Mark Mardell made one of those casual but deliberate comments that lazily feed into the anti-Western flow of the BBC’s narrative blaming the West for everything wrong in the world:
After the first world war the imperial powers of France and Great Britain, greedy for oil, carved up the Ottoman Empire between them
Well no…and ‘carved up’?…the post war negotiations were intense and protracted and included Turkey. Not only that but they attempted to take into account the various competing demands from different groups in the affected regions.
‘Lawrence of Arabia’, who was no friend of Imperialism, and was deeply involved in the negotiations, said in a letter to the new commissioner of ‘Irak’ in 1928:
‘Bagdad requires the diplomatic, so much more than the adminsitrative understanding.’
So immediately you can see that concerns about diplomacy were a high priority. In other words dealing with the demands of various factions within and without Iraq was recognised as the main challenge.
Good though that some liberal commentator, not having the close personal relationship with the area or the extensive knowledge of it that Lawrence had, feels better able to pronounce judgement on events of the day with that extraordinary hindsight they all have.
Lawrence believed that the negotiations and final plans drawn up by the allies were the best that could be achieved and were a ‘success’:
‘As I get firther and furhter away from things the more completely do I feel that our efforts during the war have justified themselves and are proving happier and better than I’d ever hoped. And some of this good progress is surely due to my keeping out of an area that I care too much for?’
By coincidence the Sunday Telegraph has a book review of ‘Baghdad’ by Justin Marozzi.
Baghdad, long portrayed as the centre of the Muslim ‘golden age of science’ had, of course, a much more chequered history, most of it soaked in blood…and much of that ‘science’ being inherited by the Muslim conquerors fom the previous civilisations and kept alive by Christian and Jewish scientists and scholars….‘much of this was in spite of Islam, not because of it.’
What it also says, which is of interest here, is that after WWI the British took over and ‘busily set about improving things, from sanitation, bridge building and road repairs to irrigation, constitutions and government’….also stopping cruelty to animals and abolishing slavery that was still rampant there.
History is not what the BBC so often likes to portray. Which brings us onto Mardell’s ‘greedy for oil’ comment.
Oil played little part in the thinking. The only known oil was in Iran at the time. Iraq was suspected to have oil…only found in 1927, and the Brits, so greedy for oil, gave Iraq independence in 1932.
The Arabian peninsular was also known to have areas where oil was seeping from the ground and yet was not added to the Imperial ‘want list’, being allowed to form its own government.
Exploring the issues about oil exploration and exploitation I came across this BBC article which claimed that:
For nearly 50 years the Iranian oil industry was controlled by the British Anglo-Persian Oil company.
You can still see the names of British companies on some of the older plant. But the British only paid $75,000 (£40,000) for the original 60-year concession – and a small share of the profits.
To this day, that is the source of enormous bitterness in Iran.
Just the usual deliberately uninformed BBC attack on the British at play in the Middle East.
The truth about oil production in Iran/Persia tells a completely different tale:
Sir Arthur Hardinge, then the British Minister in Tehran, helped D’Arcy’s team to meet with Persia’s Prime Minister Amin al-Sultan. Marriott is reported to have paid £10,000 to the Persian government officials to secure a concession.
On 28 May 1901 the concession was signed by the Shah. It granted D’Arcy to explore, drill, produce, and export petroleum in Iran (with exception of five northern provinces close to Russia) for a period of 60 years. D’Arcy was required to form a company within two years for this purpose. The Persian government was to receive £20,000 in cash, £20,000 in shares from the company, and 16% of profits made by the first or any other company formed by this concessionaire. Kitabchi Khan was rewarded too; he continued to be on D’Arcy’s payroll (£1,000 a year) but acting as representative of the Persian government! D’Arcy formed the First Exploration Company in May 1903 with a capital of £600,000, half of which belonged to him.
Reynolds had to hire local laborers and security guards and pay to tribal chiefs for their cooperation. He also put together a technical team of Polish and Canadian drillers, an Indian doctor, and a wiry American engineer C.B. Rosenplaenter as his deputy.
The first concession to explore for oil was given in 1901, it was only in 1908 that oil was actually found after huge expense and many unproductive drilling attempts.
The commercial enterprises that set out to drill for oil did so at enormous cost to themselves, funding all the equipment, manpower, expertise and other operating costs, risking huge losses if the drilling was unsuccessful, the costs being born by the investors whilst Iran took a profit as well as concession payments.
The oil companies were hardly exploiting Iran which in no way could have found or utilised the oil itself.
The investment by a western, commercial company of at least £600, 000 in 1903 was of course an enormous sum of money….making a mockery of Mardell’s casual assertion that this type of thing was just ‘greed’ and gives the lie to the BBC article that claims that Iran was somehow shortchanged in its dealings with the oil companies…they after all negotiated the deals themselves with the companies.
The BBC makes it sound so easy…just wander into a country at will, scoop up the oil, flog it at a high price, keep profits for yourself and dish out a few glass beads to keep the natives happy.
Not quite the truth.
His lazy agenda setting re the oil is nothing compared to his defence of Obama in the same article: from the headline downwards! Where’s David P by the way? Long time gone…
I think a lot of us are missing David P and his view of American politics. If you still read this, please come back.
Sorry Alan, but if T E Lawrence was so ‘deeply involved’ in the post war carve up – for such it was, then why is there no mention of it in the Wikipedia entry for him?
The Sykes-Picot agreement broke all the promises made by Lawrence to the Arabs, and I can see him having allowed that if he was present !
Lawrence & Faisal were excluded from the conference !
And it was a carve up with artificial states and boundaries designed for the desires and tensions of a post WWI Europe. Oil was a factor, but not as much as Mardell is claiming. Coal was the driving fuel of the age and oil was not as important as it is today. Demand was fairly low – ships were steam or sail powered, and the motor car was a rarity for the wealthy.
But again you are missing the bigger picture here !
I don’t know if you read my piece on the Weekend thread board, but Mardells remarks are part of that.
The ISIS forces, and many other Muslims do not accept the artificial borders and are looking to re-establish the Caliphate dissolved at the same time.
Do the BBC know about this and are not telling us, or are they blissfully unaware. The more I hear though, the more they appear to know exactly what is going on & are keeping it quiet.
Wkipedia eh.
In 1919 Feisal and Lawrence went to Paris …where Lawrence was a public relations success…Gertrude Bell called him the ‘most picturesque figure at the conference’.
Guess they did attend the conference.
Lawrence certainly did not get all he wanted and set about writing the ‘Seven Pillars’ whilst still agitating for the Arab cause….Churchill bringing him back into politics in 1921 when he ‘devised a settlement sufficiently fair to the Arabs’…Feisal made King of Iraq, his brother in Transjordan.
Another useful quote from Lawrence’s letters:
‘The Kingdom of Irak depended on such slender causes: & I’m so proud of it now.’
Which is the point you seem to miss…..opposed to the plans that cut out the Arabs he finally was happy with the outcome which he helped arrange.
‘
The Sykes – Picot agreement was drawn up in secret and there wasn’t a conference !
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/middle_east/2001/israel_and_the_palestinians/key_documents/1681362.stm
Hopefully the BBC will be more believable than Wikipedia !
Makes one wonder just which sources you do regard as trustworthy !
The horse’s mouth!
Note date of conference in Paris…1919…the conference you originally referred to…with Feisal.
And I think you will find ‘Capt. Lawrence’ as was in 1917, was deeply involved with plans….
‘On July 29th the Sherif sent me a message asking me to come and see him and in the course of along private conversation he gave me his views of the Sykes-Picot Mission.’…the Sherif saying ‘ I merely read out my acceptance of the formula “as the British in Iraq” proposedd to me by M. Picot, since Sir Mark Sykes assures me that it would put a satisfactory conclusion to the discussion.’
The plan was secretly put together (including by Russia) but then negotiated over….the final result was intended but the Sherif misunderstood parts of it believing the French only wanted to temporarily occupy Syria.
In the end Sykes-Picot wasn’t actually implemented in the form originally intended….and the final version was agreed by the League of Nations post war.
Again no.
Sending a message for Lawrence to come talk to him and then merely toeing the British line does not amount to being ‘deeply involved’ in drawing up an agreement.
The League of Nations was actually formed at this time, because the Americans were so pissed at having been left out!
I think you need to do more research.
To claim the Sherif was not involved in negotiations is completely wrong.
You might find that Col. Wilson was concerned that there was a ‘misunderstanding on the part of the Sherif as to what was, or was not, agreed upon at the meeting between Sir Mark Sykes, Monsieur Picot and the Sherif.’
Pretty clear yes?
And Lawrence was the trusted go between for the Arabs fighting for their interests….to say he wasn’t deeply involved in affairs is a somewhat unusual reading of history.
“He had even met with the king, George V. At this meeting, Lawrence caused a minor scandal by refusing to accept the medals the king wanted to award him because, Lawrence said, of his shame that he had participated in betraying the Arab cause and his outrage at the Sykes-Picot agreement. ”
Odd that Lawrence should feel so strongly about something you claim he had a hand in negotiating !
At Paris:
“Lawrence hoped that the Americans, at least, would be sympathetic. But in the end the Arab point of view was mostly ignored.”
“The Sykes-Picot Agreement was honored at the Paris Peace Conference. France — not Prince Feisal, his father King Hussein or any other Arabs — gained control of Syria. Lawrence was deeply disappointed.”
Omar Sherif?
The Turks took a shine to Lawrence also
In section from a long, long essay on various topics by Hugh Fitzgerald, he has critique of T.E.Lawrence and of pro-Arab, pro-Islam, anti-West versions of history in the Middle East, which continue to this day with Beeboids-Guardianistas-Islamic lobbyists:-
“Robinson” [of Times Literary Supp] “even has the Sykes-Picot business, and no doubt he accepts the nonsense that the Lawrentians in England never give up on, the idea that Britain ‘betrayed’ the Arabs, just because the Arabs have made up such a narrative, in which they carefully ignore what Sir Henry MacMahon himself wrote about the so-called promises he was said to have made (see MacMahon’s letter to The Times in July, 1937). Robinson, who teaches about Islam in the subcontinent, apparently identifies completely with the Muslim Arab worldview. He accepts the notion that the French mandates in Syria and Lebanon were merely a disguise for colonialism, — ‘and so when they were dressed up with the decency of mandates Syria and the Lebanon were added to the French possessions in North Africa.’ No, they weren’t; they remained Mandates, and there was no large-scale movement of French into Lebanon or Syria, and in both places, it was the presence of the French that made those countries safe for Christians, allowed the Christians to withstand, for a few decades more, the pressure of the Muslims in their midst.”
http://www.newenglishreview.org/Hugh_Fitzgerald/Some_Recent_Issues_Of_The_TLS/
I’ll defer to others clearly more interested and informed in greater depth, but ‘no mention of it in the Wikipedia entry’ seldom forms the basis of a great counter argument.
I look forward to any substantiated debate that may yet ensue to see this possible discrepancy in Lawrence’s involvement resolved.
I know some people hold Wikipedia in little esteem, but I find it very useful despite its detractors.
Proving a negative is of course impossible, so I believe the onus is on the one asserting.
Having said that it is a distraction from the vastly more important issue of the Caliphate.
The trouble with the caliphate is that the BBC treats it as if it was a naturally occurring phenomenon…it’s not, it’s man made just like the national borders…borders that Grand Sherif Hussein agreed to in principle.
The caliphate has no more right to exist than any border….and indeed the BBC has often scoffed at the idea of a caliphate.
The real point is that the BBC can’t blame Sykes Picot for ISIS, nor can they blame Iraq 2003….Syria and Egypt, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia all have varying degrees of internal conflict…..not just Iraq.
Even Mardell, by accident, admitted that Iraq was a problem just waiting to happen.
A final point that many miss is that Lawrence wanted an ‘Arab Dominion’ to be part of the British Empire like India and Egypt.
The problem with the BBC is that either it doesn’t want to report on it, or it’s unaware of the potential problems.
You & I say the Caliphate is man made, but that’s not the way the Muslims see it.
Yet again as a verse or two in the Qur’an tells them about it, it’s ordained by God.
“The term ‘Caliph’, as used in the Holy Quran and the traditions, is not related to any added noun, displaying clearly that it implies only for the Caliph of Allah, the High. So, a Prophet or an Imam is a representative and heir of Allah, the High, and Prophethood and Imamat are from the affairs of Allah, the High. None has got the right to stake a claim to this status but with His permission.”
Allah has used the word ‘Caliph’ in the Holy Quran, thus: إِن�’ِي جَاعِلٌ فِي الأَر�’ضِ خَلِيفَةً I am going to place in the earth a Caliph.[2]
And He, Mighty and Glorified be He declared, يَا دَاوُدُ إِن�’َا جَعَل�’نَاكَ خَلِيفَةً فِي ال�’أَر�’ضِ O Dawood! Surely We have made you a Caliph in the land [3] It has come in the traditions that he was the Caliph of Allah, the High. Then the caliphs are the representatives of Allah upon His servants and His deputies for His creatures.
As for the rulers, they are the chiefs regardless of them being Caliphs on earth. Consequently, every Caliph is a ruler and a chief, but every ruler and chief is not a Caliph.
A region of pan Islamic unity. Might be as much a fantasy world as the loony liberal Left live in, but there is strong support for it.
Imagine if ISIS do take over Iraq? Jordan is not very far away, and despite Egypt maintaining a large army, the Caliphate is strongly supported by the Moslem Brotherhood.
If Egypt were to fall then the rest of the Southern Med would be a pushover, the state of Israel would be unlikely to survive.
The only country capable of any real resistance would be Turkey. Europe would be in grave danger with tens if not hundreds of Muslims already here.
“The Problem of Iran”
By Hugh Fitzgerald
(May 2006)
http://newenglishreview.org/Hugh_Fitzgerald/The_Problem_of_Iran/
Why worry about Mardell he’s far too ugly!
“Fitzgerald:
Arabia Petraea, or General Petraeus’ Middle East (Part IV): Twenty-Seven Articles (revised edition)2011.”
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/33997
-Not on INBBC’s political radar.
The BBC’s Jim Muir, in northern Iraq, says if the photographs are genuine, it would be by far the biggest single atrocity since the time of the American-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Who massacred whom? The implication is the Americans conducted an atrocity.
You’re on drugs.
The BBC are planting the doubt that the photographs taken by ISIS are genuine. They suggest that they would be more likely to be genuine if they were videos, which are harder to fake. So there you have it – the militants are not really that bad.
But if we are to cast doubt on photographs then reconsider those paraded by the BBC of British soldiers behaving badly.
On another thread I posted a long video – one hour – with lots of clips of apparently random shootings of cars driving along the road, or of pedestrians on pavements – Allah’s soldiers just enjoying rattling off their heavy weapons almost at random and then claiming they were holy warriors.
But we KNOW there are lots of BBC staff – Muslim and also fellow-travellers – who want to play down all this brutality. They play it down by using euphemisms such as “militants”, they play it down by refusing to show even a fraction of the video footage we can all see elsewhere, they play it down by casting doubts (doubts they never think of casting if IDF personnel were involved), they play it down by keeping the stories short and often hiding them away.
It is all part of the long pattern of the BBC sanitising the horrors of global Islam.
‘IRAQ.’
Does Islam Not BBC (INBBC) now (even sort of) accept that its “militants” are the most savage Islamic jihadist mass murderers, who see themselves as inspired by the tenets of Islam? And what is INBBC to say otherwise?
1.) ‘Jihadwatch’-
“ISIS executioner killed three men for failing his Qur’an quiz”
By Robert Spencer.
[Excerpt]:
“Their failure indicated to him that they were Alawites, and so, despite their pleas that they were just trying to make a living driving trucks through territory controlled by ISIS, he had them murdered. And he believed that in doing so, he was offering service to his god. In fact, his religion inspires, motivates, and guides all his actions — but that is the one factor that Western analysts and policymakers discount and gloss over when studying him and people like him.”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/06/isis-executioner-killed-three-men-for-failing-his-quran-quiz
2.) INBBC-
“Iraq conflict: Images purport to show ‘massacre’ by militants”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-27858692
It’s still all a distraction from the enormous & very grave threat to us all !
The wish to establish a Caliphate with boundaries all along the Southern Med and some of the North.
A united Muslim Umma without boundaries.
The ability to call ‘Offensive Jihad’ (currently only defensive Jihad is allowed).
A common enemy – everyone that isn’t Muslim !
Dar Es Salaam and Dar Es El Harb !
The caliphate will extend to London ,Paris, Birmingham ,Amsterdam ,Leeds , Stockholm …………………………..
Its already in Birmingham London Bradford
So much for the Caliphate which is what these guys are openly supporting. But it is still Bushanblair’s fault innit.
I saw this poster on Facebook and thought it captures left thinking:
‘Why did the chicken cross the road?’
Answer:
‘It’s Bush and Blair’s fault and you are a racist”.
The main news items on radio four this morning;
Religious based carnage in Iraq
Terror attacks in Kenya
Trojan horse plot in Birmingham schools
New laws to combat forced marriage
Terror cell uncovered in Madrid.
I can’t help thinking there might was some common thread running through the stories, but the BBC didn’t tell me what it might be.
My favourite is when people say the west “stole” the oil from the Middle East. Stole it? Really?
The ME and North Africa are in receipt of approximately $60 trillion for their oil and gas over the years. $60 trillion, at market rates. Where did it all go? What have they done with the money? Grown their economies, developed their infrastructure, dragged their countries into the 21st century? No. Spent it on Russian hookers, diamond-studded Lamborghinis, and £20,000 a night hotel suites for dozens of people at a time in London and Paris. These people are clearly retarded. But I suppose you would be as well if you married your cousin for generations…
is updated frequently with free advice about Google Ad – Words strategy,
tactics, tips tricks and techniques for success in Ad – Words advertising.
In addition, the observing surgeons could transmit their comments to the operating surgeon, who
could read them on the Google Glass monitor.
Any time you create new content or share new links on your website or blog, be sure to do so
by diversifying all of the link and anchor text you implement, regardless of the
market you represent or the industry you are
working in.