|
On the eve of the Great
War in 1914, the Arab provinces of the empire (including notably
Palestine) while still
nominal Ottoman rule, stood de facto under the joint suzerainty of
the
Porte and the European
powers, a result of the interplay between the financial tutelage and
the combination of the
millet policy and the Capitulations as they had evolved. There was
indeed a struggle
between the Young Turks, who were attempting to get rid of the
Capitulations altogether
( and who finally opted for war on Germany’s side in part because
France and Britain would
not hear of revoking them) and some Arabs of greater Syria, who
wanted to use their
millet status and the Capitulations to further their autonomy.
France and
Britain, to name only
those two powers, had specific ambitions with respect to the region,
before the outbreak of
war. In 1912, France was recognized (by Britain, not by Italy or
Russia) as the prime
protector of greater Syria (including Palestine and Lebanon), but
with
great reservations, as
was later to become manifest with the Balfour declaration.
Findley has made a
significant conceptual breakthrough with his characterization of the
late
Ottoman empire as
‘doubly imperial, that is to say, subject to the historical laws as
they
affect empire ( a
political entity composed of many sub-entities). It was doubly
imperial…
On the one hand, it
remained a formally independent, multinational empire. On the other
hand, it lost territory
to separatist nationalisms and to great-power imperialism, and it
slipped into economic
and political dependence. We have here been dealing with a
particular aspect of
that doubly imperial quality, or rather one of the various ways
through
which it can be grasped
historically. We have attempted to show unexpected results
relating to this doubly
imperial quality, were obtained through the particular effects of
historical processes.
The interaction between
sectarian policy and international politics in the late Ottoman
period demonstrates the
unexpected effects of particular causes, as well as the interaction
of diverse policy
elements in producing unanticipated results. The Capitulations were
initially agreed upon
under conditions where the Ottoman empire was dealing with its
European partners from a
position of strength; in later centuries, as the empire declined,
the treaties remained
and the Europeans did everything they could to interpret them in the
sense of increasing
their influence upon and control over various areas (port cities for
example) and communities
(Greeks, Jews, Armenians) in the empire, and thus over its
policies as a whole.
Patterns of the Past
Prospects for the Future
Edited by Thomas
Hummel, Kevork Hintlian and Ulf Carmesund |
