June 28 marks exactly 100 years since the assassinations in Sarajevo of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary and his wife, Sophie, by Serbian nationalist Gavrilo Princip. The fallout from the killings ricocheted through the web of European alliances and culminated in the outbreak of World War I between July 28 and August 4, 1914. With the passing of the last surviving participants, World War I has moved from the fringes of personal experience into the history books. Yet in the Middle East, overlain by subsequent conflicts and decades of bitter contestation, the aftermath of decisions made during the war continue to reverberate across the region.
As the centenary of the start of the First World War approaches, the legacies of the period are at once everywhere and nowhere. Two of the states that emerged from the legacy of the first large-scale, Western military intervention in the region lie in ruins. Iraq has been shattered by the baleful results of a renewed Western assault nearly a century after a British commander assured Baghdadis in March 1917 that “our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors, but as liberators.” Neighboring Syria has been torn apart by civil strife as part of the post-2011 Arab uprisings that have shaken the post-colonial system of states and regimes to their core. Commentators and analysts alike have observed variously that the “Arab Spring” represents a second “Arab revolt” (after the first that began in 1916) or that it heralds the final unravelling of the Sykes-Picot Agreement that divided the region into spheres of British, French and Russian influence at the expense of local Arab aspirations.
In each case, the terminology harkens back to developments during World War I, as it was this conflict that — more than anything else — determined the nature of the state-system that later emerged. Other, more recent, forces — such as Arab nationalism, political Islam, revolutions, civil wars, and, not least, decades of superpower rivalry and Arab-Israeli conflict — have all transformed the region and its place in international politics. Nevertheless, the legacy of developments and decisions taken during and after the First World War remains a source of bitterness, contestation and conflicting interpretation to this day. This reflects the fact that the war years represented a transition of the region from a crucible of competing empires to the emergence of the modern state system with all that implied for the realization — and crushing — of national aspiration, the recasting of loyalties and the birth of grievances that have come to occupy totemic positions in regional narratives.
The First World War was pivotal to the creation of the recognizably modern state-system in the Middle East. It hastened the demise of the Ottoman Empire and paved the way for the emergence of a state-system (albeit under mandatory rule) that remains largely in place today. The entire political landscape of the region was reshaped as the legacy of the war sapped the ability of imperial “outsiders” to dominate and influence events as nationalist groups succeeded in mobilizing mass movements around distinctly national identities. Yet, this occurred just as the actual and potential value of Middle Eastern oil became a permanent feature of a new set of Western geo-strategic consideration.
As a result, the post-war Middle East that emerged between 1919 and 1922 was unrecognizable from that of 1914. New political movements and ideologies were intermixed with debates around the identities and development of nation-states. The focal point of decision-making shifted from the fading grandeur of empire to the activity of national governments. A new political class tested the boundaries of the post-war settlement while British and French colonial administrators struggled to adapt to new realities of diminished control. Turkey also changed beyond recognition as President Mustafa Kemal Atatürk embarked upon a wide-ranging program of sociopolitical modernization that involved reorienting the new republic toward Europe and turning its back on the Middle East. In the Arabian Peninsula, the competition between the Saudi and Hashemite dynasties was resolved in favor of Abdul Aziz Al-Saud with lasting consequences for the state that took his name in 1932.
With Syria and Iraq in the throes of renewed political turmoil and the Middle East having experienced decades of regional and international crises, many attributable to the decisions taken during and after the First World War, the complicated legacies of the war have immediacy and relevance. A parallel may be drawn with the divided Europe up until 1989, where the ramifications of World War II remained highly visible across multiple generations. In this context, it is harder to establish historical distance from the legacies of the events that continue to resonate throughout the region.
So much has occurred in the intervening century that, while the connection to the First World War may not be immediately made, issues such as the Sykes-Picot Agreement and the Balfour Declaration are widely spoken about as if they refer to contemporary controversies. The U.S. Ambassador to Syria between 1988 and 1991, Edward Djerejian, recalled how Syrian President Hafiz al-Assad “subjected me to countless narratives about how the Sykes-Picot Agreement was the origin of all the ills of the contemporary Middle East.” This explains also media references to how the current conflict in Syria and Iraq is contributing to “unmaking” the Sykes-Picot Agreement.
For many in Europe, the forthcoming centenary will be an opportunity to pause and reflect on the enormity of the human suffering involved. Those with ancestors who fought and died in the campaigns retain emotional and physical links with the past through letters, diaries and personal effects. At Gallipoli, the shallow remains of wartime trench systems are still visible to people who leave the road and walks a few yards into the pine forests. British war cemeteries dot the landscape of the Middle East, some immaculately tended and others in various states of disrepair. Yet for people and societies in the Middle East itself, the significance is very different, as the campaigns had monumental consequences for the entire region. As the Middle East now stands on the cusp of another period of rapid change, it is instructive to look back at the processes that exerted such an influence on the contemporary development of states and societies in the region.
Kristian Coates Ulrichsen, Ph.D., is the Baker Institute fellow for the Middle East. His research examines the changing position of Persian Gulf states in the global order, as well as the emergence of longer-term, nonmilitary challenges to regional security. He is also a visiting fellow at the LSE Middle East Centre and an associate fellow at Chatham House in the United Kingdom. Follow him on Twitter at @Dr_Ulrichsen.
This material may be quoted or reproduced without prior permission, provided appropriate credit is given to the author and Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. The views expressed herein are those of the individual author(s), and do not necessarily represent the views of Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy.
