Maris Jones
msjones@stanford.edu
ID # 5040097
12/6/02
EDGE Final Paper
Iraq: Past, Present, Future
Imagine you are back in time, in a land where water flows, date palms flourish and people abound. The part of the globe which the Greeks called Mesopotamia and we call…Iraq. In my paper, instead of focusing primarily on the impending war with Iraq, I will focus on why we are continually in a conflict with Iraq (and other Middle Eastern countries) through investigating the past, present and future of Iraq’s history.
It is highly interesting how because of the US’ dealings with Iraq that have stretched back for the last twenty or thirty years, many people in this country have flawed senses of the rich history actually present in the region. Mesopotamia, or the fertile crescent, which housed some of the oldest civilizations known to man, has been all but forgotten about by western society, and the greatness and cultural fluidity that once persisted there has been forgotten almost entirely in this age of arbitrary borders and divisive politics. With the partitioning of Turkey at the conclusion of WWI, the middle east was segmented arbitrarily which led to political unrest in the region. Because of this unrest, there has continually been the apparent need and desire (on the part of the western powers, especially the United States) to intervene in the Middle East and especially Iraq. This is how one can explain the current situation we are in and have been in with Iraq for at least twenty years. When leadership is despotic, and these arbitrary border lines are crossed or disrespected, our government usually decides to intervene (especially if oil money is at stake) These interventions are simply patch-up solutions to what is a much larger problem: instability caused by arbitrary borders and groupings of people living together who do not relate with one another culturally. If the Arab world were able to be taken back to a time when borders and territories were more fluid, perhaps more peace could be attained in the region. Less energy would be spent and less controversy caused by the West punishing Middle Eastern countries for internal or regional conflicts and more energy could be spent on developing viable economic opportunities, which would also allow for more stability in the region (less dependence on solely the oil trade).
First, I will look to the history of the region for a better perspective of how the area can improve its condition and how we can deal with Iraq especially from a more educated and less obstinate and standoffish vantage point. Many Americans know very little about the rich history of the region of the globe that is now home to Iraq. This area used to be called Mesopotamia (because it is in between two rivers, the Tigris and the Euphrates) I will discuss this history and how by utilizing successful components of the Mesopotamian past, greatness can be achieved in Iraq once more, free from colonial wars and despotic leaders.
When biblical scholars attempt to find evidence for the stories that appear within the pages of the bible, they all look back to Mesopotamian texts. In attempts to find the actual site of the garden of Eden, researchers have centered in on Mesopotamia as the likely model landscape. One especially intriguing paradise-like location could be in a place called Dilman [10], located in Bahrain. The researchers here have found (through archaeological analysis) that people living on this lush and fruitful island in ancient times were better nourished and lived longer than most others in surrounding lands at the time. Also, the icing on the cake to the evidence of a lush Shangri-la at Dilman/Bahrain is the fact that snake remains have been found in burial sites: all creation myths from the area (including the tale of Adam and Eve, the Epic of Gilgamesh, etc.) involve serpents of some form or another, and the presence of snakes here is very telling. In any case, many biblical scholars would like to set Adam and Eve in a Mesopotamian paradise.
While there is not enough evidence to show that the story of Adam and Eve originated in some shape or form from Dilman, there is, however, enough evidence to show that another very early civilization inhabited the area we know as Mesopotamia or the Fertile Crescent (as it is also known). These people were the Sumerians, and they made up the earliest known Mesopotamian empire which was present from 3500 B.C. until around 1900 B.C. [10] Around 3500 B.C. the Sumerians established themselves along the banks of the Euphrates river. Eventually, kingships developed and these smaller kingships developed into hereditary monarchies. These monarchies become so powerful that entire courts would commit suicide upon the death of a king in order to join and aid him in the afterlife. [10] In the discovery of a burial site at the kingdom of Ur, a king was found surrounded by his whole court that had imbibed poison at the time of his burial in order to accompany him to the afterlife. This type of massive sacrifice of life requires much social hierarchy and stratification. It also implies a very effective, (if not sadistic in our terms) governmental system that was adept in controlling the actions of its subjects. Aside from the finds accumulated at the temple of Ur, Sumerian archaeological evidence has given us many written texts [13]. These are some of the first texts that scholars can look at to see what people were actually thinking in ancient Mesopotamia—from wars to family problems. These texts have been helpful in finding historical evidence for certain biblical events. The only problem with using these texts as evidence is the high number of actual documents that have been lost over the years. Researchers hope and wonder whether or not those texts left are a representative sample of life in Sumer. For now, they appear to be working with whatever they have, using a critical eye in their inspection.
The next civilizations which occupied the area we know today as Iraq, were the Babylonians and the Assyrians. They both arose at about the same time (from around 1900-500 B.C.) [13] however, I will discuss the Assyrians first.
Assyrian culture was highly grounded in war [10]. Assyria was known as “the land bathed in blood” and for good reason. Even in parts of the bible this is attested to, and especially in texts from Hittite and Babylonian sources, the Assyrians are written about as war-loving people who were both effective and brutal warriors. Assyrians are also known for their despotic kings for whom war was a mode of keeping the people in line and always having reason to be in power. One of the major royal palace sites was set in Nineveh. Much of what we know about the Assyrians comes from this site. The Assyrians were not only good warriors, however. In archaeological finds from this culture, many finely tooled artifacts have been found, illustrating that the Assyrians had developed master goldsmiths and other artisans. Many of these finds have been gleaned from female tombs, because while Assyrian society was highly patriarchal, and the males had most of the social clout, queens were lavished with gold and material goods (at least upon their deaths) as the grave goods found by archaeologists attest to. The Assyrians also produced texts, although theirs are mostly relevant to war. These texts have been used as well to verify events told about in the bible as likely actually occurring.
The last ancient empire in Mesopotamia, and perhaps the greatest, would be Babylon. Although Babylon was developing ever since 1900 B.C., the most we know about the civilization comes from around 586 B.C. This is the date that armies of the king of Babylon apparently attacked Jerusalem and took 10,000 Israelite captives and led them back to Babylonia in chains.[10] The information that has survived about this amazing place come primarily from the writings of these enslaved Israelites and later, from the bible. Babylon was a place where many different types of people lived together. People from all parts of the Mediterranean intermingled in this empire where biblical scholars believe the bible became a book because over three generations, the transplanted Jews were able to distinguish their own cultural identity and they wanted and were able to preserve it in writing. What had previously been an oral tradition (the telling of now biblical stories) became possible to be a written tradition in Babylon—the first known written legal codes come from Babylon during this time which were implemented by one of the most famous Babylonian kings; Hammurabi. These Hammurabi codes as they are called are thought to be the baseline for the ten commandments.[10] The famous tower of Babel is even speculated by some to have been in Babylon, although there is no way to really know. The main idea here is that Babylon was big into text and for this reason we know so much about the civilization from it’s own words and then later, those of the Israelites who later began writing the first testament.
In essence, the ancient history of the region in the arc of the fertile crescent called Mesopotamia and that we currently call Iraq, was rich. Instead of specific borders, the area simply was a fluid mix of people in and out and different empires fought each other for dominance. Depending upon the outcome of each war, distributions of people would be different in different areas. For this reason, the imposition of strict borders, like we see now was counterintuitive, and did not happen. With the exception of captives, most people living in a particular one of these empires felt a strong tie of belonging there because if they didn’t, they could simply migrate to an area where they did feel a closer connection. This is what happened historically and is how different groups now have such stories and associations. The powers themselves also didn’t have to worry about overstepping their bounds quite as much, because there really were no specific borders. War didn’t occur simply because fringe territory was invaded; other causation would need to go along with that.
If we fast-forward to more recent times, around 1055 A.D. [1], [2], we see the development of the Seljuq dynasty, in the same area (Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc.). The Seljuq sultanate gained immense power in this region during this time, however, with Mongol invasions and the natural rise and fall of power, the sultanate did not last and so around 1450, the Ottoman empire, previously in its embryonic stages, began to grow and eventually turned into a force to be reckoned with in the Middle East and beyond. Spanning from central Europe to the Indian Ocean, the Ottoman Empire was a certainly a huge land mass and unfortunately, with its central location, had the ability to become intertwined in all sorts of conflicts.
One of those conflicts arose around 500 years later—that conflict was WWI. The Ottoman Empire, or as it was called around 1900, Turkey, became a German ally with Austria in this war that started in 1914 against Britain and France (and eventually the United States). After the loss of WWI by Austria, Germany and Turkey, the borders of the once great Ottoman Empire were redrawn and chopped up into what were called mandates by the British. During the formation of the treaty of Versailles, The League of Nations decided upon borders for these new, mainly British territories or mandates. The area we know now as Iraq was formed (along with many other current, middle eastern nations).
These mandates cut across many ethnic lines. Iraq’s ethnic breakdown is: 72% Arab, 23% Kurd (which mainly inhabit the north and the north-west of the country), and the remaining 5% is made up of Turkomans (of Turkish ancestry living in Northern and central Iraq), Assyrians (who inhabit Northern Iraq, north-western Iran, south-eastern Turkey and north-eastern Syria), Armenians (who are distributed across modern day Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Turkey, Egypt, and Iran), and other ethnic groups whose percentages are much smaller.
After the WWI, many Kurds believed that they would attain some sort of nation out of the mandate partitioning. This did not occur however, and the Kurds, who historically had been a warrior-based society in what is today Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey, came away from the mandate-creation process homeless, in a sense. For this reason, currently, many different countries shuffle the Kurds around. During the Persian Gulf war, there was an uprising of Kurds in northern Iraq. Saddam Hussein crushed the uprising so harshly (as has been reported by many American sources, with poison gas) that many Kurds attempted to cross the Iraqi border and flee to Turkey (Turkey did not want them either, consequently.)
All of these ethnic groups feel that they have a historic connection to the land (as well as the Arab majority). For this reason, wars and skirmishes break out in the Middle East so frequently due to the fact that people are all fighting for the same territory and the way the borders are drawn make getting over these territorial issues (which are issues of belonging) virtually impossible.
After all of the mandate dividing was complete and the oppressive borders had been drawn, Iraq was at first under British administration and was to become it’s own kingdom. Iraq remained under British rule with a English-created constitution and bicameral legislature along with puppet leadership in the form of King Faisal, a son of Sharif Husain from Mecca. [4] Decisions were slow in being made, however and so full independence was not gained until 1932,when the mandate was officially brought to an end. Britain still maintained control and a presence in the region; however, especially since the discovery of oil fields there in 1927. The Iraq Petroleum Company, which was a “… conglomerate of British, French and US interests…” [4] was granted special trade arrangements in the region and thereby obtained much wealth from exploitation of the area early on. King Faisan II took over after the death of King Faisan the first in 1933; however, the second king was overthrown by a succession of leftist coups that left the country in shambles. The Ba'athist Revolution of 1968 laid the foundation for the dictatorial regime of Saddam Hussein today. In this coup, the Arab Renaissance (or Ba'ath) Socialist Major General Ahmad Hassan al-Bakr named himself President and Prime Minister of Iraq, and he appointed as his deputy, Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein replaced Ahmed Hasan Al-Bakr in July 1979 after the ends of the socialist party were being put on the back burner by Saddam and some of his power hungry associates. The Iraq Petroleum Company had been nationalized [4] , and so many of the oil profits were available to the government. Hussein began spending these revenues increasingly on building palaces and other monuments of state. Hussein purged his political rivals and in this manner, has been able to maintain his “presidency” since 1979.
Saddam Hussein has had problems with many of his neighbors in the Middle Eastern region, including Iran and most recently, Kuwait. In 1990, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait (as some say in response to a now denied U.S. “go-ahead”) due to a disagreement he was having with the country’s leaders regarding the Rumalia oil field. This invasion sparked the Gulf War and what was known as “Desert Storm” in 1991. This short infraction is typical of the type of tension that has accumulated between the United States and Iraq over the last ten or so years. As a result of the invasion of Kuwait, “…under article 41 of the UN charter, the Security Council may call upon member states to apply measure not involving the use of armed force in order to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such measures are commonly referred to as sanctions.”[5] These sanctions that were placed upon Iraq include a trade embargo that only allows for the passage of medical supplies, food, etc. Also, the sanctions provide for weapons inspections to make sure that Iraq is telling the truth about not attempting to build up weapons of mass destruction.
This is where our current problems with Iraq and Saddam Hussein lie, currently. Our government, and this presidency especially, believes that Iraq is producing and hiding weapons of mass destruction and poses a great threat to us. For this reason, the Bush administration is threatening to go to war with Iraq. UN weapons inspectors have just gone into the country again and are checking to see if a war is warranted. [9] If weapons of mass destruction (such as chemical and biological weapons, as well as more standard weapons) are found, it is likely that some sort of military action will take place.
After this inspection of the history and current status of Iraq and its connections with the world and Middle East politics, it is important to look to the future. A future involving a plan for utilizing the Arab League in carrying out such policies as sanctioning, conducting weapons inspections, etc. for Iraq, as well as for any other Middle Eastern country that would need policing. The group could also uphold all of its previous tasks and simply amplify its importance by taking on a larger role in global politics. Founded in 1945, the main purpose of the Arab League was and is to strengthen the bonds between Middle Eastern nations. [8] In its current form, the Arab league has tremendous potential as a policy-making body for the region. Its representative nature is based on middle eastern population numbers (for example Egypt has the most representation because it is the most populated nation in the Arab League). The nations involved are: Algeria, Bahrain, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. [8]
As bodies like the UN or the EU come together on behalf of the Western world (or just Europe in the case of the EU), the Arab League could play a large role in “policing” the Middle East. Instead of Americans or the British stepping in if it is perceived that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, the Arab league should be able to address the problem on its own and deal with it. How could we be ensured this would happen?
First of all, none of the other countries in the region want Iraq or the US to get too large of a grip in the area, and so by putting the agency of policing in the hands of Middle Easterners, more effective and appropriate solutions could be formed. Also, a decision making body similar to this is kind of how Mesopotamian empires and the Ottoman Empire worked. In those times, there were no specific nations, rather a conglomeration of different people living under one blanket leadership. There were undoubtedly wars and disagreements between some differential groups, but the situation today (involving the middle eastern contempt for colonial and American intervention) with its many different nations in nonsensical geographical alignment necessitates a self-policing type of situation in order to lessen regional tension.
The only problem with a proposal like this would involve with how to keep graft and corruption out of the picture. Corruption occurs in all governments, but especially in areas of the world where the economy is tight, such as many places in the Middle East. How would this be ameliorated? By improving the economies of the Middle Eastern region—more specifically—by introducing trade other than oil production, these countries would take in more tax dollars, the leadership would be paid more and thus have more disposable income. As a result of this extra income and lessening of economic stress, bribes would be less necessary to live comfortably as a public servant. Hopefully, as a result of this, politics would become more based on actual laws and needs of the people and the Middle East as a whole.
I propose that in a similar way that the UN oil for food program takes money generated from oil revenues to subsidize food and medical supplies to be sent to Iraq [5], Saudi Arabia, with its huge oil shares, should provide the seed money for a package of economic development, from an oil loan. This money would be used to bring in industries to the area, aside from oil, where people could work and the government could make a good tax break off of the trade itself. The implementation of these industries would also allow a better economic situation for the majority of the people, increasing their lot in life and making them less susceptible to accepting and needing a dictatorial leadership hierarchy. With more economic self-reliance, the people in this region would have higher expectations and perhaps would demand more of their governments.
In essence, by giving decision making abilities to a more collective Mesopotamia/Middle East, in the form of a more powerful Arab League and a more democratically distributed base of economic power in the region, (and thus harkening back to times with fewer arbitrary borders) we could reorganize the area we know now only as the Iraq of Saddam Hussein, into a land with a political climate worthy of its past Mesopotamian and Ottoman glory.
References
1. <http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/aselj/hd_aselj.htm>
2. <http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/otto1/hd_otto1.htm>
3. <http://plasma.nationalgeographic.com/mapmachine/facts_fs.html?fips=IZ&dynMapId=362&mainURL=http://plasma.nationalgeographic.com/mapmachine/>
4. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/iraq/29099.stm>
5. <http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/>
6. <http://www.monterey.army.mil/atzp/ch/world/pdf/e1ethnic.pdf>
7. <http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html>
8. <http://faculty.winthrop.edu/haynese/mlas/al1.html>
9. <http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/06/international/middleeast/06IRAQ.html>
10. Mesopotamia [videorecording] : return to Eden. Time-Life Video and Television.
Alexandria, Va. : Time-Life Video and Television (distributor), 1995.
11. Goffman, Daniel. The Ottoman Empire and Early Modern Europe.
New York : Cambridge University Press, 2002.
12. Mackey, Sandra. The Reckoning : Iraq and the Legacy of Saddam Hussein. 1st ed. New York : Norton, 2002.
13. Malam, John. Mesopotamia and the fertile crescent, 10,000 to 539 B.C. Austin, Tex. : Raintree Steck-Vaughn, 1999.
14. Tripp, Charles. A History of Iraq. 2nd ed. New York : Cambridge University Press, 2002.
15. Zadok, Ran. The earliest diaspora : Israelites and Judeans in pre-Hellenistic Mesopotamia.Tel Aviv : Diaspora Research Institute, Tel Aviv University, 2002.