picot plan itself stated that France and Great Britain were prepared to recognize and protect an independent Arab State, or Confederation of Arab States, under the suzerainty of an Arab chief within the zones marked A. and B. on the map. Nothing in the plan precluded rule through an Arab suzerainty in the remaining areas. The conflicts resulted from the private, post-war, AngloFrench Settlement of 14 December 1918. It was negotiated between British Prime Minister Lloyd George and French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau and rendered many of the guarantees in the HusseinMcMahon agreement invalid. That settlement was not part of the SykesPicot Agreement. Sykes was not affiliated with the Cairo office that had been corresponding with Sherif Hussein bin Ali, but he and Picot visited the Hedjaz in 1917 to discuss the agreement with Hussein. That same year he and a representative of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs delivered a public address to the Central Syrian Congress in Paris on the non-Turkish elements of the Ottoman Empire, including liberated Jerusalem. He stated that the accomplished fact of the independence of the Hedjaz rendered it almost impossible that an effective and real autonomy should be refused to Syria. The greatest source of conflict was the Balfour Declaration, 1917. Lord Balfour wrote a memorandum from the Paris Peace Conference which stated that the other allies had implicitly rejected the Sykes-Picot agreement by adopting the system of mandates. It allowed for no annexations, trade preferences, or other advantages. He also stated that the Allies were committed to Zionism and had no intention of honoring their promises to the Arabs. Eighty-five years later, in a 2002 interview with The New Statesman, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw observed "A lot of the problems we are having to deal with now, I have to deal with now, are a consequence

of our colonial past. The Balfour Declaration and the contradictory assurances which were being given to Palestinians in private at the same time as they were being given to the Israelis - again, an interesting history for us but not an entirely honourable one." Events after public disclosure of the plan Russian claims in the Ottoman Empire were denied following the Bolshevik Revolution and the Bolsheviks released a copy of the SykesPicot Agreement (as well as other treaties). They revealed full texts in Izvestia and Pravda on 23 November 1917, subsequently the Manchester Guardian printed the texts on November 26, 1917. This caused great embarrassment between the allies and growing distrust between them and the Arabs. The Zionists were similarly upset,[citation needed] with the SykesPicot Agreement becoming public only three weeks after the Balfour Declaration. The Anglo-French Declaration of November 1918 pledged that Great Britain and France would "assist in the establishment of indigenous Governments and administrations in Syria and Mesopotamia by "setting up of national governments and administrations deriving their authority from the free exercise of the initiative and choice of the indigenous populations". The French had reluctantly agreed to issue the declaration at the insistence of the British. Minutes of a British War Cabinet meeting reveal that the British had cited the laws of conquest and military occupation to avoid sharing the administration with the French under a civilian regime. The British stressed that the terms of the Anglo-French declaration had superseded the SykesPicot Agreement in order to justify fresh negotiations over the allocation of the territories of Syria, Mesopotamia, and Palestine. On 30 September 1918 supporters of the Arab Revolt in Damascus declared a government loyal to the Sharif of Mecca. He had been declared 'King of the Arabs' by a handful of religious leaders and other notables in Mecca. On 6 January 1920 Faisal initialed an agreement with Clemenceau which acknowledged 'the right of Syrians to unite to govern themselves as an independent nation'. A Pan-Syrian Congress meeting in Damascus had declared an independent state of Syria on the 8th of March 1920. The new state included portions of Syria, Palestine, and northern Mesopotamia. King Faisal was declared the head of State. At the same time Prince Zeid, Faisal's brother, was declared Regent of Mesopotamia. The San Remo conference was hastily convened. Great Britain and France and Belgium all agreed to recognize the provisional independence of Syria and Mesopotamia, while claiming mandates for their administration. Palestine was composed of the Ottoman administrative districts of southern Syria. Under customary international law, premature recognition of its independence would be a gross affront to the government of the newly declared parent state. It could have been construed as a belligerent act of intervention due to the lack of any League of Nations sanction for the mandates. In any event, its provisional independence was not mentioned, although it continued to be designated as a Class A Mandate. France had decided to govern Syria directly, and took action to enforce the French Mandate of Syria before the terms had been accepted by the Council of the League of Nations. The French issued an ultimatum and intervened militarily at the Battle of Maysalun in June 1920. They deposed the indigenous Arab government, and removed King Faisal from Damascus in August 1920. Great Britain also appointed a High Commissioner and established their own mandatory regime in Palestine, without first obtaining approval from the Council of the League of Nations,or obtaining the cession of the territory from the former sovereign, Turkey. Attempts to explain the conduct of the Allies were made at the San Remo conference and in the Churchill White Paper of 1922. The White Paper stated the British position that Palestine was part of the excluded areas of "Syria lying to the west of the District of Damascus". Release of classified records Lord Grey had been the Foreign Secretary during the McMahon-Hussein negotiations. Speaking in the House of Lords on the 27th March, 1923, he made it clear that, for his part, he entertained serious doubts as to the validity of the British Government's (Churchill's) interpretation of the pledges which he, as Foreign Secretary, had caused to be given to the Sharif Hussein in 1915. He called for all of the secret engagements regarding Palestine to be made public. Many of the relevant documents in the National Archives were later declassified and published. Among them were various assurances of Arab independence provided by Secretary of War, Lord Kitchener, the Viceroy of India, and others in the War Cabinet. The minutes of a Cabinet Eastern Committee meeting, chaired by Lord Curzon, held on 5 December 1918 to discuss the various Palestine undertakings makes it clear that Palestine had not been excluded from the agreement with Hussein. General Jan Smuts, Lord Balfour, Lord Robert Cecil, General Sir Henry Wilson, Chief of the Imperial General Staff, and representatives of the Foreign Office, the India Office, the Admiralty, the War Office, and the Treasury were present. T. E. Lawrence also attended. According to the minutes Lord Curzon explained:

"The Palestine position is this. If we deal with our commitments, there is first the general pledge to Hussein in October 1915, under which Palestine was included in the areas as to which Great Britain pledged itself that they should be Arab and independent in the future. Great Britain and France - Italy subsequently agreeing - committed themselves to an international administration of Palestine in consultation with Russia, who was an ally at that time . . . A new feature was brought into the case in November 1917, when Mr Balfour, with the authority of the War Cabinet, issued his famous declaration to the Zionists that Palestine 'should be the national home of the Jewish people, but that nothing should be done - and this, of course, was a most important proviso - to prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine. Those, as far as I know, are the only actual engagements into which we entered with regard to Palestine." On 17 April 1964, The Times of London published excerpts from a secret memorandum that had been prepared by the Political Intelligence Department of the British Foreign Office for the British delegation to the Paris peace conference. The reference to Palestine said: "With regard to Palestine, H.M.G. are committed by Sir Henry McMahon's letter to the Sherif on October 24, 1915, to its inclusion in the boundaries of Arab independence ... but they have stated their policy regarding the Palestine Holy Place and Zionist colonization in their message to him of January 4, 1918." Another document, which was a draft statement for submission to the peace conference, but never submitted, noted: "The whole of Palestine ... lies within the limits which H.M.G. have pledged themselves to Sherif Husain that they will recognize and uphold the independence of the Arabs." French troops? If he did, it would clearly be a violation of the Treaty with the Arabs. M. Pichon said that France had no convention with King Hussein. Lloyd George said that the whole of the agreement of 1916 (Sykes-Picot), was based on a letter from Sir Henry McMahon' to King Hussein.[26] Lloyd George, continuing, said that it was on the basis of the above quoted letter that King Hussein had put all his resources into the field which had helped us most materially to win the victory. France had for practical purposes accepted our undertaking to King Hussein in signing the 1916 agreement. This had not been M. Pichon, but his predecessors. He was bound to say that if the British Government now agreed that Damascus, Homs, Hama, and Aleppo should be included in the sphere of direct French influence, they would be breaking faith with the Arabs, and they could not face this. Consequences of the The SykesPicot Agreement agreement The agreement is seen by many as a turning point in Western/Arab relations. It did negate the promises made to Arabs through T. E. Lawrence for a national Arab homeland in the area of Greater Syria, in exchange for their siding with British forces against the Ottoman Empire. The agreement's principal terms were reaffirmed by the inter-Allied San Remo conference of 1926 April 1920 and the ratification of the resulting League of Nations mandates by the Council of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922.

Indeed, the waters were even further muddied by a third commitment entered into by the British in 1917. The British government made a promise to prominent Jews in Britain that the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine would be looked on with favour by the British. The reason for this pledge is not exactly clear, but it seems to have been made for two reasons. The first was to secure financial support from prominent Jewish financiers in Europe. The second seems to have been a way of breaking their own secret arrangement with the French and Russians by promoting their own influence into Palestine at their supposed allies' expense.

Whatever the reason for this diplomatic chicanery, the diplomatic timebomb of these conflicting promises was about to explode as a direct result of the Russian revolution. The newly formed Bolshevik government took great pleasure in releasing the imperialistic designs of the British and French governments by publishing the Sykes-Picot agreement publicly and in full. The idea was to expose these capitilastic nations as morally bankrupt in their prosecution of the war and these secret agreements seemed to confirm that fact. The publication of the Sykes-Picot agreement was not to be as politically devastating as feared for the simple fact that, at this point in time, the Arabs were advancing swiftly and assuredly against their Ottoman enemies. The Arabs felt that if they could make even further gains against the Ottomans that they would have more leverage in dealing with the imperial powers after the fighting had finished. The British were also advancing steadily through Palestine, capturing Jerusalem in December 1917. The British decisively defeated the Turks at Megiddo in September 1918, although the Arabs did manage to enter Damascus before the British were in a position to do so. The Ottomans capitulated soon after which left all of their previous dominions up for grabs. The Versailles peace conference was used to impose allied plans and ideas on the defeated Central Powers, amongst whom was the Ottoman Empire. Both the Arabs and the Jews had delegations represented there. But, it was the victorious allies who virtually dictated all of the relevant terms and divisions of the lands. The Arab delagation was unsuccessful in promoting Arab independence, but had some success in persuading a border commission that Jewish immigration was not a good idea. Unfortunately, by this time, the British had already been declared as holding the mandate over Palestine and they had independently reaffirmed the Balfour declaration opening the way for a Jewish homeland. Administration The intense rivalry and competition between the Jews and Arabs was to afflict the British administration for virtually their entire period of governance. Unfortunately, the Zionists and the Arabs had mutually exclusive goals. The Zionists wished to create a Jewish homeland in their Holy Land. Whereas the Arabs were equally adamant that they should not lose their autonomy and rights in their own homeland. At this stage, the Arabs still massively formed the majority of the population. But what the Zionists lacked in numbers they more than made up for with political influence in the West and a zeal to succeed that bordered on fanatacism. The fact that the British mandate included references to the Balfour Declaration and the establishment of a Jewish homeland was a severe blow to the Arabs. Partly to try and mollify this disappointment, the British split the Palestine mandate into two distinct areas, using the Jordan River as a natural boundary. The British claimed that Jewish immigration would be confined to the West of the river. The East of the river, which represented three quarters of the whole mandate area was to be reserved for the Arabs alone. The Hashemite Abdulla was to become the ruler of what was to become Transjordan. Most Arabs still felt ill at ease with this British plan. They regarded Transjordan as little more than an arid, empty desert. Besides, the principle of any Jewish homeland anywhere in Arab lands was still completely abhorrent to them.

Arab intransigence and unwillingness to work with the Jews was demonstrated almost immediately as the British tried to set up a legislative council and a constitution. The council was supposed to have ten of the seats allocated to the Arabs and only two to the Jews. The Arabs refused to cooperate on the basis that two seats for so few Jews meant that they were relatively over represented. They also resented the comments and concessions made to Zionism in the constitution. This failure meant that the British had no choice but to continue ruling Palestine directly themselves.

Over the next few years, the British made repeated attempts to include both communities in the day to day running of the mandate. Time and time again, Arab intransigence resulted in an absolute refusal to cooperate in any way. Conversely, the Jews were happy to work and cooperate with the authorities and thus gained a legitimacy and administrative experience far and above that which the size of their community merited. The best example of this was the creation of a Jewish agency in 1929. Arabs flatly refused to do the same. In fact, 1929 saw the birth of the first real instance of communal ugliness. It would set off a trend that would keep rearing its ugly head for nearly as long as the British were in control of the mandate. The Wailing Wall incident was when Arabs and Jews clashed over a stretch of wall that was regarded as religiously important to both religions. Arabs tried to make access to this wall for the Jews as awkward and difficult as possible. In the end, fights broke out which flared into riots around the country. Some 133 Jews were killed (mostly by British authorities) and 116 Arabs died. The most important outcome of the Wailing Wall incident was the establishment of the Shaw commission. This commision reported that the Arabs were very concerned about Jewish expansion and that steps should be taken to redress these feelings. The resulting Passfield white paper recommended that Jewish immigration should be stopped and that Jews should not be able to acquire new land. It also suggested a new legislative council which was biased more towards the Arabs. Once again, Arab intransigence failed to take advantage of the situation offered to them. When the Arabs refused to take part in a conference at which Zionists were present, the council lapsed. The Passfield recommendations were not fully implemented. A combination of Zionist pressure, British official ambivalence and the accession of Hitler in Germany all allowed some immigration to continue. And, when the British failed to fully prevent sales of land to Jews, the Arabs decided to implement a noncooperation policy and a boycott of British goods. Jews were also unhappy at the idea of these restrictions, even if they weren't fully implemented, and more riots and protests resulted. Increasing militancy and organisation by the Arabs resulted in the formation of the Arab High Committee in 1936. This virtually coordinated whole-scale attacks and riots directed towards Jews over the next three years. Another commission was put together under Lord Peel in 1936. Yet again, Arab intransigence led to their boycotting of its procedures until just before it left. The almost inevitable conclusion that the committee reached was that there was impossible for the Arabs and Jews to live and work together. It therefore recommended partition - despite the population relocations and upheavals that would be necessary. The Arabs responded to the commission with yet more riots and violence. The British felt compelled to disband the Arab High Commission and deport its leading members. Meanwhile, they also appointed yet another commission to examine the Peel commission report. The Woodhead report felt that the Peel commission was too generous to the Jews in terms of land to be set aside, but that the principle of partition was still maintained. All be it on a much smaller scale for the Jews. This had the effect of losing the support of the Jews, who thought that it was still inadequate, and yet didn't reconcile the Arabs who were against any partition. As it happened, international events were eclipsing the luxuries of negotiated settlements in Palestine. The rise of Hitler inevitably cast the Jews into the camp with the British, who were unquestionably the lesser of two evils. The Arabs however, also needed to be coaxed into submissiveness so that the Suez Canal could be maintained in relative tranquility. With this in mind, the British published yet another White paper which was heavily biased in favour of the Arabs. It stated that there would be no partition of Palestine and that Jewish immigration would be limited to 75,000 a year for the next five years and that the Arabs could veto any immigration after that period. Jews had no option but to throw in their lot with the allies and most of them cast aside concerns for their dreams of a homeland in order to concentrate on the destruction of the virulently anti-semitic German Reich. Arabs were similarly pacified by these concessions to them. Palestine settled down to a relatively quiet time during the Second World War. The major concern being the approaching Italians and Germans who advanced towards the Suez. The battle of El Alamein removed any real threat to Palestine in this period.

Economics of Empire Despite the massive upheavals and difficulties between the two competing communities, economically, Palestine was a surprisingly successful colony. And this was despite the fact that the colony had virtually no natural resources. Even the farmland was not that great. In fact, the main reason for success of Palestine was probably a strange combination of the competition between the Arabs and Jews and the synthesis that they also provided for each other. In competitive terms, both communities wanted to prove themselves better

and more abler than the other. They both realised that economic success for their community would probably be the clinching factor in demonstrating their ability to govern themselves. The synthesis came about in matching the economic and technical sophistication of the Jews with the hardworking and relatively cheap Arabs who had an excellent understanding of the local terrain and economy. They both could offer qualities that the other community could utilise. The economic success of the colony was inevitably curtailed with the worldwide depression of the 1930's. Although, relatively, it did not suffer as badly as most other colonies and countries did. A more serious challenge to the economic success of this colony was the terrorist campaigns that were conducted with increasing severity following the end of the Second World War. Both communities were involved, although the Jews were much more the active of the two. Although the terrorists principally aimed at military targets, the fact that this was a directly ruled colony meant that the local authorities would force the colony to try and pay for any damage done anywhere. This put a serious strain on the budget of the colony. In fact, the costs of this campaign were so high that the colony had to try and get money from an exhausted Britain. The difficulty that both Palestine and Britain had in covering the costs of this campaign were to be a major reason for the British to withdraw so quickly and completely. Role within the Empire In many ways, Palestine was an accidental acquistion. More a spoil of war than an activley sought after colony. It's only real strategic importance to the British was the fact that it was near the Suez canal. This seemed as if it might become important during the Second World War with the Axis powers nearing Cairo but in the end proved superfluous. Other than that, there was no particular reason for Britain to have control over it. Limited attempts were made at using it as a stop over base for communications to Asia. Roads linked Palestine to Transjordan and Syria and on into Iraq and the Persian gulf. Attempts were made at refuelling planes and seaplanes on their way between India and Britain. None of these schemes proved to be outstandingly significant or important. It felt more as if the British were trying to find reasons to justify its existence as a colony. The best thing that could be said about the colony was that it was relatively self-sufficient. This lack of vitality to the imperial grand scheme of things was demonstrated even more comprehensively when India became independent. Once this happened, the Suez Canal lost most of its importance to the British. Now, even the slim strategic reasoning behind ownership of this colony had gone. Withdrawal from Empire As the Second World War came to a close, the Jews felt that it was time to redress the imbalances of the 1939 White Paper. A number of factors contributed to giving them the diplomatic initiative. The first was the fact that so many Jews had fought so loyally with the Allies against the Germans and that the Jewish Agency had done so much to help the Allied war effort within Palestine itself. Another, was the guilt felt by the Allied powers as they uncovered the full extent of German designs against the Jews at concentration camps throughout Central Europe. Equally important was the fact that the Americans were becoming increasingly sympathetic to their claims and disproportionately powerful in Post-War Europe. Another more sinister development was the fact that the most important Jewish terrorist groups had all come together into a coalition. Thus, they could present a concerted military front for the first time. This they used to increasingly destructive means as they turned their terrorism against a war weary British military establishment. Ships leaving Haifa The British entered into yet another commission, although this time together with the Americans. The AngloAmerican commission published a paper heavily in favour of the Jews. It recommended an immediate end to restrictions on land purchases, on immediately allowing admission to 100,000 European Jews and the creation of a bi-national state under United Nations tutelage. This last option was a new one for the British and one that they took advantage of just as soon as they could. Economically tired and war weary the British were in no mood to fight to maintain a mandate that was proving so troublesome and irksome. The relatively anti-imperial Labour government was keen to cut these imperial knots and indeed was already planning to lose the most important of all British colonies; India. Therefore, Britain leapt at the opportunity of off-loading this problem to the United Nations and invited a UN commission (UNSCOP) to examine the problem whilst they hastily made preparations to withdraw. UNSCOP found little that was new other than the feeling of urgency. Yet again, the Arabs boycotted the proceedings which gave the Jews an excellent opportunity to plead their case. It recommended to the General Assembly that partition was the only option that could work for both parties, although it was to be mitigated by an economic union. The British, relievedly, had completed their withdrawal of forces by 1948. Not long after this the Jews were to declare independence to which various surrounding Arab countries

responded by invading the new Israel. The highly motivated Jews not only withstood the onslaught of the Arabs but actually turned them back and captured many areas that were not designated to them by the United Nations. A new nation had been formed out of the imperial mandate.

TIME LINE
1914 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1929 1930 1931 1933 1936 1937 1938 1939 1946 Britain goes to war with Ottomans. Jews help British. Shariff Hussein initiates Arab revolt against Ottomans. Sykes-Picot agreement Balfour declaration promises a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Allenby enters Jerusalem. Hashemite Emir Faisal enters Damascus. Versailles discusses mandates. San Remo conference validates Balfour declaration. Haganah formed. British persuade Abdullah to take over administration of Transjordan. Cairo conference specifies Palestine's borders. League of Nations formally confers mandate of Palestine to Britain. British attempt to create a joing Arab and Jew legislative council in Palestine. Arabs unwilling to cooperate with Jews. State of Transjordan declared by British. Arab League formed Wailing wall incident: The first large scale attack by Arabs on Jews. Shaw commission reports that Arabs concerned about Jewish expansion. Resulting Passfield white paper recommends that Jewish immigration be stopped and that Jews should not be able to acquire new land. Irgun Zval Leumi formed British failure to fully implement Passfield recommendations leads to Arab non-cooperation with British and boycott of British goods. Jews protest and riot. Arab High Committee formed to unite Arabs against Jews. Armed struggle begins between Arabs and Jews. Lord Peel Commission begins - Arabs fail to make case until just before commisssion leaves. Peel commission publishes recommendations that Jews and Arabs can never be reconciled with each other and so recommends the partition of Palestine. Woodhead report proposes smaller allocation of land to Jews in Palestine. White paper published to mollify Arabs in time of international tension. It denies intention to create a Jewish state and limits Jewish immigration for 5 years after which the Arabs would choose immigration levels. Anglo-American commission recommends revoking of immigration quotas and withdrawal of restrictions on land purchases. Britain doesn't implement recommendations. Jews step up military campaign. Treaty of London ends British mandate over Transjordan UN commission advises partition. Britain withdraws from Palestine. Israel created.

1947 1948

IRAQ UNDER THE BRITISH Initial Contacts with the British Iraq was an important outpost of the Ottoman empire. It was not known as Iraq at this time, it was the collection of three vilayets of the empire: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, sometimes referred to by the British as Mesopotamia. It was physically close to the centre of the Ottoman empire and so at times it was closely linked to the fate and direction of the this empire. However, poor communications and infrastructure meant that at other times its policies could be quite remote, detached and autonomous from that of its overlords. Iraq's first contact with the British was through the English East India company. Iraq lay on one of the communications routes between India and Britain and so naturally acquired an interest for the company. Iraq also had a sizeable population and economy; large enough to support commercial enterprises in the region. It was for these reasons that the English East India company set up a factory in the port of Basra in 1763. The factory was not entirely a success as political events saw the Persians temporarily take Basra. In addition, Kuwait offered its deep water port as a viable commercial alternative with access to the Ottoman empire but lying outside of it. This meant that the English East India Company did not have to worry so much about the state of Britain's political relations with the Ottoman empire but could still take advantage of the trade in this part of the world. The Mamluk rulers of Iraq did not have much love for their Ottoman overlords and so tried to cultivate increased economic and political links with the British. In 1798, they allowed a British agent to be appointed to the court in Baghdad and this was closely followed by the opening of a British Consulate there in 1802. This helped to stimulate British trade and commercial activity in the area, particularly with regards to textiles, but also with the new technologies of the nineteenth century: Steamships and the telegraph were just two of the state of the art technologies provided by the British. The Mamluks were overthrown in 1831 and direct control from Constantinople was reestablished, but commercial and economic links to the British and

Europoean powers had become so well established that they were maintained by most of the subsequent governors of the province. European influences were also felt at a deeper level as reforms were instituted by various rulers of Iraq. Land, administrative and legal reforms all helped the economy to develop along more Western lines as they turned the older tribal leaders and sheikhs into land holders and profit seekers. The flip side to this development was the way in which traditional craftsman were left exposed to the mass production techniques of British and European companies. For most of the nineteenth century Britain was content to take commercial advantage of this part of the Ottoman Empire with no administrative costs or worries. However, by the turn of the twentieth century the Ottomans had decided to diversify their economic allegiances with the European powers and had left the British traders and companies in a dangerously precarious position. One manifestation of this policy was a series of high profile projects conducted in collaboration with the Germans. The most famous of which was the Berlin to Baghdad railway built in 1899. Stronger economic links almost inevitably led to stronger political ties as the Young Turk revolution of 1908 openly looked towards the Germans to provide a model for Ottoman political and economic development. The strategic value of this part of the world was also increased by the discovery of oil in the south of Russia. European governments and companies were falling over themselves to gain concessions and political leverage in this part of the world. The stakes were further raised by the British themselves as the Royal Navy declared that it was abondoning coal powered ships in favour of oil powered ones. Oil was becoming a vital commodity. Taken together, by the outbreak of the first world war the British were already extremely anxious about the strategic fate of this part of the world, especially as it still lay on one of the key communications axes with India. When war did break out, the British were swift to conduct a campaign to defend these vital interests. Establishment of Formal Relations When the Ottomans formally declared themselves allied to the Germans, the British planned a campaign against the Ottomans starting in Basra. They landed troops in Basra in 1914 and advanced up the rivers towards Baghdad. Initially, conscript Arab regiments gave little resistance and General Townshend advanced as far as Ctesiphon just outside of Baghdad. However, the Ottomans reinforced themselves with regular army units and soon had the tired and diseased British forces besieged in Kut. The British capitulated some 160 days later. The following year the British tried again with a new campaign much more thoroughly planned and organised. In 1917, they successfully reached Baghdad and by the end of the war they had managed to advance as far as Mosul, this meant that they had control of the three Ottoman Vilayets which would form the basis of Iraq. Imperial politics in this part of the world had become a complicated affair as the British and French had made and broken promises with all sorts of leaders, tribes and communities fighting the Ottomans. At first, it was thought that many Arabs would support the British as they had done whilst fighting the Ottomans during the war. However, it soon became clear that these Arab nationalists were not keen to replace one imperial overlord for another. 1919 confirmed the extent of the political chicanery and intrigue the British and French had entered into when they were declared by the League of Nations to be the countries responsible for administering vast tracts of what was previously the Ottoman Empire. Few Arabs were convinced that this was anything other than imperialism by another name. The murder of a British officer in 1919 gave the first indication of this political dissatisfaction. This murder was dealt with by arrests and police action against a number of political groups. This in turn led many Arabs into a series of street demonstrations and strikes that soon descended into an outright rebellion. The British lost control of much of the countryside for nearly three months and only reconstituted order through extensive use of air and land units. This experience illustrated to the British that they needed to institute a more legitimate form of government if they were not to be involved in continuous guerilla campaigns and police actions. It was thought that the Hashemite ruler Faysal might provide sufficient legitimacy to allow the British to maintain some form of control over Iraq. He was descended from the Prophet Muhammed, which gave him impeccable Islamic credentials and he had fought the Ottomans which confirmed his Nationalist ones. On the downside, he was not from anywhere near Iraq. The British thought that this might actually be a useful handicap, as it meant that his legitimacy was not too strong that he might feel confident enough to desert the British. It was all a very finely based calculation that was discussed in detail at the Cairo conference of 1922. At this conference it was decided that a plebiscite would be held in Iraq to confirm whether the Iraqis wanted this leader imposed or not. The carefully conducted campaign endorsed King Faysal with 96 percent of the vote. The British were quick to ensure their control over their new vassal by insisting on a comprehensive treaty and alliance with Britain and a constitution for the country along a British style constitutional monarchy and

parliament. The treaty insisted upon commercial freedom, religious tolerance, and that all foreign, military, judicial and financial matters were to be taken by British advisers. The Iraqis would also pay half of the bills incurred by the British in Iraq. The treaty was a very one sided agreement. Administration The Hashemite monarchy was very much a British puppet, but even the King balked at the amount of power reserved by the British. It soon became a domestic political imperative for the King to regain some of the powers from the British. Protocols and treaties were negotiated and added in 1923, 1924, 1926 and 1927. However, these did not fully mollify many of the nationalists and tribal leaders who continued to agitate for independence. In 1929, the British finally decided to yield and started a series of negotiations that would leave them with control of foreign policy and 'common interests' and some air basesbut to hand most domestic matters to the Hashemite rulers. This treaty was agreed in 1930 and came into effect in 1932 when Iraq was allowed to enter the League of Nations as an independent nation. Although technically independent, the Hashemite rulers were as dependent on British expertise and advice as they ever had been. With British advisers, their children schooled in England, British governors and nannies, the Hashemites remained as puppet leaders who were only allowed to control events in Iraq as long as those events did not encroach on British political or commercial interests. The amount of dependence on the British was emphasised by events in 1941, when Iraqi parliamentary leaders refused to back Britain in its war against the Germans. The British landed a force in Iraq and overthrew the elected government and replaced it with a pro-British government and one that was required to declare war on Germany. At the end of the war, the British retreated from direct control again, but still maintained considerable indirect leverage, and this remained the case right up until the Hashemites were finally overthrown in 1958. Role within the Empire Britains primary concerns for the control of Iraq were to maintain communications with India and to maintain the flow of oil in the region. As naval power was superceded by aerial power, the importance of Iraq actually increased rather than decreased. Air bases were now required to link Britain to her most important imperial possession; India. It was for this reason that the British so assidiously tried to maintain complete control over the air bases when negotiating for the technical independence of Iraq. There was also an elaborate scheme to have an airship base in Iraq as a staging post linking London to Delhi. This strategic importance was only eclipsed in 1947 when India was granted independence. By this time, the value of oil had increased in importance and so Iraq remained a vital strategic concern until the coup of 1958. Economics of Empire Britain invested a considerable amount of money and expertise in extracting oil from the region. However, its dominant political position also meant that it had extracted highly favourable commercial concessions for these activities. The Turkish (later Iraqi) Petroleum Company earned a great deal of money for the British owned Anglo-Persian Oil Company and also, after a series of protracted renegotiations, for the Iraqi government. A great deal of this money was spent on the armed forces, but some was also spent on public works projects such as irrigation schemes and infrastructural development. However, the amount of money flowing out of the country would be a constant source of embarrassment for the Iraqi leaders and a galvanising slogan for the nationalists. Withdrawal from Empire Britain's withdrawal from Iraq was a swift one. It came with the overthrow of the Hashemite regime that Britain had so assidiously cultivated over the years. The Hashemites had never fully gained legitimacy as rulers in the eyes of the Iraqis. They were regarded as little more than foreign rulers who followed every beck and call of their British masters. Constant tribal bickerings and uprisings weakened the government in outlying areas of Iraq, whereas in the main cities, political dissatisfaction was expressed in the ballot boxes and the free press that Britain had expressly created for the country. Political instability was a concern for the entire period of Hashemite rule, they regularly had to call upon the police and the military to maintain order in the country. The British and the Hashemites were so fully dependent upon one another that they both became even more alienated and distant from the Iraqi people; hatred for one institution translating into hatred for the other. The creation of Israel further inflamed passions and brought the British into even further disrepute. And events in Suez in 1956 also galvanised Arab opinion against the British and dented Britain's prestige and ability to defend its interests at the same time as it increased Arab self-confidence and selfimportance. The British were in no position to help their puppet regime when the Hashemite King made his

final call for help to protect him from the people that he purported to lead. Their all-embracing dependence upon one another meant that with the fall of the Hashemites, British power and influence dissappeared abruptly.

TIME LINE
1763 1798 1802 1836 1858 1861 1869 1899 1902 1908 1912 1914 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 First English East India company factory established in Basra British agent appointed to Baghdad British open consulate in Baghdad British Steamboats appear on Iraqi rivers TAPU land reforms British lay Telegraphic wire Tanzimat administrative reforms Germans build Konya to Baghdad railway Germans extend railway to Basra Young Turk reforms Turkish Petroleum Company (TPC) established Anglo Persian oil buys 50% of TPC World War I: British land and take Basra British attempt to take Baghdad Ottomans besiege and capture Al-Kut from British British take Baghdad British take Mosul Iraq becomes British administered League of Nations Mandated territory British officer assassinated - leads to arrests by British - leads to strikes and demonstrations by Iraqi nationalists Open revolt against British Cairo Conference Plebiscite confirms Faysal as King Britain imposes constitution and alliance on Iraq Mosul awarded by League of Nations to Iraq Oil discovered in Kirkuk Britain informs Iraq of renegotiation of treaties New treaty limits Britain's involvement with Iraq to foreign affairs and common interests. Air bases ceded to Britain Iraq admitted to League of Nations Assyrian uprising Tribal rebellions Pipeline links Kirkuk to Mediterranean Military coup Sadabad pact British overthrow Iraqi government by force Iraq forced to declare war on Germany Britain scales back direct rule New Treaty with Britain Street demonstrations against Treaty and creation of Israel Uprising, martial law imposed Coup removes Hashemite Royal family

1920 1921 1922 1925 1927 1929 1930 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1941 1942 1945 1948 1952 1958