United Colleges - Vox Yearbook (Winnipeg, Manitoba Canada)

Page 19 text:

UNITED MacALESTER CONFERENCE Nationalism in the Middle East GENERAL EXTERNAL PROBLEMS NATIONAL AND EXTERNAL PROBLEMS CPHE long slumbering Middle East is awake to- ■ - day, shaking off the incubus of surviving colonialism, and seething with nationalistic fer¬ ment. Nationalism in the Middle East is not, however, an entirely recent characteristic. It has, nevertheless, reached a new and climatic pitch since the Second World War. The time has now arrived, if it is not already too late, for the nations of the world to face this problem realis¬ tically, over which they have procrastinated and offered piecemeal solutions of expediency since the fall of the Ottoman Empire. The general attitude towards the growth of Middle Eastern nationalism has been clearly expressed by a former American Ambassador to Iran: “There would be no great concern about the upsurging of nationalism in the Middle East were it not for its geographic position and its great resources of oil”. (,) In short this means that the interest of the West in the problem of the Middle East is purely a matter of self-interest and expediency; we need oil and we need the area for reasons of strategy, or, conversely, we are interested mainly in keeping Russia from obtaining these advantages. If this is the fundamental tenet of Western policy in the Middle East, and the events of the past decade would indicate that it is, then the time has come for a careful re¬ examination of our policy. Let us look for a moment at what this inde¬ finable word “nationalism” means in terms of external problems of the Middle East. National¬ ism to Middle Easterners means many different things: it means a chance to stand on their own 1. Grady, H. F.— Tensions in the Middle East with Particular Reference to Iran . Page 114. Proceedings of the American Academy of Political Science. Vol. XXIV, No. 4, January 1952. 2. Munroe, E.— Pink Communism in the Middle East . N. Y. Times Magazine, July, 7, 1952. 3. Stevenson, A. E.— No Peace for Israel , page 34. Look, August 11, 1953. feet, to govern themselves and, as a result of this, to develop their own resources; it means a chance to prove that colour of skin, difference of race and religion have nothing to do with their right to walk with self-respect among their fellowmen in the world. Nationalism to them means the end of legalized inferiority. This, of course, is a great over-simplification, for nationalism is so complex that it has been used to describe everything from xenophobia to com¬ munism, from patriotism to chauvinism. In speaking of the nationalist movements in the Middle East one writer has said: “Everyone is someone’s communist”. 2) This, of course, is ap¬ plicable beyond the Middle East. To complicate matters even further, national¬ ism in the Middle East means different things to different classes and, as we all know, the differ¬ ence between pasha and fellahin is both very great and very deplorable. To the upper classes nationalism has become a weapon in the hands of reaction; the foreigner has become the whip¬ ping boy while the social problems of the vari¬ ous countries have been neglected. The upper classes support the growth of nationalism be¬ cause its obscures the true causes of social and economic evils, and it is a successful policy be¬ cause the hatred of imperialism in its many nefarious forms is deeply imbedded in the minds of the indigent populations of the Arab world. One American observer describes the problem in this way: “The Arab nations face the same staggering social, economic and political pro¬ blems as the new Asia: ignorance, disease, feudalism, instability. These are the real pro¬ blems, but ‘imperialism’ and ‘injustice’ are the universal pre-occupations”. 1 2 (3) This is not only the most explosive element in the Middle East, but for the nations of the 17

Page 18 text:

ROBERT (very unsteadily)—“But, one more drink, John—(the bottle and glass clink) — just one more”. JOHN—“No; you’ve had more than enough al¬ ready; that’s all. Out we go”. I half led, half dragged him out the door. The damp air hit him like a wet towel and he straightened up perceptibly. The mist had given up and left in its place a thick, almost impenetrable fog. Just like a London pea-soup, I thought, then shuddered at the thought. We walked along silently, and the inky blackness poured in upon us; it gressed against you, permeated every pore of your being, became a part of you, until you feel yourself one with the night and the darkness and . . . ROBERT—“My gun, give me back my gun, John.” JOHN—He lurched against me unsteadily. “You’re still in no condition to have a weapon. Wait until you sober up a little more”. ROBERT (hoarsely)—“My gun, John, I want my gun”! JOHN—He was insistent as only a drunk can be. There was no arguing with him. “All right”. ROBERT—“That’s good, John. I’ll feel a lot better with my gun. You are going to give it back, aren’t you”? JOHN—We stopped by a doorway. “Yes, yes, I’ll give it to you”. ROBERT—“Thanks, John, I really need it, you know”. JOHN—I put my hand in my pocket and pulled out.. . ROBERT—“But that’s not a gun—that’s a knife”! JOHN—“That’s right, Robert; it’s a knife”. I pushed him against the door. ROBERT (screaming)—“No, don’t’” JOHN—His face was a mash of horrified sur¬ prise. I lunged at him. ROBERT—“John”! (a screaming gasp ending in a gurgle). JOHN—“Don’t call me John; call me JACK”! Lower Fort Garry In evening the dying sun Spills light like blood upon the stone Of the old fort which stands Beside the river’s curve; it is alone The sole survivor of a vanished time, All else forgotten; only it is known. A hundred years ago this river was A highway for the empire of the North , Which stretched from towering mountain ranges Across the burning prairie steppes, and down Into the smiling hills of Pembina. This was the kingdom of the Hudson Bay, And on the river’s muddy, turbid flow Commerce and produce of this far-flung land All poured into the storehouse at the fort, Its walls a pattern in the wilderness. Here were huge piles of beaver pelts brought from The northern forests, vast and echoing With sounds of silence, potential emptiness. What feasts were here, of smoking venison And gold-eyes steaming on the silver trays Brought from the land across the stormy sea; And parties here, when silk-clad girls and officers Danced reels and polkas on the polished floors. Out on the trail the men were happy with A lump of pemmican washed down with rum; The only music was the throbbing chant Of Indians wearing paint and eagle plumes, Who made a war dance on the frozen plains, While lonely coyotes howled up at the moon. The happy freedom of this wilderness Was shattered by the single rifle shot Which first began the internecine feud Between the Metis and Englishmen; The bands of steel which spread across the plains Were grasping tentacles to bind it down, And take away its birthright—liberty And so the fort still stands, But now the curious people come To see the dregs of power Of an empire built with furs and rum. Its stone will stand until The river ceases to run. —WILDA REYNOLDS. 16

Page 20 text:

West who claim to be the repositories of the liberal tradition it should also be the element of most concern. We should not perhaps concern ourselves with the social problems to the total exclusion of oil and strategy, but we must re¬ member that the social problem is fundamental to all others. Have we learned nothing from our experience with China, where we supported reaction to the exclusion of social justice and came out on the very short end, with nothing to show for our efforts but troublesome factions in Formosa and North Burma and a badly- stained reputation in Asia. The communist tactic is to pose as the champion of nationalism; it has not created the forces of upheaval, in fact the West is far more responsible for them, but Russia is trying to give direction to these forces. This policy has succeeded in China and may well succeed elsewhere, unless we are prepared to accept a new type of policy, one that is con¬ cerned with liberality and social justice, as opposed to placing all our faith in the pashas and reaction. We must remember that we think of communism in a different light than those peoples of under-developed countries; we think of it in terms of what we are going to lose; more backward people think of it in terms of what they have to gain—especially when they have nothing to lose. There are other phases of Middle Eastern nationalism which bear on external problems, and which we must look at briefly before turn¬ ing to the question of collective security. Per¬ haps the most important is that of the state of Israel, set squarely in the middle of a hostile Arab world. The presence of the Jewish nation, placed there as the Arabs claim, by western capitalism, is an irritating thorn in the Arabs’ side; as great as the problem of foreign enclaves in such countries as Egypt and Iran. It is a prime stimulus to nationalist fervor and chaun- vinism in the Arab states, and particularly in those countries where refugees are settled. Speaking strictly of external affairs the Arab- Israel question is the greatest source of irrita¬ tion and instability in the Middle East today. One further stimulant to nationalism in the Middle East today is the fact that even in the countries where independence has been gained, there is sympathy for countries in the area which remain under foreign domination. Though our geographic limits have left North Africa, Turkey, and Pakistan out of our discussion, let us remember that in reality they are not ex¬ cluded from the world of the Middle East. North Africa provides examples of continued foreign domination, while India provides an example of what an Asian nation can do when released from imperial control and secondly an example of the liberality of the west. When the history of the British Labour government is written, its grant of independence to India will rank high in its list of accomplishments, just as its reluctance to leave Egypt will no doubt be judged as one of the shortcomings. With these all too general observations about Middle Eastern nationalism in our minds, let us now turn to the question of collective security. II Colective Security The fundamental problem in terms of external issues in the Middle East is the question of Arab- Israel hostility. The problem pervades the atmosphere of the whole area and has a direct bearing on every other problem. Within the context of this hostility and the pressing social and economic injustices, it is neither feasible, practical, nor desirable to form any Middle Eastern Defence Pact. From a practical point of view a Middle East¬ ern Defence pact which would include both Arabs and Jews would be impossible at the present time for neither Jews nor Arabs would find the suggestion acceptable. A defence pact made up of only the Arab states is objectionable for several reasons. Firstly, to arm the Arabs to the exclusion of the Jews would only increase the very great tension which now exists, with the increased possibility of the renewal of the Arab-Israel war. Secondly, any such past with¬ out a tremendous amount of western aid would be technically weak, and even given this aid it would remain a doubtful quantity due to local jealousy and antagonism. A third reason, and one that clearly indicates the truth in the first two, is the fact that such a pact already exists in the form of the Arab League. Let us look for a moment at this pact between the Arab states which has been in existence since March, 1945, and has already demonstrated clearly the inherent weaknesses of such a plan. Seven Arab states are members of the Arab League, which was ostensibly constituted as a means of co-operation among the member states 18