« 中東の政治的・宗教的潮流 » : différence entre les versions
| Ligne 133 : | Ligne 133 : | ||
こうして1970年代後半から1980年代初頭にかけて、アラブ政治は転換期を迎えた。統一勢力としての汎アラブ主義の影響力が低下し、国内政治と個々の国家の利益が増大したのである。キャンプ・デービッド合意は、エジプトとイスラエルの関係を再定義しただけでなく、地域の力学やアラブの統一に対する認識にも永続的な影響を与えた。こうした動きは、イデオロギー的な願望と政治的・地政学的現実とがしばしば衝突する中東政治の複雑さを反映している。汎アラブ主義からより現実的な国家政策への転換は、この地域における同盟関係と優先事項の性質の変化を物語っている。 | こうして1970年代後半から1980年代初頭にかけて、アラブ政治は転換期を迎えた。統一勢力としての汎アラブ主義の影響力が低下し、国内政治と個々の国家の利益が増大したのである。キャンプ・デービッド合意は、エジプトとイスラエルの関係を再定義しただけでなく、地域の力学やアラブの統一に対する認識にも永続的な影響を与えた。こうした動きは、イデオロギー的な願望と政治的・地政学的現実とがしばしば衝突する中東政治の複雑さを反映している。汎アラブ主義からより現実的な国家政策への転換は、この地域における同盟関係と優先事項の性質の変化を物語っている。 | ||
= | =アラブ諸国連盟（アラブ連盟）＝ | ||
=== | === アラブ協力の始まりと同盟の概念 == | ||
1944年、ファルーク国王の治世下にあったエジプトは、アラブ諸国間に何らかの協力や連合を確立することを目指した話し合いで主導的な役割を果たした。この時期は、1945年のアラブ連盟結成に先立ち、地域協力への取り組みにおいて重要な段階となった。当時、アラブの統一や協力に関するいくつかのアイデアやプロジェクトが議論されていた。重要なコンセプトのひとつが大シリアで、シリア、レバノン、ヨルダン、パレスチナの領土の統合を構想していた。この地域が共有する歴史と文化に根ざしたこの構想は、密接な関係を共有するこれらの民族をひとつにまとめる自然な方法だと見る向きもあった。 | |||
もうひとつの概念は、シリア、イラク、レバノン、ヨルダン、パレスチナを含む「肥沃な三日月地帯」というものだった。三日月地帯は歴史的に豊かで肥沃な地域であり、古代文明の発祥地と考えられていた。アラブ諸国の連合体または連盟を作るというアイデアも広まっていた。この提案は、アラブ諸国間の政治的、経済的、文化的協力のための正式な機構を確立し、共通の政策や利益をより効果的に調整できるようにすることを目的としていた。 | |||
=== アラブ連盟の成立と課題 === | |||
このような議論を経て、1945年にアラブ連盟が結成された。アラブ連盟は、加盟国間の協力を促進し、アラブの利益とアイデンティティを促進することを目的とした地域組織である。アラブ連盟の設立は中東の近代史において決定的な出来事であり、地域協力とアラブ統一の重要性が認識された象徴であった。これらのさまざまな提案は、当時のアラブ統一のアプローチやビジョンの多様性を反映している。また、ナセル主義やバース主義が台頭する以前から、アラブ諸国間の政治構造や地域同盟を確立しようとする努力がすでに進められていたことも示している。 | |||
1944年に調印されたアレクサンドリア議定書は、後のアラブ連盟の基礎を築いた。この重要な一歩は、アラブ諸国が地域協力のための機構を正式なものとするための協調的な努力を示したものであり、アラブ世界における団結と協力への熱望の高まりを反映したイニシアティブであった。1945年3月22日、アラブ連盟が正式に発足した。創設メンバーであるエジプト、イラク、ヨルダン（当時はトランスヨルダン）、レバノン、サウジアラビア、シリア、北イエメンは、アラブ世界の政治的、文化的、経済的多様性を幅広く代表していた。連盟の目的は、アラブ諸国の政治的、経済的、文化的、社会的利益を促進し、共通の関心分野での努力を調整することであった。 | |||
しかし、アラブ連盟の内部は複雑であった。重要な決定には加盟国のコンセンサスを必要とするその構造は、迅速かつ効果的な決定を下すことをしばしば困難にしていた。この困難は、加盟国の政治体制、イデオロギー的方向性、国益が非常に多様であったことによって、さらに悪化した。加えて、アラブ諸国は共通の文化的・歴史的アイデンティティを持っているにもかかわらず、経済的な統合はほとんど見られなかった。加盟国間の貿易は比較的限られており、経済は非アラブ諸国との関係を志向することが多かった。このような状況は、植民地時代から受け継いだ国境や経済構造、天然資源や産業発展の面での格差がもたらした課題を反映していた。このような課題にもかかわらず、アラブ連盟は国際舞台におけるアラブのアイデンティティの承認と確認に向けた重要な一歩となった。しかし、アラブ世界の複雑な政治的・経済的現実によって、その団結と協力という目標の達成はしばしば妨げられてきた。 | |||
=== 地域統一の試み： アラブ共和国連邦とマグレブ === | |||
1971年にアラブ共和国連邦を創設しようとした試みも、アラブ世界における統一と協力の強化に向けた努力の一例であるが、具体的な成果にはつながらなかった。エジプト、リビア、シリアの連合体を目指したこの構想は、1950年代以降、多くの地域政策の中心にあったアラブ統一の理想の追求を反映していた。しかし、大々的に発表されたにもかかわらず、アラブ共和国連邦は内部の不一致と加盟国間の実質的な調整不足に苦しんだ。イデオロギーの違い、国益の相違、指導者の強烈な個性が、意味のある政治的・経済的統合を妨げたのである。この経験は、このような多様な地域で政治的統合を実現する際の課題を浮き彫りにした。 | |||
マグレブでも、この地域の国家をひとつにまとめようとするさまざまな試みが失敗に終わっている。マグレブ諸国（モロッコ、アルジェリア、チュニジア、リビア、モーリタニア）は、文化的、歴史的なつながりを共有しているにもかかわらず、政治的な軌跡が異なっているため、緊密な地域協力関係を築くことが難しい。組織や組合を作ろうとしても、政治的な対立、イデオロギー的な方向性の違い、経済的な問題によって、しばしば妨げられてきた。 | |||
=== 湾岸協力会議と新たな地域ダイナミックス === | |||
1979年のイラン・イスラム革命後、湾岸諸国は新たな地域ダイナミズムに直面し、協議会の結成を試みた。この構想の目的は、イランの脅威が高まっていると認識される中で、政策を調整し、集団安全保障を強化することであった。しかし、今回も具体的な成果は限定的だった。湾岸協力会議（GCC）は1981年にサウジアラビア、クウェート、アラブ首長国連邦、カタール、バーレーン、オマーンを集めて結成されたが、特に外交・安全保障政策の面で独自の内部課題に直面してきた。 | |||
こうしたさまざまな試みは、政治的、経済的、イデオロギー的に深い溝があるこの地域における統一と協力の取り組みの複雑さを浮き彫りにしている。また、常に変化し続ける中東とマグレブという文脈における、地域のイニシアティブの限界も反映している。 | |||
=The pan-Islamic movement= | =The pan-Islamic movement= | ||
Version du 21 décembre 2023 à 16:24
魅惑的な複雑さと戦略的重要性を持つ中東地域は、古代文明の発祥地であり、世界有数の宗教が集まる場所でもある。エジプトからイラン、トルコからイエメンに至る国境によって定義されることが多いこの地理的地域は、文化、民族、信仰の坩堝であり、千年以上にわたって絡み合い、進化してきた。この多様性の中心では、政治的・宗教的潮流が中心的な役割を果たし、人々の日常生活だけでなく、国際関係や世界の地政学をも形作っている。
これらの潮流は歴史に深く根ざしており、帝国の興亡、征服、革命、改革運動といった出来事の影響を受けている。7世紀のイスラムの台頭から近代国家の形成まで、それぞれの歴史的時代がこの地域の政治的・宗教的構造に足跡を残してきた。今日、中東は伝統的な君主制国家、共和制国家、駆け出しの民主主義国家、権威主義政権が、イスラム教の多様な解釈やユダヤ教、キリスト教をはじめとする他の宗教的信仰と絡み合い、生きた絵画のような様相を呈している。
アラブ・ナショナリズム
アラブ・ナショナリズムの出現と基礎
アラブ・ナショナリズムは、中東の政治的・文化的歴史を大きく形成してきたイデオロギーであり、オスマン帝国とヨーロッパ帝国の支配を背景に20世紀初頭に登場した。このイデオロギーは、アラブ人は共通の歴史、文化、言語を共有する単一民族であり、政治的には単一組織、または文化的・民族的アイデンティティに対応する国境を持つ密接に結びついた組織で統一されるべきだという信念に基づいている。アラブ・ナショナリズムの起源は、アラブの知識人たちが自分たちのアイデンティティと将来について深く考察した文化的・知的刷新の時代、ナハダ（アラブ・ルネサンス）にまで遡ることができる。この時期は、特に第一次世界大戦後、オスマン帝国の崩壊とヨーロッパ列強の介入によって強まった政治的覚醒の基礎を築いた。
エジプトのガマル・アブデル・ナセルのような象徴的な人物は、アラブのナショナリズムを推進する上で重要な役割を果たした。特にナセルは、反帝国主義的なレトリックとアラブ統一の提唱によって、このイデオロギーの象徴となった。1956年のスエズ運河の国有化や、エジプトとシリアの政治同盟であるアラブ連合共和国（1958～1961年）の短期的な樹立における彼の役割は、アラブ民族主義の理想を実現しようとした具体的な例である。アラブ・ナショナリズムは、シリアとイラクにおけるバース党の出現が示すように、他のイデオロギー潮流、とりわけ社会主義や世俗主義の影響も受けていた。ミシェル・アフラックとサラ・アルディン・アル・ビターが創設したこの党は、アラブ世界の統一、自由、社会主義を提唱した。しかし、アラブ統一の夢は多くの障害に直面した。内部分裂、国益の相違、アラブ連合共和国などの統一プロジェクトの失敗が、アラブ・ナショナリズムを次第に弱体化させた。さらに、競合するイデオロギー運動、特にイスラム主義の台頭が、この地域の政治的重心を移動させた。
政治理論的には、アラブ・ナショナリズムは、民族解放運動におけるアイデンティティ構築と自決への願望の重要性を示している。また、民族、宗教、文化の多様性を特徴とする地域における汎ナショナリズム・イデオロギーが直面する課題も浮き彫りにしている。今日、アラブ・ナショナリズムは、1950年代から1960年代にかけてのような支配的勢力ではなくなったが、その遺産は中東の政治と文化に影響を与え続けている。アラブ・ナショナリズムは、この地域の現代史における重要な一章であり、現在の政治的・文化的ダイナミクスを理解する上で重要な要素であり続けている。
アラブ・ナショナリズムへの挑戦は、20世紀初頭のオスマン帝国崩壊から始まった。この出来事は、中東の政治状況を大きく塗り替えた。この時期、さまざまなイデオロギーやナショナリズム運動が出現したが、中でもバース主義とナセル主義は、アラブ・ナショナリズムの2つの顕著な解釈として際立っていた。バース党に象徴されるバース主義は、ミシェル・アフラックとサラ・アルディン・アル・ビターによってシリアで創設された。アラブの統一、自由、社会主義を強調し、アラブ・ナショナリズムへの草の根的なアプローチを代表するものであった。この運動は、伝統的な国境を越えた汎アラブのイデオロギーによって大衆を動員することを目指した。バース党はシリアだけでなくイラクでも大きな影響力を獲得し、サダム・フセインなどの指導者の下で政権を握った。一方、エジプト大統領ガマル・アブデル・ナセルにちなんで名づけられたナセル主義は、アラブ・ナショナリズムの「上からの」形態であり、政治的・組織的エリートを対象としたものであった。ナセルはカリスマ的な軍事指導者であり、アラブの統一、西側からの独立、経済・社会の発展を推進した。彼の最も象徴的な行動である1956年のスエズ運河の国有化は、西欧帝国主義に対する反抗行為とみなされ、アラブ世界における英雄的人物としての地位を強化した。
これら2つの運動は、アプローチは違えど、アラブの統一と植民地主義・帝国主義からの解放という共通の目標を掲げていた。しかし、その軌跡は内的・外的な課題によって特徴づけられた。ナセル主義は、その当初の魅力にもかかわらず、アラブ連合共和国の失敗と1967年の6日間戦争での敗北に苦しんだ。バース主義については、シリアとイラクでの最初の成功にもかかわらず、最終的には内部矛盾と地域紛争に直面した。これらの運動は、アラブ・ナショナリズムの多様性と複雑性を示しており、汎ナショナリズム・イデオロギーが直面する課題を浮き彫りにしている。その歴史的展開は、20世紀における中東の政治力学や、統一と解放の力としてのアラブ・ナショナリズムの限界と可能性について、貴重な洞察を与えてくれる。
== オスマン帝国の歴史的背景と変容＝＝ アラブ・ナショナリズムの発生は、それに先行し形成された長く複雑な歴史的背景を理解することなしには、十分に理解することはできない。この歴史において重要な役割を果たしているのは、以下の重要な出来事である。1517年のオスマン帝国によるエジプト征服、カイロ占領、1533年のバグダード占領は、アラブ世界の広大な地域に対するオスマン帝国の支配を強化した。これらの征服はオスマン帝国の支配を拡大しただけでなく、これらの地域に新しい行政、軍事、社会構造を導入した。何世紀もの間、これらの地域はオスマン帝国の一部でありながら、一定の文化的・言語的自治を維持し、アラブ独自のアイデンティティの基礎を築いた。1798年のナポレオン・ボナパルトのエジプト遠征も転機となった。このフランスの軍事介入は、エジプトだけでなくアラブ世界全体に大きな影響を与えた。近代ヨーロッパを前にしたオスマン帝国の軍事的、技術的弱点を露呈し、帝国の近代化を目指したタンジマートと呼ばれる内部改革のプロセスを引き起こした。この遠征はまた、ヨーロッパ列強のこの地域への関心の高まりの始まりでもあり、外国からの影響と介入の時代への道を開いた。
こうした背景から、1916年のアラブの反乱は、アラブのナショナリズム台頭の決定的瞬間と見なされることが多い。第一次世界大戦中、オスマン帝国を弱体化させるためにイギリスから奨励されたこの反乱は、メッカのチェリフ・フセインやその息子ファイサルといった人物に率いられ、独立への願望と独立したアラブ国家の約束が動機となっていた。反乱の結果は、1916年のサイクス・ピコ協定によってフランスとイギリスの勢力圏に分割されたこともあり、こうした願望を十分に満たすものではなかったが、それでも近代アラブ・ナショナリズムの基礎を築いた。これらの歴史的出来事はアラブ人の政治意識を形成し、自治と自決への熱望を呼び覚ました。また、地元の願望と外国からの干渉の間の緊張を浮き彫りにした。このテーマは、現代の中東政治にも依然として関連している。
1908年の青年トルコ革命と1909年の権威主義的な政権奪取は、アラブ・ナショナリズムの出現に決定的な影響を与えた。当初はオスマン帝国の近代化と改革を目指していたこの運動は、権威主義と排他的なトルコ・ナショナリズムへと急速に発展し、トルコのエリートと帝国内のさまざまな民族、特にアラブ人との間の緊張を悪化させた。青年トルコ人の権威主義的な転向は、1915年のアルメニア人虐殺という悲劇的な出来事によって顕在化した。この出来事は、恐ろしい人間的悲劇であっただけでなく、帝国内の他の民族や国家集団に対する警鐘となった。トルコ語やトルコ文化を帝国制度の中心的要素として押し付けることを目的としたトルコ化政策は、アラブ共同体のアイデンティティや自治に対する直接的な脅威と見なされた。このような背景から、西洋の思想の影響を受け、自らの文化的・政治的アイデンティティを守る必要性を認識していた多くのアラブ知識人が、抵抗運動を組織し始めた。1913年にパリで開催された第1回アラブ総会は、このプロセスにおける重要な瞬間だった。この会議にはアラブ各地から代表が集まり、オスマン帝国内のアラブ人の将来について議論し、より大きな自治を求める要求をまとめた。
この文脈におけるエジプトの特別な立場に注目することは興味深い。パリ会議のエジプト代表団はオブザーバーとして参加し、当時の政治状況において自らを必ずしも「アラブ人」とは見なさないエジプトのアイデンティティを反映した。このような区別は、文化的・歴史的な理由（エジプトには長い歴史があり、他のアラブ地域とは異なる文明的アイデンティティがあった）によるところもあれば、当時イギリスの支配下にあったエジプトの政治的状況によるところもあった。この時代の歴史は、アラブのナショナリズムが形成される過程の複雑さを示しており、アラブ世界におけるさまざまな影響や政治的・文化的軌跡の違いを浮き彫りにしている。また、オスマン帝国内部の力学やヨーロッパ列強の介入と影響が、この地域のアイデンティティと政治運動の形成に決定的な役割を果たしたことも示している。
第一次世界大戦とサイクス・ピコ協定による影響
第一次世界大戦中、アラブ人は文化的、歴史的につながっていたものの、地理的、政治的に分断されていた。この分断は、1916年のサイクス・ピコ協定によってさらに悪化した。サイクス・ピコ協定は、ヨーロッパ列強（主にフランスとイギリス）が中東における勢力地域を分担し、民族的・文化的現実を考慮することなく国境線を引き直したものであった。さらに1917年のバルフォア宣言は、パレスチナに「ユダヤ人の民族的故郷」を建設することを約束し、この地域に新たな複雑さと緊張をもたらした。汎アラブ主義は、このような分断を背景に、統一イデオロギーとして人気を博した。それは、アラブ人は民族として植民地の国境を越え、自治と繁栄を達成するために団結しなければならないという思いが原動力となった。この考えは、第二次世界大戦中、英仏連合国に対抗してこの地域に影響を与えようとしたナチスのプロパガンダや、アラブの知識人たちがヨーロッパで民族主義や反植民地主義の思想に触れたことによって、さらに強まった。
しかし、汎アラブ主義の夢は多くの困難に直面した。各国の政治的野心と現実、アラブ世界内の文化的・宗教的相違、地域的・国際的大国の利害の対立がアラブの団結を妨げた。1961年のエジプトとシリアのアラブ連合共和国の解散など、顕著な失敗は汎アラブの理想の限界を示すものであった。汎アラブ主義の失敗は、この地域にイデオロギーの空白を残し、その空白はイスラム主義によって徐々に埋められていった。イスラムの原理に従って社会を組織しようとするこの運動は、世俗的・民族主義的イデオロギーへの幻滅の高まりを背景に台頭した。その後数十年間は、さまざまなイスラム主義運動が台頭し、宗教と伝統に基づくオルタナティブを提案することで、幻滅感とアイデンティティの模索を利用した。
汎アラブ運動
最初の約束と欺瞞： シェリフ・フセインの同盟とイギリス委任統治
メッカのシェリフ・フセインのような著名人は、地元の指導者として、またアラブ住民と植民地勢力との仲介者として重要な役割を果たした。フセインの場合、イスラム聖地の守護者という立場から、宗教的・政治的に大きな権限を与えられていた。第一次世界大戦中、彼はオスマン帝国に対する援助の見返りとして、戦後のアラブ独立王国樹立への支援を約束されたことを動機として、イギリスとの同盟を求めた。この同盟は、地域の利益と外国勢力の野望の間を取り持とうとした、この地域の伝統的な名士たちの戦略を象徴するものである。しかし、フセイン・マクマホン書簡として知られる、イギリスがフセインにした約束は曖昧で、最終的にはイギリスがした他の約束、特にサイクス・ピコ協定やバルフォア宣言と矛盾することが判明した。
こうした外交交渉の結果は、アラブの願望にとって大きな失望となった。戦後、国際連盟は約束された独立の代わりに、この地域にいくつかの委任統治領を設け、イギリスとフランスの統治下に置いた。フセインが描いていたアラブ統一王国構想は崩壊し、この地域はいくつかの国家に分割されたが、その多くは民族的・文化的現実を反映しない人工的な国境線を引いていた。この時期、アラブ人の間では裏切られたという感覚と幻滅が高まり、独立と統一への希望が消え去った。この失望が欧米列強への不満の礎となり、その後の数十年間、民族主義運動や反植民地運動を煽った。フセインの姿と、アラブの独立王国を作ろうとして失敗した彼の試みは、自決を求めるアラブの闘争と、20世紀初頭の中東と西欧列強の複雑な関係の強力な象徴であり続けている。
アラブ民族主義の理論家と指導者の登場
第一次世界大戦末期、メッカのシェリフ・フセインの息子の一人であるファイサルという人物が、アラブ民族主義形成の中心人物として登場した。オスマン帝国に対するアラブの反乱で主導的な役割を果たしたファイサルは、自決を求めるアラブの願望の象徴となった。彼の仲間であり助言者であったサティ・アル・フスリは、アラブ・ナショナリズムの理論化に大きな影響を与えた。後に教育大臣となったサティ・アル・フスリは、アラブ・ナショナリズムの最初の主要な理論家とみなされることが多い。彼のアプローチは、言語的・文化的側面をナショナル・アイデンティティの基盤として強調するドイツの国家概念に強い影響を受けていた。アル・フスリにとって、アラビア語はアラブのアイデンティティの中心的要素であり、アラブ世界における宗教、地域、部族の違いを超えた絆であった。
国民的アイデンティティの定義要素として言語と文化に焦点を当てたのは、アラブ世界の多様性がもたらす課題への対応という側面もあった。こうした共通の要素を強調することで、アル・フスリは個人の違いにかかわらず、アラブ人の間に一体感と連帯感を生み出そうとした。彼のアプローチは、その後数十年間のアラブ・ナショナリズムのイデオロギーの形成に役立ち、いくつかのアラブ諸国の教育・文化政策に影響を与えた。戦後は、ファイサルのような人物の努力とアル・フスリの理論によって、アラブ・ナショナリズムが結晶化する重要な時期であった。アラブ統一への願望は戦後の政治的現実と国際協定によって阻まれたが、言語と文化に基づくアラブ共通のアイデンティティという考え方は、中東の政治と社会に大きな影響を与え続けた。
戦間期のアラブ・ナショナリズム：裏切りと外部からの影響
戦間期はアラブ・ナショナリズムの発展にとって重要な時期であり、第一次世界大戦中にアラブ人と交わされた約束が履行されなかったことが大きく影響している。中東をフランスとイギリスの間で秘密裏に分割した1916年のサイクス＝ピコ協定は、独立と自決を求めるアラブの願望を裏切った象徴となった。戦後に明らかになったこれらの協定は、アラブの西欧列強に対する信頼を大きく損ない、不信感と憤りを煽った。
こうした背景の中、アラブ・ナショナリズムの台頭を加速させた要因もあった。ファシストとナチスのプロパガンダは、特に英仏の植民地主義への反発を共有するアラブ社会の一部と共鳴した。ナチス政権はこの地域での影響力を拡大しようと、アラブの植民地支配に対する不満を利用した。これは1941年のバグダッドにおける親ナチ派クーデター、通称ラシッド・アリ・アル・ギラニ・クーデターで頂点に達し、イラクに親ドイツ政権が一時樹立されたが、イギリス軍によって倒された。同時に、アラブの独立に関する議論は激しさを増し続けた。アラブ世界の知識人、政治家、オピニオンリーダーは、政治的自治を実現し、外国の影響力に抵抗する方法を活発に議論した。この時期、いくつかの民族主義運動が勃興し、この地域の植民地支配後の歴史において主要な役割を果たすことになる政党が結成された。戦間期は、中東にとって激しい政治的変革の時期であった。第一次世界大戦中の約束の不履行、ファシストやナチスのイデオロギーの影響、独立をめぐる内輪の議論などが相まって、この地域の政治的景観が形成され、その後の数十年にわたる出来事や運動の基礎が築かれた。
バース主義運動
バース主義の起源と背景： アレクサンドレット・サンジャークの併合
1939年にトルコがアレクサンドレット・サンジャクを併合したことは、中東の現代史において重要な役割を果たすことになる政治運動、バアティズムの出現の重要なきっかけとなった出来事である。
現代シリアの北西部に位置するアレクサンドレットのサンドジャックは、当時シリアの委任統治国であったフランスとの合意に基づき、トルコに併合された。この併合はアラブ人にとって屈辱的な領土喪失と受け止められ、この地域の民族主義的感情を悪化させた。多くの人々にとって、外国や地域の大国の利害に対するアラブ諸国の脆弱性を示すものだった。このようなフラストレーションと抵抗への欲求の中で、バース主義、すなわち「アラブの復活」が形作られた。シリアの知識人であったミシェル・アフラックとサラ・アル＝ディン・アル＝ビターによって創設されたバース党は、アラブ民族主義、社会主義、世俗主義に基づくイデオロギーを推進した。バース党は、アラブ世界を統一し、経済と社会の発展を促進し、帝国主義と植民地主義に抵抗することを目指した。
そのため、アレクサンドレットのサンドジャック併合は、アラブ諸国が直面する課題に対応しようとするこのイデオロギーを発展させるきっかけとなった。このイデオロギーは、アラブ諸国が直面する課題に対応しようとするものであった。このイデオロギーは、この地域における外国の影響や介入に対抗するためには、集団行動とアラブの団結が必要であるという思いを強めた。政治的、イデオロギー的な力としてのバース主義は、その後、シリアやイラクをはじめとするアラブ諸国の政治で中心的な役割を果たした。この運動は長年にわたって発展し、多くの困難に直面してきたが、1940年代の出現はアラブ民族主義の歴史における重要な瞬間であり、中東の政治に影響を与え続けている。
バース党の創設と理念： 1947年の第一回大会
1947年に開催された第一回バース党大会は、運動のイデオロギーと目的を定義する上で重要な役割を果たした。この大会は、統一、独立、アラブ社会主義という3つの基本的柱に基づく、アラブ世界の将来に対するバース党のビジョンの結晶化において重要な段階となった。統一の強調は、既成の植民地や国境を越えて、統一されたアラブ国家やアラブ国家連合を創設しようという熱望を反映したものであった。この領土統一の思想はアラブ民族主義に根ざしたもので、この地域における欧米列強や地域列強の影響力に対抗することを目的としていた。
独立はもう一つの柱であり、アラブ諸国が完全な政治的・経済的自治を達成する必要性を強調していた。これには植民地主義からの解放だけでなく、独立した政治的・経済的構造とシステムの発展が必要だった。バース党が提唱したアラブ社会主義は、アラブ社会の近代化と改革を目指した。それはソビエト社会主義のコピーではなく、社会主義の原則をアラブの現実とニーズに適応させたもので、土地改革、工業化、社会正義に重点を置いていた。
これら3つの柱に加え、バース党は世俗的で非宗教的なアプローチを特徴としていた。この世俗的志向は、宗教や宗派の多様性が顕著なこの地域では重要だった。バース党は、すべての宗教的・民族的コミュニティがアラブの国民的アイデンティティに同化し、宗派の違いを超えた統一社会をつくるべきだという考えを推進した。最後に、反シオニズムは党のイデオロギーの重要な要素であった。この立場は、シオニスト運動とイスラエル建国への反対を反映したもので、植民地的入植であり、アラブ世界の統一と自治の願望に対する脅威であると認識されていた。こうしてバース党の第1回大会は、その後数十年にわたって中東政治に大きな影響を与えることになる運動の輪郭を決定づけた。その遺産は、複雑で時に物議を醸しながらも、この地域の政治と社会に影響を与え続けている。
ミシェル・アフラックとバース主義イデオロギーの形成
ミシェル・アフラックは1910年にダマスカスで生まれ、バース党の創設と発展の中心人物であった。ギリシャ正教の家庭に生まれたアフラックは、バース党運動を特徴づけるアラブ民族主義的、世俗的な思想の形成に決定的な役割を果たした。1943年、アフラクはサラ・アルディン・アル・ビターや他の知識人たちとともにバース党を結成した。この党は、アラブ世界における民族主義的覚醒の中で、植民地主義や地域内の分裂がもたらした課題に対応するために創設された。
アフラックはバース党の事務総長を務め、そのイデオロギーと政治的方向性に強い影響を与えた。彼のアラブ民族主義のビジョンは、宗教的、宗派的分裂を超越した包括的なものであり、それは彼自身のアラブ・クリスチャンとしての経歴にも反映されていた。彼は、アラブ社会を近代化し、外国の影響に抵抗する手段として、アラブの統一、社会進歩、世俗主義の必要性を固く信じていた。彼の指導の下、バース党はイラクを含むいくつかのアラブ諸国に支部を設立しようとした。バース党の理念は、特に第二次世界大戦後、この地域におけるナショナリズムの台頭と植民地勢力に対する独立闘争の中で影響力を持つようになった。しかし、バース党に対するアフラックのビジョンとアラブ民族主義に対する彼の解釈は、特に同党が政権を握ったシリアとイラクにおいて、様々な解釈と適応の対象となった。イラクでは、特にサダム・フセインのもとで、バース党は明らかに権威主義的な方向に進み、アフラクが推進した当初の原則の一部から離れていった。人生の大半をバース運動に費やし、アラブの統一を推進したミシェル・アフラックは、1989年に死去した。アラブ政治思想への彼の貢献は、中東の歴史的・現代的文脈における研究・議論の重要な対象であり続けている。
アラブ世界におけるバアス主義の変遷と各国における権力との結びつきを見ると、改革と進歩の複雑な歴史が明らかになるが、同時に対立と抑圧の歴史でもあった。ミシェル・アフラックとその仲間たちによって創設されたバース党は、アラブ各国に国家部門を設立しようとした。アラブの統一、社会主義、世俗主義を中心とするバース党のイデオロギーは、特に反植民地闘争と近代化と独立への願望が顕著だった1950年代から1960年代にかけて、これらの国々の多くで共鳴を呼んだ。たとえばシリアとイラクでは、それぞれ1963年と1968年にバース党が政権を握った。これらのバース党政権は、特に教育、産業、農業において、経済の近代化と格差の是正を目的とした数多くの改革に着手した。また、世俗主義を推進し、国政における宗教の影響力を弱めようとしたが、これはこの地域の多くの国々の政治的伝統を打ち破るものであった。
しかし、バアスの台頭は暴力と抑圧を伴うものでもあった。イラクでは、サダム・フセインの指導の下、バース党政権は権威主義的政策、反体制派への弾圧、イラン・イラク戦争（1980-1988）や1990年のクウェート侵攻といった内外の紛争によって特徴づけられた。シリアでは、ハーフェズ・アル＝アサド政権とその息子のバッシャール・アル＝アサド政権が、権力の強力な中央集権化、社会の厳重な監視、反体制派の弾圧を特徴としていた。イデオロギーとして、また権力の実践としてのバアス主義のこの複雑な歴史は、民族的、宗教的、政治的多様性の中で民族主義的、社会主義的理想を実現することの難しさを示している。バース主義政権は、一方では支配した国に大きな変化と改革をもたらしたが、他方では支配を維持するために暴力と抑圧に訴えることも多く、中東の近年の歴史に大きな影響を与えた分裂と紛争を引き起こした。
アラブ連合共和国の失敗とその波紋
1958年のアラブ連合共和国（UAR）建国は、アラブ民族主義、特にバース主義運動の歴史において重要な出来事であった。この野心的なプロジェクトは、バース主義イデオロギーの中心原理であるアラブ統一の理想を具体化することを目的としていた。RAUはエジプトとシリアの政治同盟であった。アラブ民族主義の中心人物であったエジプトのガマル・アブデル・ナセル大統領に大きな影響を受け、推進された。ナセルはバース党の党員ではなかったが、特にアラブの統一、社会主義、帝国主義への抵抗という点で、その目的の多くを共有していた。
この連合は、この地域の多くの民族主義者が長い間夢見てきた、より大きなアラブ統一への第一歩と見なされた。アラブ世界が政治的、経済的に団結し、地域的、世界的に大きな勢力を形成することを熱望する人々の間に、大きな熱意と希望が生まれた。しかし、アラブ連合共和国は短命に終わった。建国からわずか3年後の1961年、アラブ連合はさまざまな要因によって崩壊した。エジプトとシリアの政治的・経済的な相違、エジプトへの中央集権化、エジプトの支配に対するシリアの不満の高まり、これらすべてが連合解消の原因となった。RAUの失敗はアラブ統一運動にとって痛手であり、このような多様な地域でこのような連合を実現することに内在する課題を示すものだった。その失敗にもかかわらず、RAUはアラブ民族主義の歴史における重要な一章であり、アラブ世界における政治的統一の試みの重要な例として研究され続けている。
シリアの改革と抑圧 シリアにおける改革と抑圧
1963年3月にシリアでバース党が政権を握ったことは、同国とバース主義運動全体の政治史における重要な転換点となった。この政権奪取は軍事クーデターによって達成され、地域政治勢力としてのバアスの台頭を反映していた。バース党の指導の下、シリアはアラブ民族主義、社会主義、世俗主義の理想に沿った一連の急進的な改革を行った。これらの改革には、産業の国有化、土地改革、教育とインフラの近代化などが含まれた。その目的は、シリアを近代的で社会主義的な統一国家に変貌させ、過去の政治・経済構造を打破することだった。しかし、シリアのバース主義政権は、権力の中央集権化と政治的抑圧の強化によっても特徴づけられた。この時期は、シーア派の一派であるアラウィー派に支配された少数のエリートに権力が集中した。このような少数宗派内での権力の集中は、宗派間の緊張とシリア政治のある種の宗派化をもたらした。
コンフェッショナリズム化、すなわち政治における宗教的・宗派的アイデンティティの重要性の増大は、バアスの世俗的イデオロギーとは相反するものだった。しかし、それはシリアの統治の特徴となっており、内部分裂と不安定化の一因となっている。この力学は、公式には世俗的でありながら、時には特定の信仰集団を他より優遇するバース党の政策によって悪化し、シリア国民のさまざまな層の疎外感と不満につながった。バース党がシリアの政権を握った経験は、社会・経済改革における初期の成功と、その後の失敗、特に宗派統治と政治的抑圧の面で、シリアの発展に大きな影響を与え、シリアの政治と社会に影響を与え続けている。
ナセリズム運動
ナセル主義の基礎と志向
ナセル主義はアラブの政治イデオロギーであり、その名はエジプトのガマル・アブデル・ナセル大統領に由来する。このイデオロギーの特徴は、アラブの統一を追求し、アラブ諸国の完全な独立を熱望し、アラブの状況に適応した形の社会主義に関心を寄せていることである。
ナセルはカリスマ的存在であり、影響力のある指導者として、政策や演説を通じてナセリズムを体現し、広めた。このイデオロギーの最も顕著な実践例のひとつが、1956年のスエズ運河の国有化である。この行為は、この地域における欧米の利益に挑戦しただけでなく、アラブ諸国の主権と自決の要求を象徴するものだった。この決定は国際的な危機を招き、結果的にナセルは西側帝国主義に対抗するアラブ独立の擁護者としての地位を強化した。ナセル主義はまた、アラブ諸国間の団結を強化することも目指した。アラブ諸国は、その違いにもかかわらず、歴史、言語、願望を共有しているという前提に立っていた。このビジョンは、1958年のエジプトとシリアの政治的連合体であるアラブ連合共和国の成立によって、短期間ではあったが実現した。この連合は1961年に失敗に終わったが、アラブ世界をひとつの旗の下にまとめようとしたナセルの努力の歴史的な例として残っている。
ナセル主義の影響と改革
経済・社会面では、ナセル主義は一連の社会主義改革をもたらした。ナセルは、富の再分配と格差の是正を目的とした国有化と農地改革のプログラムを開始した。これらの措置は、ソ連の社会主義とは異なるものの、社会主義の原則をアラブの現実に適応させたいという願望を反映したものであり、経済的自立と社会正義に重点が置かれていた。理論的な観点からは、ナセル主義は従属理論とポストコロニアル・ナショナリズムのプリズムを通して解釈することができる。植民地支配と新植民地支配への対応として、ナセリズムはアラブ諸国の独立した発展と解放の道を確立しようとした。このアプローチは、経済的・政治的依存の束縛を解き、明確な国民的・地域的アイデンティティを形成したいという願望を反映したものであった。
ナセリズムはバース主義とは異なり、主にガマル・アブデル・ナセルがエジプトで権力を握った後に発展し、結晶化したイデオロギーである。この特徴は、アラブの政治状況における2つのイデオロギーの軌跡の根本的な違いを示している。ミシェル・アフラクとサラ・アルディン・アル・ビターによって創始されたバース主義は、バース党がシリアとイラクで権力を握る前に、すでに政治イデオロギーとして確立していた。この運動は、アラブ統一、社会主義、世俗主義に関する確固たる理論的基礎と明確な目標を、支配的な政治的プレーヤーとなるはるか以前から確立していた。一方、ナセリズムは、エジプトの指導者としてのナセルの台頭と行動に直接結びついた一連の思想と実践として登場した。ナセルはもともと伝統的な意味でのイデオローグではなく、彼の思想と政策は彼の治世の間に形成され、洗練されていった。1952年、ナセルも主要メンバーであった自由将校運動によってエジプト王政が転覆された後、彼はエジプトとアラブ世界に対するビジョンを徐々に打ち出し、それは後にナセリズムとして知られるようになる。このビジョンは、スエズ運河の国有化やアラブ統一の推進といった行為に具体化され、ナセル主義の定義づけにおいて決定的な瞬間となった。さらに、ナセルがエジプトで行った土地改革や産業の国有化などの社会経済改革は、彼のイデオロギー主義を反映したものであった。
ナセル主義、バース主義、アラブ連合共和国
1958年のアラブ連合共和国（UAR）の建国は、ナセル主義思想の最も重要な現れであった。エジプトとシリアを統合したこの連合は、ガマル・アブデル・ナセルが彼のイデオロギーの中心的柱の一つであるアラブ統一を達成したいという野心に突き動かされたものであった。ナセルのRAU構想は単なる政治的同盟にとどまらず、この地域の発展とパワーの原動力として機能する政治的・経済的な統一体の創設を目指していた。ナセルにとってRAUは、アラブ諸国が植民地時代や歴史的な国境を越えて、より大きく強固な連合体を形成するという汎アラブの夢の実現に向けた一歩であった。しかし実際には、UARは多くの難題に直面した。最も物議を醸したのは、特にシリアにおいて、この連合が一種のエジプト支配につながるという認識が広まったことである。理論的には、RAUは対等な連合であるはずだったが、実際には、エジプト、特にナセルがシリアの政治を支配し、影響を及ぼそうとしていると受け止められることが多かった。この認識は、カイロに権力が集中し、シリアの政治的声が疎外されたことによって悪化した。
シリアはRAUの枠組みの中で、対等なパートナーではなくエジプトの属国とみなされることが多かった。このような動きは、多くの政治家や市民がエジプトから疎外され、支配されていると感じているシリアで、不満が高まる一因となった。このような状況は、最終的に1961年にシリアが脱退してRAUが解散するに至った。RAUは、その短期間の存続にもかかわらず、アラブ・ナショナリズムとナセル主義思想の歴史における重要な章として残っている。RAUは、アラブ統一への願望と、政治的、文化的、社会的な多様性を特徴とする地域におけるこの理念の実現に伴う課題を象徴している。RAUの経験はまた、アラブ統一に対するナセルの中央集権的で独裁的なアプローチの限界を浮き彫りにした。
地域的・世界的文脈におけるナセル主義
1979年にエジプトとイスラエルの間で調印されたキャンプ・デービッド合意は、中東史における大きな転換点であり、汎アラブ主義の時代の終焉を示すものとしてしばしば引用される。エジプトとイスラエルの和平条約につながったこの合意は、多くのアラブ諸国から、汎アラブ主義とアラブ連帯の原則を裏切るものと見なされた。汎アラブ主義は、政治的・思想的運動として、外国の影響や介入、特にアラブの地における植民地支配とみなされていたイスラエルに対するアラブの団結という理念を長い間推進してきた。エジプトのアンワル・サダト大統領が交渉し署名したキャンプ・デービッド合意は、エジプトとイスラエルの間に公式な外交関係と相互承認を確立することで、このような考え方を打ち破った。
この協定の調印は大きな反響を呼んだ。アラブ世界の歴史的指導者の一人であり、ナセル政権下で汎アラブ主義を熱烈に支持したエジプトは、アラブ世界で孤立した。イスラエルとの関係正常化を受け、アラブ連盟はエジプトの加盟を停止し、本部をカイロから移転させた。この排除は、エジプトの一方的な決定に対する他のアラブ諸国の深い不満と不支持を象徴するものだった。
こうして1970年代後半から1980年代初頭にかけて、アラブ政治は転換期を迎えた。統一勢力としての汎アラブ主義の影響力が低下し、国内政治と個々の国家の利益が増大したのである。キャンプ・デービッド合意は、エジプトとイスラエルの関係を再定義しただけでなく、地域の力学やアラブの統一に対する認識にも永続的な影響を与えた。こうした動きは、イデオロギー的な願望と政治的・地政学的現実とがしばしば衝突する中東政治の複雑さを反映している。汎アラブ主義からより現実的な国家政策への転換は、この地域における同盟関係と優先事項の性質の変化を物語っている。
=アラブ諸国連盟（アラブ連盟）＝
= アラブ協力の始まりと同盟の概念
1944年、ファルーク国王の治世下にあったエジプトは、アラブ諸国間に何らかの協力や連合を確立することを目指した話し合いで主導的な役割を果たした。この時期は、1945年のアラブ連盟結成に先立ち、地域協力への取り組みにおいて重要な段階となった。当時、アラブの統一や協力に関するいくつかのアイデアやプロジェクトが議論されていた。重要なコンセプトのひとつが大シリアで、シリア、レバノン、ヨルダン、パレスチナの領土の統合を構想していた。この地域が共有する歴史と文化に根ざしたこの構想は、密接な関係を共有するこれらの民族をひとつにまとめる自然な方法だと見る向きもあった。
もうひとつの概念は、シリア、イラク、レバノン、ヨルダン、パレスチナを含む「肥沃な三日月地帯」というものだった。三日月地帯は歴史的に豊かで肥沃な地域であり、古代文明の発祥地と考えられていた。アラブ諸国の連合体または連盟を作るというアイデアも広まっていた。この提案は、アラブ諸国間の政治的、経済的、文化的協力のための正式な機構を確立し、共通の政策や利益をより効果的に調整できるようにすることを目的としていた。
アラブ連盟の成立と課題
このような議論を経て、1945年にアラブ連盟が結成された。アラブ連盟は、加盟国間の協力を促進し、アラブの利益とアイデンティティを促進することを目的とした地域組織である。アラブ連盟の設立は中東の近代史において決定的な出来事であり、地域協力とアラブ統一の重要性が認識された象徴であった。これらのさまざまな提案は、当時のアラブ統一のアプローチやビジョンの多様性を反映している。また、ナセル主義やバース主義が台頭する以前から、アラブ諸国間の政治構造や地域同盟を確立しようとする努力がすでに進められていたことも示している。
1944年に調印されたアレクサンドリア議定書は、後のアラブ連盟の基礎を築いた。この重要な一歩は、アラブ諸国が地域協力のための機構を正式なものとするための協調的な努力を示したものであり、アラブ世界における団結と協力への熱望の高まりを反映したイニシアティブであった。1945年3月22日、アラブ連盟が正式に発足した。創設メンバーであるエジプト、イラク、ヨルダン（当時はトランスヨルダン）、レバノン、サウジアラビア、シリア、北イエメンは、アラブ世界の政治的、文化的、経済的多様性を幅広く代表していた。連盟の目的は、アラブ諸国の政治的、経済的、文化的、社会的利益を促進し、共通の関心分野での努力を調整することであった。
しかし、アラブ連盟の内部は複雑であった。重要な決定には加盟国のコンセンサスを必要とするその構造は、迅速かつ効果的な決定を下すことをしばしば困難にしていた。この困難は、加盟国の政治体制、イデオロギー的方向性、国益が非常に多様であったことによって、さらに悪化した。加えて、アラブ諸国は共通の文化的・歴史的アイデンティティを持っているにもかかわらず、経済的な統合はほとんど見られなかった。加盟国間の貿易は比較的限られており、経済は非アラブ諸国との関係を志向することが多かった。このような状況は、植民地時代から受け継いだ国境や経済構造、天然資源や産業発展の面での格差がもたらした課題を反映していた。このような課題にもかかわらず、アラブ連盟は国際舞台におけるアラブのアイデンティティの承認と確認に向けた重要な一歩となった。しかし、アラブ世界の複雑な政治的・経済的現実によって、その団結と協力という目標の達成はしばしば妨げられてきた。
地域統一の試み： アラブ共和国連邦とマグレブ
1971年にアラブ共和国連邦を創設しようとした試みも、アラブ世界における統一と協力の強化に向けた努力の一例であるが、具体的な成果にはつながらなかった。エジプト、リビア、シリアの連合体を目指したこの構想は、1950年代以降、多くの地域政策の中心にあったアラブ統一の理想の追求を反映していた。しかし、大々的に発表されたにもかかわらず、アラブ共和国連邦は内部の不一致と加盟国間の実質的な調整不足に苦しんだ。イデオロギーの違い、国益の相違、指導者の強烈な個性が、意味のある政治的・経済的統合を妨げたのである。この経験は、このような多様な地域で政治的統合を実現する際の課題を浮き彫りにした。
マグレブでも、この地域の国家をひとつにまとめようとするさまざまな試みが失敗に終わっている。マグレブ諸国（モロッコ、アルジェリア、チュニジア、リビア、モーリタニア）は、文化的、歴史的なつながりを共有しているにもかかわらず、政治的な軌跡が異なっているため、緊密な地域協力関係を築くことが難しい。組織や組合を作ろうとしても、政治的な対立、イデオロギー的な方向性の違い、経済的な問題によって、しばしば妨げられてきた。
湾岸協力会議と新たな地域ダイナミックス
1979年のイラン・イスラム革命後、湾岸諸国は新たな地域ダイナミズムに直面し、協議会の結成を試みた。この構想の目的は、イランの脅威が高まっていると認識される中で、政策を調整し、集団安全保障を強化することであった。しかし、今回も具体的な成果は限定的だった。湾岸協力会議（GCC）は1981年にサウジアラビア、クウェート、アラブ首長国連邦、カタール、バーレーン、オマーンを集めて結成されたが、特に外交・安全保障政策の面で独自の内部課題に直面してきた。
こうしたさまざまな試みは、政治的、経済的、イデオロギー的に深い溝があるこの地域における統一と協力の取り組みの複雑さを浮き彫りにしている。また、常に変化し続ける中東とマグレブという文脈における、地域のイニシアティブの限界も反映している。
The pan-Islamic movement
The Wahhabism
Wahhabism, a religious doctrine and a form of Islamic movement, has had a significant influence in certain regions of the Arab world, but its link with Arabism or Arab nationalism is complex and needs to be clarified.
Wahhabism, founded by Mohammed ibn Abd al-Wahhab in the 18th century in the Arabian Peninsula, advocates a strict and puritanical interpretation of Islam. It focuses on a return to the practices of the "salaf" or first generations of Muslims, considered to be models of piety and Islamic practice. This approach insists on strict adherence to sharia (Islamic law) and rejects innovations (bid'ah) in religious practice. However, the link between Wahhabism and Arabism or Arab nationalism is indirect. Arab nationalism, as a political and ideological movement, emphasises the unity and independence of Arabs as a people, often focusing on common cultural, linguistic and historical aspects. Although Wahhabism is an influential force in the Arabian Peninsula, particularly in Saudi Arabia, it is primarily a religious reform rather than a nationalist movement.
Wahhabism has, however, played a role in shaping political and religious identity in some parts of the Arab world, particularly Saudi Arabia. The alliance between Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab and the House of Saud was crucial in the formation of the modern Saudi state. This alliance integrated elements of Wahhabism into the political and social structures of Saudi Arabia, but this should not be confused with Arab nationalism as such. It is also important to note that Arab nationalism and Wahhabism may even be in tension. Arab nationalism, with its secular tendencies and emphasis on political and cultural unity, can come into conflict with the conservative and sometimes sectarian religious approach of Wahhabism. In short, although Wahhabism has influenced the history and politics of certain Arab regions, it represents a distinct and sometimes even contradictory trend in relation to the principles of Arab nationalism.
The relationship between Mohammed Ben Abdelwahhab, the founder of Wahhabism, and Mohammed Ibn Saud, the head of the House of Saud, is crucial to understanding the genesis of modern Saudi Arabia and the influence of Wahhabism in the region. Mohammed Ben Abdelwahhab, born in 1703, preached a form of Islamic reform that aimed to purify religious practice of what he considered to be the innovations and superstitions that had crept into Islam over time. His teaching focused on a strict return to the teachings of the Koran and the Sunna, following the example of the first generations of Muslims (salaf).
His meeting and alliance with Mohammed Ibn Saud in the mid-eighteenth century marked a decisive turning point. Ibn Saud, ruler of the Najd region of the Arabian Peninsula, adopted Abdelwahhab's teachings and incorporated his principles into the governance of his territory. This alliance combined Wahhabi religious reform with Saud political and military ambition, creating a powerful force in the region. Together, they challenged the authority of the Ottoman Caliphate, dominant in the region at the time, and sought to extend their influence. Their movement was not only religious, but also political, seeking to establish a new order based on Wahhabi principles. This combination of religious reform and political ambition led to an increasing politicisation of religion in the region. The result of this alliance was the creation of the first Saudi Emirate, with its capital in Dariya. This Emirate was the predecessor of modern Saudi Arabia and laid the foundations for Wahhabi influence in Saudi governance and society. The alliance between the Sauds and Abdelwahhab thus played a key role in the formation of the Saudi state and had a lasting influence on politics and religious practice in the Gulf region.
The agreement between Mohammed Ben Abdelwahhab and Mohammed Ibn Saud is often described as a pact of power-sharing and mutual support that laid the foundations of the modern Saudi state. The pact, which dates back to the mid-18th century, established a division of responsibilities between the two parties: Ben Abdelwahhab focused on religious matters, preaching and establishing the Wahhabi foundations of Islam, while Ibn Saud took care of the political and military aspects, extending his power over the region. This unique partnership between religious and political power was essential to the foundation and expansion of the Saudi Emirate, the political entity that would eventually become Saudi Arabia. Ben Abdelwahhab provided religious legitimacy, insisting on a puritanical and strict interpretation of Islam, while Ibn Saud used this legitimacy to unify and extend his power over the tribes and territories of the Arabian Peninsula.
The pact between the two men established a symbiotic relationship between the House of Saud and the religious descendants of Ben Abdelwahhab (often referred to as the "Al ash-Sheikh"), which persisted for almost 300 years. This relationship was characterised by mutual support, with the Saud protecting and promoting Wahhabism, while Wahhabi religious leaders legitimised the Saud's political power. This alliance provided the ideological and political impetus for Saudi expansion in the Arabian Peninsula. It also established a model of governance in which religion and state are closely intertwined, with Wahhabism becoming a defining feature of Saudi national identity. The original agreement between Ben Abdelwahhab and Ibn Saud therefore played a fundamental role in the formation of Saudi Arabia and continues to influence the country's political and religious structure. This unique relationship between religious and political power remains central to Saudi society and politics.
Arab modernism or 'nahda
The Nahda, or Arab Renaissance, was a crucial period in the intellectual and cultural history of the Arab world, and Egypt played a central role in this movement. Jamal al-Din al-Afghani (1839-1897) is often cited as one of the leading theorists of this period. His influence and ideas were decisive in shaping Arab modernism and Islamic modernism.
Al-Afghani, a thinker and political activist, moved to Egypt in his thirties. His time in Egypt was marked by close collaboration with Mohammed Abduh, who was to become Mufti of Egypt. Together they set about reforming and modernising Islamic thought and institutions, seeking to respond to the challenges posed by European expansion and colonial rule. Their approach, often referred to as Islamic modernism, aimed to reconcile Islamic principles with modern ideas and scientific advances. They advocated an interpretation of the Koran and Islamic traditions that was both faithful to the sources and open to new interpretations and adaptations to contemporary realities. This vision sought to revitalise Muslim society and promote education, rationality and scientific progress as a means of resisting Western influence and revitalising Arab-Muslim culture.
The Islamic modernism of Al-Afghani and Abduh had a significant impact on the Arab world, influencing many later intellectuals and reformers. Their work contributed to the Nahda by encouraging a spirit of questioning and reform in the fields of religion, philosophy, literature and politics. The Nahda, as a movement, represented a decisive turning point for the Arab world, marking a period of intellectual, cultural and political renaissance. The influence of thinkers such as Al-Afghani and Abduh was crucial in shaping a vision of the Arab world that was both rooted in its heritage and forward-looking, seeking to strike a balance between tradition and modernity.
The Nahda process led to a remarkable cultural upsurge in the Arab world, characterised by a rediscovery and reappraisal of Arab historical and cultural heritage. This movement marked a period of intellectual and artistic awakening, during which Arab intellectuals, writers, poets and artists explored and celebrated Arab history and culture, while integrating them into a modern context. The cultural Arabism of this period was marked by a renewed interest in the Arabic language, literature, history and the arts. The intellectuals of the Nahda sought to revitalise the Arabic language, modernising it while preserving its rich and complex heritage. This period saw the emergence of new literary forms, such as the novel and the short story, as well as the revival of classical forms such as poetry.
The rediscovery of the historical and glorious heritage of the Arab world was another key component of the cultural Arabism of the Nahda. Historians and thinkers revisited periods of greatness in Arab-Muslim civilisation, such as the Islamic Golden Age, and looked for ways to reconnect with this heritage in the context of contemporary challenges. This approach aimed to strengthen a sense of Arab pride and identity while providing a framework for modernisation and progress. In addition, the cultural rise of the Nahda was also characterised by increased dialogue with Western cultures and ideas. Nahda intellectuals often advocated a balanced approach, embracing Western scientific and intellectual advances while preserving Arab values and traditions. The Nahda as a whole therefore represented a crucial moment in the cultural history of the Arab world, marking a period of renewal, reflection and innovation. The impact of this movement is still felt today, both in the field of culture and in political and social thought in the Arab world.
The Nahda movement, characterised by its inclusive approach and its emphasis on the Arabic language, transcended denominational distinctions, uniting Arabs of different faiths around a common cultural and linguistic heritage. By emphasising Arabic as the language of literature, education and public discourse, this movement fostered a sense of pan-Arab identity that went beyond religious or sectarian divisions. The Nahda encouraged a renaissance in all aspects of intellectual and cultural life. It saw the creation of political parties, associations, leagues and organisations that promoted various aspects of education, social reform and modernisation. These groups were often driven by the idea that cultural and linguistic renaissance was essential to the political and social renewal of the Arab world.
The political parties formed during this period sought to channel national and regional aspirations into political programmes. These parties, although diverse in their ideological orientations, often shared a commitment to strengthening Arab identity and modernising society. The associations and leagues created during the Nahda played a key role in disseminating new ideas, organising cultural activities and promoting education and research. They were places where intellectuals and artists could meet, exchange ideas and collaborate on cultural and educational projects. This period also saw the emergence of new forms of media, such as newspapers and magazines, which played a crucial role in spreading the ideas of the Nahda. These publications provided a platform for debates on reform, politics, literature and culture, and were essential for reaching a wider audience.
The pan-Islamism promoted by the Ottoman sultan Abdülhamid II (reigned 1876-1909) represented a particular political approach that influenced Arab nationalism, although it was distinct from the latter. Abdülhamid II's pan-Islamism aimed to consolidate Ottoman authority and unify the empire's diverse Muslim peoples around Islam, in response to the internal and external pressures facing the Ottoman Empire at the time.
Faced with challenges such as the rise of nationalism in various parts of the empire and pressure from European powers, Abdülhamid II adopted a strategy of political and administrative centralisation. He sought to strengthen the Empire's central control over its territories, including the Arab regions, by putting in place procedures for centralisation, investigation and repression. Abdülhamid's emphasis on Islam as a unifying element was intended to counter separatist tendencies and maintain the cohesion of the empire. However, this strategy often had the opposite effect in Arab regions, where centralisation and repression created resentment and fuelled Arab nationalist sentiments.
Many Arab activists and intellectuals, in response to Abdülhamid II's repressive policies, sought refuge in Egypt, which was then perceived as a centre of liberal thought and relative autonomy from Ottoman rule. Egypt became a hotbed of Arab nationalist thought and the Nahda, where exiles could express themselves more freely and participate in intellectual and political debate. Although Abdülhamid's pan-Islamism was conceived as a means of strengthening the Ottoman Empire, it had a significant impact on the development of Arab nationalism. The Sultan's policies contributed, paradoxically, to the awakening of a national consciousness among the Arabs, who began to seek ways of achieving their own political and cultural autonomy.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Historical origins of the name "Palestine
The notion of "Palestine" dates back long before the Ottoman Empire, with its origins in antiquity. The name "Palestine" itself has historical roots stretching back several millennia.
The term "Palestine" is derived from "Philistia" or "Peleshet" in Hebrew, which referred to a region inhabited by the Philistines around the 12th century BC. The Philistines were a people of the Aegean Sea who settled along the south-eastern coast of the Mediterranean, in the region that today includes the Gaza Strip and its environs. The term "Palestina" was first used officially by the Roman emperor Hadrian after the Jewish revolt of Bar Kokhba in 135 AD. In an effort to erase the Jewish connection to the land of Israel following the revolt, Hadrian renamed the province of Judea "Syria Palaestina", a name that subsequently became commonplace in literature and historical documents.
Over the centuries, the region has experienced various dominations and influences, including the Byzantines, the Arab Muslims, the Crusaders, the Mamluks and finally the Ottomans, each leaving their own cultural and historical imprint. However, the term "Palestine" has continued to be used throughout these periods to designate this geographical region. It is important to note that the modern conception of Palestine as a distinct political and national entity took shape more recently in history, in particular with the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire after the First World War and the establishment of the British Mandate over Palestine. The contemporary notion of Palestine as a territory and a national identity is therefore partly the result of twentieth-century political developments.
During the first centuries of Islamic expansion, after the Arab conquest of the region in the 7th century, the "holy land" was often included in larger administrative entities under the Islamic caliphate. However, the term "Palestine" was used in various contexts to refer to the region, although it was not an official administrative entity under Islamic rule. The term was used both by the local population and by foreigners to refer to the geographical region that included Judea, Samaria, Galilee and other areas. With the European conquests, particularly during the Crusades, the term "Palestine" began to be used more frequently to refer to this region. The Crusaders, seeking to control the holy places of Christianity, used the term in their descriptions and maps.
Over time, and particularly in the 19th and 20th centuries, as European interest in the region grew and the Ottoman Empire declined, the term "Palestine" was increasingly used to describe the region specifically. This change coincided with the emergence of Arab nationalism and Zionism, with both movements claiming historical and cultural links with Palestine. The Arab inhabitants of this region began to adopt the term "Palestine" to designate the territory on which they envisaged the creation of a future Arab state. This use was reinforced by the British Mandate over Palestine after the First World War, when Palestine was officially recognised as a separate territorial unit.
Palestine under Ottoman Influence and the British Mandate
In the 19th century, Jerusalem and other parts of what was then known as Palestine were the scene of intense and complex rivalries involving churches, states and foreign powers.These tensions were particularly acute in Jerusalem, a place of great religious importance for Christians, Muslims and Jews. The "Holy Places" in and around Jerusalem were at the centre of struggles for influence between different Christian denominations (Catholic, Orthodox, Armenian, etc.) as well as between European powers, each seeking to extend or protect its influence in the region.This competition was often linked to the imperialist ambitions of the European powers, notably France, Russia and the United Kingdom, each of which used the protection of Christian communities as a pretext to intervene in Ottoman affairs.
Faced with these tensions and growing foreign interference, the Ottoman Empire took steps to strengthen its direct control over Jerusalem.Placing the city under the direct authority of Constantinople (now Istanbul) was a way for the Ottoman government to maintain order and assert its sovereignty over this strategically and symbolically important territory. This decision also reflected the need to manage the delicate relations between the different religious communities and to respond to pressure from foreign powers.This period saw the application of the Statu quo, a set of rules and conventions established to regulate the rights and privileges of the different religious communities in the Holy Places.The Statu quo was intended to maintain a balance between the different communities and prevent conflict, although tensions persisted.
The period following the demise of the Ottoman Empire after the First World War was one of profound political and territorial change in the Middle East, including the area we know today as Palestine. With the end of the Ottoman Empire, Palestine came under British mandate, in accordance with the League of Nations agreements.The British continued to use the term "Palestine" to refer to this territory, although the expression "Southern Syria" was also sometimes used to refer to the region, reflecting its geographical and historical proximity to Syria.
On the Zionist side, the term "Arab state" was sometimes used to refer to the part of the British Mandate of Palestine envisaged for the Arab majority in the 1947 UN partition proposal.This proposal envisaged the creation of two separate states, one Jewish and one Arab, with Jerusalem under a special international regime.However, the Arab state envisaged in the partition plan was never established, partly due to the rejection of the plan by Arab leaders and the 1948 Arab-Israeli war.
The Emergence of Palestinian Nationalism and the Conflicts of the 20th Century
The process of Arab nationalism in the region of Mandate Palestine was complex and influenced by a variety of factors. Waves of migration, both of Jews fleeing persecution in Europe and of Arabs from other parts of the Middle East, altered the demographic composition of the region. In addition, politico-religious issues, linked to both the rise of Zionism and Arab nationalism, played a key role in defining identities and territorial claims. For Arab nationalists in Mandate Palestine and elsewhere, the defence of land was often expressed in terms of Arabism, an ideology that emphasised Arab identity and unity. This sentiment was reinforced by a perceived threat to Arab identity and the rights of Arab populations in the face of Jewish immigration and Zionist aspirations in the region.
During the period of the British Mandate in Palestine, tensions between the Jewish and Arab communities led to a series of acts of violence, including massacres, assassinations and bombings. The Great Arab Revolt of 1936-1939 in Palestine was a key moment in this period. It was triggered by growing frustration among the Arab population over Jewish immigration and the policies of the British Mandate. The revolt saw attacks on Jewish and British targets and was marked by severe British repression. In response to the revolt and rising tensions, the British government appealed to the League of Nations, which set up the Peel Commission in 1937. The Peel Commission proposed the first partition plan for Palestine, envisaging the creation of two separate states, one Jewish and one Arab, with Jerusalem under international control. This plan was rejected by the majority of Arab leaders, who were opposed to any form of territorial division and to the idea of a Jewish state. It was also rejected by Jewish revisionist groups, who demanded a larger territory for the Jewish state.
Tensions continued to rise until 1947, when the British, exhausted by the difficulties of governance and unable to keep the peace, decided to hand over their mandate over Palestine to the United Nations (UN). The UN then proposed a second partition plan in 1947, which also provided for the creation of two states. This plan was accepted by the majority of Jewish representatives, but rejected by the Palestinian Arabs and neighbouring Arab states. The period that followed saw the escalation of hostilities and led to the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, following the declaration of independence of the State of Israel. This war and the events surrounding it were instrumental in shaping the modern Arab-Israeli conflict, with lasting consequences for the region.
Nakba and Formation of the Palestinian Diaspora
The 1948 Palestinian exodus, commonly known as the Nakba (which means "catastrophe" in Arabic), is a central event in Palestinian history and in the Arab-Israeli conflict. It refers to the flight and expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Arab Palestinians from their homes and lands during the 1948 war that followed the creation of the State of Israel. The Nakba began in the context of the civil war in the British Mandate of Palestine, exacerbated by the UN partition plan in 1947, and intensified with the Arab-Israeli war of 1948. During this period, many Arab towns and villages were emptied of their inhabitants due to fighting, expulsions, fears of massacres and psychological pressure. This period saw massive population displacements, leading to a humanitarian crisis and the formation of a large Palestinian refugee population.
The Palestinian refugee question has become one of the most complex and enduring issues in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Many of these refugees and their descendants now live in refugee camps in neighbouring countries such as Lebanon, Jordan and Syria, as well as in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. The right of return of Palestinian refugees is a key issue in the peace negotiations, but remains a major point of contention. The Nakba was also a determining factor in the formation of the Palestinian diaspora. Palestinians who were displaced from their homes and settled in other countries have continued to maintain their cultural and national identity, contributing to the Palestinian cause in different ways. The annual commemoration of the Nakba is an important moment for the Palestinian community, both in the Palestinian territories and in the diaspora, symbolising their shared experience of loss, resistance and hope for return.
The Palestinian Liberation Movement: From the PLO to Hamas
The Palestinian nationalist movement underwent a significant evolution in the late 1950s and early 1960s, marked by a refocusing on specific Palestinian identity, partly in response to the perception that Palestinian interests were not sufficiently represented or defended by regional Arab leaders. This period saw the emergence of new Palestinian political organisations and movements, the most notable of which was the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), founded in 1964. Yasser Arafat, who became a leading figure in the Palestinian movement, played a crucial role in this development. Arafat and his colleagues within the PLO structure and particularly within the Fatah movement began to articulate a vision that emphasised the struggle for an independent Palestinian state, distinct from the broader pan-Arab objectives that had dominated earlier discourses on Palestine.
This redefinition of the Palestinian movement was accompanied by a strategy of armed struggle, seen as a means of liberation and claiming rights to Palestinian land. The PLO and other Palestinian groups carried out various military operations and attacks against Israeli targets, both inside and outside Israel. This period was also marked by tensions and conflicts with neighbouring Arab states, some of which supported the Palestinian movement while others opposed its methods or political objectives. The years 1958-59 marked a turning point in the Palestinian nationalist movement, with a shift from a pan-Arab orientation to a focus on Palestinian national identity and aspirations. Under the leadership of figures such as Yasser Arafat, the movement began to call more explicitly for the creation of a Palestinian state, using armed struggle as a means to achieve its goals.
As early as 1963, military operations led by Palestinian groups, notably Fatah led by Yasser Arafat, began operating from Jordan against Israeli targets. These actions helped to establish Arafat as a central figure in the Palestinian movement, gaining popular support among Arabs through these military initiatives. However, Israeli responses to these attacks put Jordan in a delicate position. In 1970, after a series of escalating tensions and conflicts known as Black September, King Hussein of Jordan ordered military action that led to the expulsion of Palestinian fighters from the country. These fighters then largely resettled in Lebanon. In Lebanon, the presence of Palestinian armed groups had considerable repercussions. They became involved in the Lebanese civil war, further complicating the situation. In 1982, after an assassination attempt on the Israeli ambassador in London, Israel launched Operation Peace in Galilee, a major invasion of Lebanon. The declared aim was to destroy the bases of the Palestinian fighters and push back the Syrian army. This invasion had dramatic consequences, both for Lebanon and for the Palestinians.
During this period, the perception of the Palestinians in Lebanon suffered, and the PLO headquarters finally moved to North Africa. Yasser Arafat and the PLO began to review their objectives, even considering acceptance of a two-state solution. The intifada, which began in 1987 in the Palestinian territories, reinvigorated the Palestinian nationalist movement. This popular uprising drew international attention to the Palestinian cause and helped to change the dynamics of the conflict. This period of turmoil and realignments eventually led to the Oslo Accords in the 1990s, when the PLO, under Arafat's leadership, officially recognised the State of Israel and accepted the principle of Palestinian autonomy in exchange for peace. These agreements marked a significant moment in the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, paving the way for a new era of negotiations and dialogue, although the peace process remains complex and unfinished.
Ongoing conflict and the current political divide
Negotiations between the PLO under the leadership of Yasser Arafat and Israel, although marking a historic turning point with the Oslo Accords, have failed, particularly on sensitive issues such as Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories and the right of return of Palestinian refugees. These issues have remained major points of contention, hampering progress towards a lasting solution to the conflict. At the same time, Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority have faced internal criticism, particularly from nationalist and Islamist groups such as Hamas. Arafat was accused of incompetence, corruption and nepotism, which contributed to a loss of confidence and legitimacy among certain sections of the Palestinian population.
Hamas, a Palestinian Islamist movement, gained political influence during this period. Founded in 1987, Hamas advocated a more Islamic approach to the Palestinian movement, distinguishing itself from the PLO in its ideological stance and tactics. Hamas rejected the Oslo Accords and maintained a position of armed resistance against Israel, seeing armed struggle as an essential means of achieving Palestinian goals. The rise of Hamas and other Islamist groups marked a third phase in the Palestinian movement, where the fault lines between different Palestinian factions deepened. This phase was characterised by a diversification of approaches and strategies within the Palestinian movement, reflecting a wider range of views and tactics regarding the achievement of Palestinian goals. This period also saw growing tensions between the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority and Hamas, particularly after the latter won the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections. These tensions led to internal conflicts and a political division between the Gaza Strip, controlled by Hamas, and the West Bank, under the authority of the Palestinian Authority.
The resumption of armed struggle and intifada-style actions by Hamas in the Palestinian territories is marked by a rhetoric of jihad against Israel. Founded in 1987, Hamas has both a political and an armed wing, and has played an important role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In 2006, Hamas won a significant victory in the Palestinian legislative elections. However, Hamas is considered a terrorist organisation by several countries, including the United States and members of the European Union. This designation is due to Hamas' use of armed struggle tactics, including suicide bombings and the firing of rockets against Israeli civilian targets.
Hamas's electoral victory led to a major political division within the Palestinian territories. Two separate governments emerged: one controlled by Fatah in the West Bank and the other by Hamas in the Gaza Strip. This division has exacerbated the political and economic difficulties in the Palestinian territories. The Palestinian territory remains fragmented, and challenges such as unemployment, poverty and corruption have made the political and economic situation even more precarious. Both the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and the Hamas government in Gaza face significant internal and external challenges in their management of Palestinian affairs.
The Kurdish case
Background to the Kurdish Movement
The Kurdish movement, with its aspirations for self-determination, is rooted in the complex and tumultuous history of the Middle East, particularly in the context of the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire after the First World War. The Kurdish people, scattered mainly between Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria, have constantly sought to assert their identity and claim their political and cultural rights in a region marked by borders often drawn without regard for ethnic and cultural realities.
After the First World War, the 1920 Treaty of Sèvres envisaged the creation of a Kurdish state. However, this treaty was replaced by the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923, which redefined the borders of modern Turkey without granting the Kurds an independent state. This was a watershed moment, leaving the Kurds without a nation-state, despite their distinct ethnic and cultural identity. In Iraq, the Kurdish movement has gone through several phases of rebellion and negotiations with the central government. The Iraqi Kurdistan Region, after decades of conflict, gained substantial autonomy following the Gulf War in 1991, and its position was strengthened after the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The Kurdistan Regional Government, led by figures such as Massoud Barzani, has established a semi-autonomous entity with its own administration and security forces. In Turkey, the Kurdish conflict has been largely dominated by the struggle of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), led by Abdullah Öcalan. Founded in the 1970s, the PKK has waged a guerrilla war for Kurdish rights and autonomy, a conflict that has resulted in tens of thousands of deaths. Despite several attempts at peace, the situation in Turkey remains tense, with periods of conflict and reconciliation.
The civil war in Syria has created a new dynamic for the Kurds in the region. Kurdish forces, notably the People's Protection Units (YPG), have taken control of large parts of north-eastern Syria, establishing a de facto autonomous administration in these areas. This has added a new layer of complexity to regional geopolitics, particularly with the Kurds' involvement in the fight against the Islamic State (EI). The Kurdish movement, in its quest for recognition and rights, continues to shape the politics of the Middle East. Their situation, often referred to as the "Kurdish problem", remains one of the thorniest challenges in the region, involving a mosaic of local, regional and international interests. The Kurds, while seeking to preserve their unique identity, are fighting for a place in an ever-changing Middle East, where questions of autonomy and independence are at the heart of political and social debates.
History and meaning of the word 'Kurdistan
The term "Kurdistan", literally meaning "the land of the Kurds", has been in use for several centuries, with references dating back to at least the 12th century. This historical geographical term refers to the region inhabited mainly by the Kurds, an ethnic group indigenous to the mountainous region straddling modern Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria. In historical texts, the term "Kurdistan" has been used to describe the regions inhabited by the Kurds, but it is important to note that the precise delimitation and extent of this region has varied over time, depending on political dynamics, border changes and population movements. Throughout history, this region has been part of various empires and states, including the Persian, Arab, Turkish and Ottoman empires. The Kurds, while retaining their distinct cultural and linguistic identity, have often been subject to external rule and have rarely enjoyed autonomy or an independent nation state.
The notion of Kurdistan as a distinct political entity gained prominence in the early 20th century, particularly after the First World War and the fall of the Ottoman Empire, when Kurds began to aspire to greater autonomy or independence. However, aspirations for an independent or autonomous Kurdistan clashed with the political realities of the region's modern nation-states. Today, although Kurdistan as a sovereign state does not exist, the term is widely used to refer to Kurdish-majority regions, particularly Iraqi Kurdistan, which enjoys a significant degree of autonomy within Iraq.
Impact of the Ottoman-Seville War on the Kurds
The war between the Iranian Sefevids and the Ottomans in 1514, marked by the emblematic battle of Chaldoran, was a defining moment in the history of the Middle East and is of particular importance to the Kurdish people. This confrontation between two great powers of the time, the Sunni Ottoman Empire under the reign of Selim I and the Shiite Sefavid Empire led by Shah Ismail I, resulted in an Ottoman victory that redefined the geopolitical balance in the region. The Kurdish region, which straddles the border between these two empires, was profoundly affected by this conflict. The Battle of Chaldoran was not only a struggle for territorial power but also an ideological clash between Shiism and Sunnism, which had a direct impact on the Kurdish population. Kurdish territories were divided, with some coming under Ottoman control and others under Sefevid influence.
In this context, Kurdish leaders were faced with difficult choices. Some chose to ally themselves with the Ottomans, hoping for autonomy or political advantages, while others saw the alliance with the Sefevids as a similar opportunity. These decisions were often influenced by local considerations, including tribal rivalries and political and economic interests. The consequences of the Battle of Chaldoran and the subsequent Ottoman-Sevid wars on the Kurds were significant. They led to political and territorial fragmentation that lasted for centuries. The Kurds, divided between different empires and later nation states, struggled to maintain their unique cultural and linguistic identity and to preserve their autonomy.
This period laid the foundations for Kurdish political challenges and autonomous aspirations in the centuries that followed. Their geographical position at the crossroads of empires made the Kurds key players in regional dynamics, while often placing them in a position of vulnerability to the ambitions of neighbouring powers. The Battle of Chaldoran and its repercussions are therefore crucial to understanding the complexity of Kurdish history and the challenges faced by this people in their quest for autonomy and recognition in an ever-changing region.
Treaty of Qasr-e Shirin and its consequences for the Kurds
The Treaty of Qasr-e Shirin, also known as the Treaty of Zuhab, signed in 1639 between the Ottoman Empire and the Sephardic dynasty of Persia, established the borders between these two empires, de facto affecting the Kurdish territories. This treaty marked the end of a series of Ottoman-Persian wars and established borders which, to a large extent, remained stable for several centuries and prefigured the modern borders of the region. However, it is important to note that although the 1639 treaty established borders between the Ottoman and Sephardic empires, these borders were not always clearly defined or administered, especially in the mountainous regions inhabited by the Kurds. The Kurds themselves did not have their own nation-state and were spread out on either side of this border, living under Ottoman or Persian (later Iranian) sovereignty depending on the region.
It was not until the 20th century, particularly after the First World War and the fall of the Ottoman Empire, that the borders of the modern states of the Middle East began to be shaped and administered more rigidly. The Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916, followed by the Treaty of Sèvres in 1920 and the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923, redefined borders in the region, resulting in the division of Kurdish territories between several new nation states, including Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Iran. These developments in the 1940s formalised the existing borders and had a profound impact on the Kurdish question. The division of Kurdish territories between different states posed unique challenges for the Kurdish people in terms of cultural, political and linguistic rights, and shaped their struggle for autonomy and recognition throughout the 20th century and to the present day.
Post-First World War consequences for the Kurds
In the period following the First World War, the Middle East witnessed considerable political and territorial transformations, significantly influencing the situation of the Kurds. The fall of the Ottoman Empire and the rise of pan-Islamism, as well as the creation of new nation states, marked the beginning of a new era for the Kurdish people. After the war, Kurdish aspirations for autonomy were largely set aside in the context of the formation of new nation states. In Turkey, for example, under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, a policy of turquification was put in place, aimed at creating a unified national identity centred on the Turkish identity. This policy had a negative impact on the linguistic and cultural rights of the Kurds, exacerbating tensions and fuelling autonomist aspirations. In Iraq and Syria, under the British and French mandates respectively, the situation of the Kurds has been complex and fluctuating. Despite certain measures aimed at recognising Kurdish rights, particularly in terms of social benefits, these efforts were often insufficient to fully meet their political and cultural aspirations. These policies were often marked by periods of repression and marginalisation.
During this period, relations between the Kurds and other ethnic groups in the region, such as the Armenians, were strained. Conflicts in eastern Anatolia and the border regions between Turkey and Armenia were exacerbated by state policies and social upheaval. The Armenian genocide, for example, led to major population displacements and inter-community tensions. The post-Ottoman geopolitical context has had a profound effect on the lives of the Kurds. Caught between the nationalist ambitions of the new states and regional dynamics, the Kurds found themselves in a difficult position, seeking to preserve their identity and their rights in an unstable and often hostile political environment. This era laid the foundations for contemporary struggles for Kurdish self-determination, underlining the persistent challenges faced by this people in gaining recognition and autonomy.
Creation of the First Kurdish Political Organisation
The year 1919 marked a turning point in the history of the Kurdish people, with the creation of the first Kurdish political organisation, signifying the emergence of a structured Kurdish nationalist movement. This period, in the aftermath of the First World War and the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, opened up unprecedented opportunities and challenges for Kurdish aspirations.
The Kurdish political organisation created in 1919 was a concrete expression of the growing desire among Kurds to take their political destiny into their own hands. Its aim was to unite the various Kurdish tribes and communities under a common banner and to articulate demands for autonomy and even independence. The Treaty of Sèvres, signed in 1920, seemed to pave the way for the realisation of these aspirations. This treaty, which redrew the borders of the region after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, included provisions for autonomy for Kurdish territory, and the possibility of future independence if the Kurdish communities so wished. This formal recognition of Kurdish autonomy in the Treaty of Sèvres was seen as a significant victory for the Kurdish nationalist movement. However, the hopes raised by the Treaty of Sèvres quickly evaporated. The treaty was never ratified by the new Turkish Republic, led by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, and was replaced in 1923 by the Treaty of Lausanne. The Treaty of Lausanne made no mention of an autonomous Kurdistan, leaving Kurdish aspirations without international support. The period following the First World War was therefore one of both opportunity and frustration for the Kurds. Despite the emergence of an organised Kurdish nationalism and the initial recognition of their rights in the Treaty of Sèvres, hopes of autonomy and independence came up against the reality of new political balances and national interests in the reconfigured Middle East.
Challenges of establishing a Kurdish state
In the period following the First World War, the Middle East was redrawn by the victorious powers, profoundly affecting the aspirations of the peoples of the region, including those of the Kurds. The Treaty of Sèvres in 1920, which promised a degree of autonomy for the Kurds, raised hopes of an independent Kurdish state. However, this hope was short-lived due to a number of key factors. The geographical distribution of Kurdish populations, scattered between the spheres of influence of France, Great Britain and Russia, hampered the formation of a unified Kurdish state. This territorial division complicated any attempt to create a coherent Kurdish political entity, as each area was subject to different policies and influences. In addition, the allied powers, mainly Britain and France, who had redrawn the map of the Middle East, were reluctant to change their plans to accommodate a Kurdish state. These powers, preoccupied with their own strategic interests in the region, were not prepared to support the Kurdish cause to the detriment of their own geopolitical objectives.
The question of Armenian autonomy also played a role in the failure to establish a Kurdish state. The territories envisaged for Armenian autonomy overlapped with areas populated by Kurds, thus creating conflicts over territorial claims. These tensions exacerbated the complexity of the situation, making it even more difficult to reach a consensus on the Kurdish question. Another important factor was the relative weakness of Kurdish nationalism at the time. Unlike other national movements in the region, Kurdish nationalism had not yet developed a strong, unified base capable of effectively mobilising the masses. Internal divisions, tribal and regional differences, as well as differences of opinion on the strategy to adopt, limited the ability of the Kurds to present a united front. In addition, there was a debate within the Kurdish community on whether to accept or reject the Treaty of Sevres. Some Kurds were considering aligning themselves with Turkish nationalism in the hope of preserving some form of autonomy within a unified Turkish territory.
Ultimately, these challenges and obstacles led to the idea of an independent Kurdish state being abandoned in the years following the First World War. The political reality of the Middle East, shaped by the interests of colonial powers and complex internal dynamics, made the achievement of Kurdish autonomy extremely difficult, laying the foundations for Kurdish struggles for recognition and autonomy in the decades that followed.
Turkish Kurdistan
Turkey's Assimilation Policy and the Denial of Kurdish Identity
The early 1920s in Turkey, under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, were marked by radical changes in the construction of the Turkish nation-state. One aspect of this transformation was the policy of assimilation and acculturation of ethnic minorities, particularly the Kurds. In 1924, as part of these efforts, the use of the terms "Kurd" and "Kurdistan" was officially banned in Turkey, symbolising an explicit denial of Kurdish identity.
This policy was part of a wider strategy of cultural and linguistic homogenisation aimed at forging a unified Turkish identity. The Turkish authorities implemented policies aimed at forcibly assimilating Kurdish populations, including the displacement of populations and the suppression of Kurdish cultural and linguistic expressions. Kurds were often described by the Turkish authorities as "mountain Turks", in an attempt to reinterpret and deny their distinct identity. This theorisation aimed to justify assimilation policies by asserting that linguistic and cultural differences were simply regional variations within the Turkish population.
These policies led to a context of permanent revolt within the Kurdish population. The Kurds, faced with the denial of their identity and the repression of their cultural and linguistic rights, resisted these efforts at assimilation. This resistance has taken various forms, from armed revolt to the clandestine preservation of Kurdish culture and language. The Kurdish revolts in Turkey, particularly those led by figures such as Sheikh Said in 1925, were moments of direct confrontation with the Turkish state. These rebellions, although suppressed, highlighted the deep tensions and disagreements between the Turkish government and its Kurdish population.
Kurdish Cultural Renaissance and Post-World War II Political Tensions
At the end of the Second World War, Turkey underwent a period of transformation and identity crisis that indirectly contributed to a renewed interest in Kurdish language, culture and history. This period marked a renaissance of Kurdish nationalism, although the circumstances were complex and often contradictory. The post-war period in Turkey was characterised by a relative openness and a questioning of Turkish national identity. This openness led to a certain rediscovery of Kurdish culture, which had previously been repressed under Kemalist assimilation policies. Kurdish and Turkish intellectuals began to explore Kurdish history and culture, contributing to a growing awareness of a distinct Kurdish identity. This cultural revival served as a catalyst for the development of Kurdish nationalism, with a new generation of Kurds demanding their cultural and political rights more openly.
However, this period was also marked by political instability in Turkey, with several military coups and increased repression. The military regimes that came to power in Turkey during the 1960s and 1980s, although sometimes open to certain reforms, maintained a hard line on ethnic policy, particularly with regard to the Kurdish question. The nationalist policies of these regimes often led to renewed repression of Kurdish cultural and political expression. The tension between the Kurdish cultural renaissance and state repression has led to a period of increased conflict. The Kurdish movement, increasingly organised and politicised, has faced major challenges, both from the Turkish state and from its own internal dynamics. The Kurdish question has become a central issue in Turkish politics, symbolising the limits of the nation-state model in Turkey and the challenges posed by the country's ethnic and cultural diversity.
PKK Armed Struggle and Impact on the Kurdish Question in Turkey
The armed struggle of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), which began in 1984, represents a decisive turning point in the history of the Kurdish movement in Turkey. Founded by Abdullah Öcalan in 1978, the PKK emerged as a Marxist-Leninist movement, oriented towards class struggle and Kurdish independence. The PKK's decision to launch a guerrilla campaign against the Turkish state marked the beginning of a prolonged period of armed conflict that has had a profound effect on south-east Turkey and the Kurdish community.
The context in which the PKK began its armed struggle was complex. The 1980s in Turkey were a period of political tension and increased repression against dissident groups, including Kurdish movements. In response to what they perceived as systematic oppression and the denial of their cultural and linguistic rights, the PKK opted for armed struggle as a means of demanding Kurdish autonomy. In its early years, the PKK enjoyed a degree of support from countries aligned with the Soviet bloc. This support took the form of training, arms supplies and logistical support, although the exact extent and nature of this support was open to debate. This support was partly due to the dynamics of the Cold War, when the PKK was seen as a potential ally by NATO member Turkey's enemies. The Turkish government's response to the PKK insurgency was characterised by intense military repression. Massive security operations were launched in the Kurdish regions, with serious humanitarian consequences, including civilian and military casualties and the displacement of Kurdish populations.
Over time, the PKK's philosophy and objectives have evolved. While its roots were deeply rooted in Marxist-Leninist ideology, the movement gradually adapted its demands, moving from the demand for an independent Kurdish state to calls for greater autonomy and recognition of Kurdish cultural and linguistic rights. The PKK's armed struggle put the Kurdish question at the centre of national and international attention, highlighting the complexity and challenges of the Kurdish question in Turkey. It has also polarised opinion, both within Turkey and the Kurdish community, on the appropriate strategies and objectives in the quest for Kurdish autonomy and rights. The conflict between the PKK and the Turkish state remains a thorny issue, symbolising the tension between Kurdish aspirations for autonomy and Turkey's imperatives of security and national unity.
International context and Soviet interest in the Kurdish Regions
Since 1946, the Soviet Union has shown a growing interest in the Middle East, particularly in regions with a high concentration of Kurds and Azeris. This Soviet involvement is part of the wider context of the Cold War and the USSR's strategy to extend its influence in strategically important regions. One of the most significant examples of this policy was Soviet support for the Iranian Autonomous Republic of Azerbaijan. In 1945, at the end of the Second World War, the Soviet Union, which had occupied northern Iran during the war, encouraged and supported the creation of the Autonomous Republic of Azerbaijan, as well as the Republic of Kurdistan, in Iran. These autonomous entities were established with the support of local communists and the Soviets, and represented a direct challenge to the authority of the central Iranian government, then led by Reza Shah Pahlavi. The creation of these autonomous republics was seen by the USSR as an opportunity to extend its influence in the region and counter the British and American presence.
However, the ensuing Iranian-Soviet conflict led to international pressure on the Soviet Union to withdraw its troops from Iran. In 1946, under pressure from the international community and the United States in particular, the USSR withdrew its support for the autonomous republics, which were quickly taken over by Iranian forces. This period was significant for international relations in the region, showing how the dynamics of the Cold War influenced regional policies. Soviet support for autonomous movements in Iran not only reflected the geopolitical interests of the USSR, but also highlighted the aspirations of ethnic minorities in the region, including the Kurds and Azeris, for greater autonomy and recognition.
Religious and political tensions among Kurds in Iran
Since the early 2000s, the situation of the Kurds in Iran has been characterised by growing tension due to religious and political differences. Iran, a predominantly Shia state, has seen its relations with its predominantly Sunni Kurdish population strained by religious, cultural and political factors. The sectarian difference between Iran's Shia majority and the Sunni Kurdish minority is a key aspect of this tension. While Iran has consolidated its Shia identity since the Islamic revolution of 1979, Iranian Kurds have often felt marginalised because of their Sunni religious affiliation. This situation is exacerbated by issues of cultural and linguistic rights, with Kurds demanding greater recognition of their ethnic and cultural identity.
Political tensions between Iranian Kurds and the central government have intensified due to perceptions of marginalisation and economic neglect. Kurds in Iran have long fought for greater regional autonomy and recognition of their linguistic and cultural rights, including the right to education and media in their mother tongue. The Iranian government's response to these demands has often been repression. Kurdish political movements in Iran have been closely monitored and sometimes repressed. Armed clashes have broken out on several occasions between the Iranian security forces and armed Kurdish groups, the latter seeking to defend Kurdish rights and autonomy.
The situation of the Kurds in Iran is also influenced by regional dynamics. Developments concerning the Kurds in Iraq, notably the creation of an autonomous region of Iraqi Kurdistan, have had an impact on the aspirations of the Kurds in Iran. At the same time, Iran's foreign policy, in particular its involvement in regional conflicts such as Syria and Iraq, is having an impact on its domestic policy towards its own Kurdish population. In conclusion, the tensions between the Kurds and the Iranian government since the 2000s are the result of a complex mix of religious, cultural and political factors. These tensions reflect the challenges of governance in a multi-ethnic and multi-faith society and underline the persistent difficulties of minorities in the region to gain greater recognition and autonomy.
Iraqi Kurdistan
The Origins of Iraqi Kurdistan and the Vilayet of Mosul
The history of Iraqi Kurdistan and its relationship with the vilayet of Mosul during the British Mandate is crucial to understanding the political and ethnic dynamics of the region. After the First World War and the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, the Ottoman province of Mosul vilayet became a central issue in the redrawing of the borders of the Middle East.
The Mosul vilayet was rich in ethnic diversity and included a significant Kurdish population, as well as other groups such as Arabs, Assyrians and Turkmen. At the time of the establishment of the British mandate over Mesopotamia, which was to become Iraq, the future of this province was widely debated. The British, keen to control the region's oil resources, argued for its inclusion in Iraq, despite Turkey's territorial claims. In 1925, after a long process of negotiation and deliberation, the League of Nations decided in favour of annexing the vilayet of Mosul to Iraq. This decision was crucial in defining Iraq's northern borders and had a significant impact on the region's Kurdish population. The League's decision placed a large number of Kurds under Iraqi administration, changing the political and ethnic landscape of the new state.
The Struggle for Kurdish Autonomy in the 20th Century
The integration of the Mosul vilayet into Iraq has influenced the Kurdish movement in the country. The Kurds, seeking to preserve their cultural and linguistic identity and achieve greater political autonomy, have faced a variety of challenges under successive governments in Baghdad. The struggle for Kurdish autonomy intensified throughout the 20th century, culminating in the creation of an autonomous Kurdistan region in the 1990s, after decades of conflict and negotiations. The development of Iraqi Kurdistan as an autonomous region was reinforced after the invasion of Iraq in 2003, establishing the region as a key player in Iraqi politics. The history of the vilayet of Mosul and its integration into modern Iraq are therefore essential to understanding the current dynamics of Iraqi Kurdistan, highlighting the historical and political complexities of nation-state formation in the region and the persistent challenges of ethnic and cultural diversity.
The League of Nations' decision in 1925 to annex the vilayet of Mosul to the British mandate of Iraq was a crucial step in the formation of the modern Iraqi state and had profound implications for the Kurdish nationalist movement in the region. The decision incorporated a territory with a sizeable Kurdish population into Iraq, laying the foundations for an ongoing Kurdish struggle for recognition and autonomy. The Kurdish nationalist movement in Iraq has been characterised by remarkable resilience and continuity, despite political challenges and obstacles. The struggle of the Kurds in Iraq for autonomy and recognition of their rights has been punctuated by rebellions, negotiations and sometimes violent repression. This perseverance reflects the specific nature of Kurdish nationalism in Iraq, where aspirations for regional autonomy and the preservation of Kurdish cultural identity have been constant themes.
Attempts at negotiations and agreements between the Kurdish leadership and the Iraqi government have often been unsuccessful, marked by broken promises and violated agreements. One of the factors contributing to these failures has been the lack of consistent international support for the Kurdish cause. In particular, Iran's withdrawal of support for Kurdish nationalism has been a significant setback. Iran, which has its own Kurdish populations and concerns about Kurdish autonomy within its borders, has often wavered in its support for the Kurds in Iraq, depending on its own geopolitical and security interests. The situation of the Kurds in Iraq has continued to evolve over the course of the 20th century, with periods of severe repression under regimes such as that of Saddam Hussein, as well as significant advances, such as the establishment of an autonomous Kurdistan region in the 1990s. These developments have been influenced by a variety of regional and international factors, reflecting the complexity of the Kurdish question in the region.
The Emergence of Kurdish Autonomy in the 1990s
1991 was a defining moment for the Kurdish movement in Iraq, particularly following the Gulf War and the weakening of Saddam Hussein's regime. The end of this war created an unprecedented opportunity for the Iraqi Kurds to establish a form of de facto autonomy in their regions.
Following Iraq's defeat in the Gulf War, a popular uprising broke out in the north of the country, mainly among the Kurds. This uprising was brutally put down by Saddam Hussein's regime, leading to a serious humanitarian crisis and massive population displacement. In response, the United States, the United Kingdom and France set up a no-fly zone north of the 36th parallel, allowing the Kurds to gain a significant degree of autonomy. This de facto autonomy enabled the Kurds to develop their own political and administrative institutions, a major step forward for Kurdish nationalism in Iraq. The Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) was formed, with its own administrative, legislative and security structures. Although this autonomy was not officially recognised by the Iraqi government at the time, it represented a turning point in Kurdish history in Iraq.
Iraqi Kurdistan in the New Post-2003 Political Context
The situation changed significantly after the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime in 2003. The new Iraqi constitution, adopted in 2005, officially recognised Iraqi Kurdistan as a federal entity within Iraq. This constitutional recognition legalised Kurdish autonomy and was a major step towards realising Kurdish political aspirations. The inclusion of Kurdish autonomy in the Iraqi constitution also symbolised an important evolution in Iraqi politics, marking a break with the centralised and repressive policies of previous regimes. It also reflected changes in the political dynamics of the post-Saddam Middle East, where issues of ethnic and regional identity have become increasingly prominent.
The withdrawal of US troops from Iraq in 2009 and subsequent events had a significant impact on the situation of the Kurds in Iraq, exacerbating tensions between the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) and the central government in Baghdad. After the US withdrawal, relations between Erbil, the capital of Iraqi Kurdistan, and Baghdad deteriorated. The Kurds often expressed concerns about increasing marginalisation by the central Iraqi government. These tensions centred on a range of issues, including the sharing of oil revenues, the status of disputed areas (such as oil-rich Kirkuk), and the political and administrative autonomy of Iraqi Kurdistan.
The referendum on the independence of Iraqi Kurdistan, held in September 2017, marked a high point in these tensions. The referendum, which saw an overwhelming majority vote in favour of independence, was organised by the KRG despite strong opposition from Baghdad as well as international warnings. The Iraqi government, as well as several neighbouring countries and the international community, considered the referendum illegal and a threat to Iraq's territorial integrity. In response to the referendum, the Iraqi central government took severe measures, including the military takeover of some disputed areas, such as Kirkuk, and the imposition of economic and transport restrictions on Iraqi Kurdistan. These actions underlined the fragility of Kurdish autonomy in Iraq and highlighted the political and security challenges facing the region. The referendum and its aftermath also revealed the internal divisions within the Iraqi Kurdish movement, as well as the complexities of regional politics. While some Kurdish leaders saw the referendum as a step towards long-awaited independence, others expressed concerns about its timing and potential implications.
Syrian Kurdistan
The creation of the 'Arab Belt' and its repercussions
In the 1960s, the situation of the Kurds in Syria was profoundly affected by the policies of the Syrian nationalist government. During this period, Syria, under the influence of the Ba'ath party, adopted an Arab nationalist approach which exacerbated ethnic divisions, particularly among the Kurdish community. One of the most notable and controversial policies of this period was the creation of the "Arab Belt". This initiative aimed to change the demographic composition of the regions with a high concentration of Kurds along the border with Turkey. The government encouraged Arabs to settle in these areas, often by forcibly displacing Kurdish populations. This policy was partly justified by development projects, such as the construction of a railway line, but was clearly politically motivated in order to dilute the Kurdish presence.
These actions led to forced displacement and increased economic and social marginalisation of the Kurds in Syria. The 'Arab Belt' not only caused demographic upheaval, but also fuelled a sense of injustice and exclusion among Syrian Kurds. These policies have heightened ethnic tensions in the region and contributed to a growing sense of mistrust towards central government. The consequences of these policies have been long-lasting. Kurds in Syria have continued to struggle for recognition of their cultural and political rights, as well as for autonomy. These tensions were exacerbated during the Syrian civil war that broke out in 2011, in which the Kurds played a significant role, seeking to establish some form of autonomy in north-eastern Syria.
The Kurds in Syria and the Struggle for Autonomy
In the 2000s, and particularly with the start of the Syrian civil war in 2011, the Kurds of Syria began to demonstrate more visibly for autonomy. This period marked a turning point in the Syrian Kurds' struggle for recognition and self-determination.
Before the civil war, Kurds in Syria were often marginalised and deprived of basic rights. The regime of Bashar al-Assad, like that of his father Hafez al-Assad, maintained a policy of repression towards Kurdish culture and Kurdish political aspirations. However, with the outbreak of the civil war, central power in Damascus weakened, giving the Kurds an unprecedented opportunity to claim autonomy. Taking advantage of the power vacuum created by the conflict, Kurdish groups, principally the People's Protection Units (YPG) and the Democratic Union Party (PYD), took control of large areas of northern Syria. These groups have established a form of autonomous governance in these areas, including aspects such as civil administration, defence and education.
This de facto autonomy has been reinforced by the crucial role played by Kurdish forces in the fight against the Islamic State (EI), attracting the support and recognition of the international community, particularly the United States. The Kurds have managed to establish relatively stable areas of autonomy, known as the Northern and Eastern Syrian Autonomous Administration, despite continuing challenges, including tensions with the Syrian government and threats from neighbouring Turkey. However, the situation remains precarious. Official recognition of Kurdish autonomy in Syria by the government in Damascus remains uncertain, and regional tensions continue to threaten the stability of the Kurdish regions. The Syrian Kurds' quest for autonomy is therefore an ongoing process, deeply linked to the complex political and security developments in Syria and the wider region.
The Questioning of Nation-States in the Middle East
Since the Anglo-American intervention in Iraq in 2003, followed by the Iraqi civil war and the Syrian crisis from 2011 onwards, the concept of stable nation-states in the Middle East has been profoundly challenged. The invasion of Iraq, aimed at overthrowing Saddam Hussein, triggered a series of unforeseen consequences, sending the country into a spiral of sectarian violence and political instability. The situation was further complicated by the emergence of the Islamic State, which exploited the chaos in Iraq and Syria to establish a cross-border caliphate, challenging the legitimacy of national borders and governments.
The Syrian civil war, which began with the popular uprising against the regime of Bashar al-Assad in 2011, further exacerbated regional instability. The conflict has attracted a multitude of regional and international actors, each pursuing its own strategic objectives. The repercussions of these conflicts have extended beyond national borders, exacerbating sectarian and ethnic tensions and triggering large-scale refugee flows. These events have exposed the flaws in the Middle East's nation-states, whose borders were drawn by the colonial powers after the First World War. These borders, often established without regard for the ethnic, cultural and religious realities on the ground, have given rise to persistent tensions and conflicts.
Despite these challenges, the borders established in the Middle East have shown remarkable resilience. They remain key elements of the regional political order, despite being the scene of incessant conflict. The states of the region, though weakened, continue to struggle to maintain their sovereignty and territorial integrity in the face of secessionist movements and foreign interference. The future of nation-states in the Middle East remains uncertain. The conflicts in Iraq and Syria have revealed deep divisions and raised fundamental questions about the legitimacy and viability of existing state structures. Against this backdrop, new political and territorial configurations could emerge, redefining the political landscape of the Middle East in the years to come.
Controversial Perspectives on Middle East Borders and the Syrian Civil War
Ralph Peters, a former US Army officer and commentator on geopolitical issues, has presented a controversial perspective on the borders of the Middle East. In his writings, he argues that the region's current borders, largely inherited from the colonial and post-First World War era, do not reflect the political, cultural and religious reality on the ground. Peters argues that these artificial borders have contributed to many conflicts by failing to reflect the national, ethnic and religious identities of local societies. His vision, sometimes illustrated by redrawn maps of the Middle East, proposes a reconfiguration of borders to better reflect these realities. For example, he suggests the creation of an independent Kurdish state encompassing parts of Iraq, Syria, Iran and Turkey, where large Kurdish populations live. It also envisages territorial adjustments for other ethnic and religious groups, with the aim of creating more homogenous states.
This proposal has provoked heated debate and widespread criticism, including within NATO and other international circles. Critics point out that redrawing borders along ethnic and religious lines is extremely complex and risky. They point to the dangers of aggravating existing tensions and creating new conflicts. Moreover, redefining national borders raises questions about sovereignty, self-determination and international intervention. Peters' ideas reflect a wider challenge facing the Middle East: how to manage ethnic and religious diversity in nation-states formed along lines drawn by foreign powers. While his proposals may seem logical from a simplified geopolitical perspective, they fail to take into account the complexity of national identities, historical relationships between groups, and political realities on the ground.
The Syrian civil war, which broke out in 2011, has brought about fundamental changes in the structure and composition of the Syrian nation, calling into question the viability of the nation-state model in the context of the Middle East. While Bashar Al-Assad's regime appears to be gaining ground, the reality on the ground has profoundly altered the very nature of the Syrian nation. The conflict in Syria has exposed the deep-seated flaws of a state built on heterogeneous foundations, in which the various ethnic and religious communities, including Kurds, Alawites, Sunnis, Christians and others, have been integrated in a precarious manner. The war has exacerbated these divisions, destroying the social fabric and causing a major humanitarian crisis. Historic cities such as Aleppo and Homs have been devastated, while millions of Syrians have been displaced within the country or have fled abroad, forming large diaspora communities.
Post-war Syria will face enormous challenges in rebuilding not only its infrastructure, but also its society. Assad's centralised and often authoritarian governance will have to adapt to a reality where different communities aspire to greater recognition and representation. These communities, although geographically delimited by Syria's national borders, are intrinsically linked by confessional, cultural and historical ties that transcend these borders. The concept of diaspora has become particularly relevant for Syria. Syrians abroad maintain close links with their homeland, playing a key role in the preservation of cultural identity and in the potential reconstruction of the country. The Syrian diaspora represents a diversity of opinions and experiences, reflecting the complexity of Syrian society as a whole.
The Persian Gulf
The Persian Gulf: History, Importance and Debates on Terminology
The region known as the Persian Gulf is often at the centre of debate over its name. Indeed, some states, particularly those in the Arab world, prefer to use the term "Arab Gulf". This debate over terminology reflects the tensions and political dynamics in the region, where history, culture and national identity play a key role in how places are named. The Gulf, whether called the "Persian Gulf" or the "Arab Gulf", is a region of great strategic, economic and cultural importance. It is bordered by several key countries, including Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and Oman, as well as Iran and Saudi Arabia. The region is known for its vast reserves of oil and natural gas, making it one of the richest and most strategically important areas in the world.
In recent decades, the Gulf has become synonymous with prosperity and luxury, particularly in the states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), which includes Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Saudi Arabia. These countries have used their oil wealth to develop modern, diversified economies, investing heavily in urban development, tourism, education and infrastructure. Cities such as Dubai in the United Arab Emirates and Doha in Qatar have become symbols of this prosperity, attracting international investment and tourists from all over the world. These states have also sought to play a greater role on the international stage, whether through diplomacy, economic investment or the organisation of world-class events.
Prosperity and Transformation in the Persian Gulf States
The political and economic history of the Persian Gulf is closely linked to British influence in the region, which began to manifest itself significantly in the 19th century. At that time, the British Empire, seeking to secure the sea routes to India, its colonial jewel, began to establish a presence in the Persian Gulf. This influence took the form of protectorate agreements with the local emirates, giving Britain significant control over the political and economic affairs of the region. British interest in the Gulf increased with the discovery of oil in the early 20th century. The British played a crucial role in the development of the oil industry, notably by establishing companies such as the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (which later became British Petroleum, or BP). This period saw a transformation of the region from a primarily maritime strategic importance to a centre of the global oil economy.
The British withdrawal from the region in the 1960s and 1970s marked a new era for the Gulf States. This period of decolonisation coincided with a significant rise in global demand for oil, propelling these newly independent states towards unprecedented economic prosperity. Independence also led to the formation of state-specific political structures, often in the form of monarchies, which continue to characterise governance in the region. However, the British legacy in the Persian Gulf has left lasting traces. The borders drawn during the colonial period, and the political and economic alliances established, have continued to influence the international relations and domestic politics of the Gulf States. The close relationship between these states and the Western powers, particularly the United States after the British withdrawal, has played a crucial role in the region's security and economic policy.
Throughout its history, the Persian Gulf has been closely linked to Mesopotamia, thanks in part to its rich pearl trade, a predominant economic activity long before the advent of the oil era. Important centres of this trade were established in Bahrain and Oman, where pearl fishing was an essential source of income for the local populations. Since ancient times, the waters of the Persian Gulf have been renowned for their rich pearl deposits. The region of Bahrain, in particular, was known as a major centre for pearl farming, attracting traders and merchants from various parts of the ancient world. In Oman, the long coastline also favoured the development of an active maritime trade, including the pearl trade. These activities were crucial to local economies, especially in regions otherwise limited in natural resources.
The economic and cultural boom under the Abbasids, from the 8th century onwards, contributed to the expansion of trade in the Persian Gulf. This period saw a flourishing development of trade, with the Gulf ports serving as important hubs for regional and international commerce. Trade in pearls, as well as other goods, flourished under the Abbasid administration, which effectively integrated the region into an extended empire. However, the decline of the Abbasid caliphate in the 13th century marked the beginning of a more difficult period for the region. Invasions, political unrest and the fragmentation of the empire disrupted trade and weakened the regional economy. Despite these challenges, the pearl trade continued to play a significant economic role until the 20th century.
From the 15th century onwards, a new era began for the Persian Gulf with the arrival of the European powers, motivated by the spice trade and the mastery of maritime routes. The Portuguese, led by navigators such as Vasco da Gama, were the first to establish a presence in the region in the early 16th century, seeking to control the trade routes to India and gain direct access to the lucrative sources of spices. Maritime trade became the main means of European influence in the Gulf. The Portuguese established several bases, such as Hormuz, which enabled them to control trade routes and influence local politics. This presence paved the way for other European powers, notably the British and the Dutch, who also sought to establish their influence in the region.
The impact of Europe's arrival in the Gulf was profound. It not only altered existing power structures, but also introduced new maritime and military technologies. Local states have had to navigate this new geopolitical environment, often forming alliances with or against these foreign powers. European involvement has significantly changed the regional dynamics of the Gulf. Rivalry between European powers for control of trade routes and strategic points has had a significant impact on the history of the region. For example, competition between the Portuguese and the British eventually led to more established British domination of the Gulf in the 19th century. This period thus marks a turning point in the history of the Persian Gulf, where the region moved from being a relatively autonomous commercial and cultural centre to a theatre of international rivalry and foreign domination. These events laid the foundations for future relations between the Gulf and the West, and influenced the political, economic and social development of the region until modern times.
British influence in the Persian Gulf
British involvement in the Persian Gulf evolved significantly from the 18th century onwards, marked by an increase in trade and the emergence of security challenges. The main reason for the British presence in the region was to protect the maritime trade routes to India, a jewel in the crown of the British colonial empire. Trade with India was intensified under British influence, transforming the Gulf into a vital commercial crossroads. However, this period was also marked by security challenges. The region was troubled by piracy and conflicts between various local chieftains, which threatened the free flow of goods and the safety of shipping routes. The British were therefore faced with the need to stabilise the region in order to maintain and secure their commercial interests.
With French expansion in the region, particularly following Napoleon Bonaparte's Egyptian campaign at the end of the 18th century, the British felt an increased threat to their interests. In response, they established pacts with local actors, such as the treaty with Oman, aimed at containing French expansionism. These agreements were essential to establishing friendly relations and guaranteeing a degree of stability in the region. In addition to external threats, the British had to deal with piracy activities in the Gulf. They adopted a negotiating approach with the pirates, seeking to end their raids on maritime trade. These agreements played a key role in securing the sea lanes and allowing trade to flow more smoothly in the region.
In the 19th century, these treaties determined Britain's economic and strategic policy in the Gulf. Not only did they secure the region, they also laid the foundations for future relations between Britain and the Gulf States. Although the region has been marked by instability, the growing commitment of local leaders to refrain from war has contributed to relative stabilisation, allowing the British to maintain considerable influence. These historical developments were crucial in shaping the politics and economy of the Persian Gulf, foreshadowing the modern dynamics of the region. The period of British influence laid the foundations for the political structures and alliances that still characterise the Gulf States today.
The Persian Gulf during the First World War
When the First World War broke out, it created a new geopolitical dynamic in the Persian Gulf, a region already marked by the growing influence of the European powers. Kuwait, strategically located at the entrance to the Gulf, played a crucial role in this new configuration. Led at the time by Sheikh Mubarak Al-Sabah, Kuwait sought to strengthen its position by aligning itself more closely with Great Britain. Already under a protectorate agreement signed in 1899, in which Sheikh Mubarak Al-Sabah had undertaken not to cede, lease or sell territory without British consent in return for British protection, Kuwait saw the war as an opportunity to consolidate this relationship. The rise of the Ottoman Empire as a threat during the war accentuated Kuwait's need for security and support. In response to these circumstances, Kuwait and Britain strengthened their protectorate agreement. This renewed agreement provided stronger protection for Kuwait against Ottoman ambitions and strengthened political and economic ties with Britain. For Britain, securing Kuwait was essential to protect its shipping routes to India and to maintain its influence in the oil-rich Gulf region.
The First World War thus had a significant impact on the Persian Gulf, redefining relations between local states and European powers. The agreements reached during this period between states such as Kuwait and Great Britain shaped the geopolitical future of the region, laying the foundations for the political and economic structure that would prevail for decades to come. This historic period also underlined the strategic importance of the Persian Gulf, not only for regional powers, but also for global players. The decisions taken and alliances formed during the First World War had lasting repercussions, influencing the politics, economies and societies of this key region.
British withdrawal and the emergence of the modern Gulf States
The 1960s were a pivotal period for the Persian Gulf, characterised by a fundamental change in the region's international relations. This change was mainly driven by the United Kingdom's decision to withdraw from its strategic positions east of Suez, including the Persian Gulf. This decision, announced in 1968, came at a time when Britain, affected by economic constraints and a change in political paradigm, was reassessing its imperial role around the world. Britain's gradual withdrawal from the Gulf coincided with a period of geopolitical realignment. The independence of India and Pakistan in 1947 had already marked the beginning of the end of the British Empire, and the loss of these key colonies influenced the decision to reduce the British military presence in other regions. In the Gulf, this withdrawal left a power vacuum that had major implications for the states of the region.
The Gulf States, which had long been under British influence or protection, found themselves in a position where they had to navigate autonomously in a complex international environment. This accelerated the process of the formation of modern nation states in the region and gave rise to the creation of new political structures and alliances, such as the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) founded in 1981. The British withdrawal also opened the door to other international influences, in particular that of the United States. In the context of the Cold War and the growing strategic importance of oil, the United States strengthened its presence in the Gulf, establishing close relations with countries such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. This new configuration has redefined the balance of power in the region and had a significant impact on regional and international policies.
Oil discovery and the Second Wave of Independence
Following the British withdrawal from the Persian Gulf in the 1960s, local princes and rulers, who had previously established alliances with the UK, were faced with crucial decisions about the future of their territories. This period was characterised by profound political change, marking the formation of modern nation states in the Gulf region. British withdrawal left a power vacuum and paved the way for full sovereignty for the Gulf States. Notable examples include the independence of Bahrain and Qatar in 1971, followed shortly afterwards by the formation of the United Arab Emirates, a federation of seven emirates. These events were crucial steps in defining the political boundaries and governmental structures of these nations.
The leaders of these new states have had to navigate a complex landscape, balancing the need to develop stable government institutions and manage international relations, while exploiting abundant natural resources, particularly oil and gas. The post-British era has also been marked by efforts to modernise and develop these countries, as witnessed by the reign of Sultan Qaboos bin Said in Oman, who initiated a series of reforms to transform his country. This period of transition has also seen an increase in the influence of the United States in the region. The Gulf States, rich in oil resources, became important strategic allies for the United States, particularly in the context of the Cold War and energy interests. The British withdrawal marked an era of significant transformation for the Gulf States. The decisions taken by local leaders during this period not only shaped the political and economic structures of their countries, but also had a profound impact on regional and international dynamics. The story of this period illustrates how geopolitical changes can influence the formation and development of nation states, as well as the complexity of international relations in a resource-rich region.
The discovery of oil in the Persian Gulf radically transformed the region, attracting significant renewed interest from Western powers. This hydrocarbon wealth coincided with a period of major political transition, leading to a second wave of independence for several states in the region in the 1970s. Oil, first discovered in the Gulf in the early 20th century, began to play a crucial role in the global economy, particularly after the Second World War. With some of the world's largest oil reserves, the Gulf countries quickly became key players in the global energy market. This wealth attracted the attention of Western powers keen to secure access to these vital resources.
In the 1970s, with the end of the British protectorate and the British withdrawal from the region, the Gulf States began a process of asserting their sovereignty and political independence. This period saw the emergence of independent and sovereign nations such as the United Arab Emirates in 1971, which united the Trucial Emirates under a single federation. Bahrain and Qatar also gained independence during this period. The oil-driven economic boom enabled these young nations to invest massively in development and modernisation. Oil revenues transformed societies that had previously focused primarily on fishing and the pearl trade into modern states with advanced infrastructures, social services and diversified economies. However, increased Western interest in the region was not without geopolitical implications. Relations between the oil-producing countries of the Gulf and the Western powers, particularly the United States, became a central aspect of international politics. These relations have been marked by complex dynamics of cooperation, economic dependence and political tensions.
Political Islam
The Emergence and Foundations of Political Islam
Political Islam is an ideology that gained ground during the 20th century, significantly influencing politics and society in Muslim-majority countries. This ideology aims to structure society and the state according to the principles and laws of Islam, based on a specific interpretation of religious texts such as the Koran and the Sunna. The emergence of political Islam can be seen as a response to the challenges posed by colonialism, modernisation and social change. Figures such as Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in 1928, and Sayyid Qutb, an influential theoretician of the same movement, were pioneers in formulating and promoting the ideology of political Islam. Their teachings and writings laid the foundations for a vision of society in which Islamic principles are integrated into all aspects of life, including governance.
Political Islam manifests itself in different forms, ranging from moderate reformist movements to more radical groups. Some groups, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, have sought to achieve their goals through political and social means, while others, such as al-Qaeda or the Islamic State, have adopted extremist and violent methods. A striking example of the impact of political Islam is the Iranian Revolution of 1979, led by Ayatollah Khomeini. This revolution led to the establishment of an Islamic republic in Iran, where laws and governance are based on specific interpretations of Shia Islam.
Political Islam also played a significant role in the Arab Spring events of 2011, where several Islamist movements emerged as key political actors in countries such as Egypt, Tunisia and Libya. However, political Islam is a subject of controversy and debate. Its critics point to the risks of restricting individual freedoms, particularly as regards the rights of women and minorities. On the other hand, its supporters see it as a means of preserving cultural values and resisting Western influence. The rise of political Islam in the Arab world can largely be attributed to the failure of pan-Arabism, a political movement that advocated unity and cooperation between Arab countries while opposing Western domination. This ideology, which reached its peak in the 1950s and 1960s under leaders such as Gamal Abdel Nasser in Egypt, began to decline in the 1970s, leaving an ideological vacuum that political Islam began to fill.
The year 1979 is often seen as a turning point in the history of political Islam, marked by two major events. Firstly, the Iranian Revolution saw the fall of the Shah of Iran and the emergence of an Islamic republic under Ayatollah Khomeini, a development that had a profound impact throughout the region. Secondly, the signing of the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel, known as the Camp David Accords, was seen by many Arabs as a betrayal of the Arab cause and a capitulation to Israel. The normalisation of relations between Egypt and Israel came as a shock to many Arabs, reinforcing feelings of antagonism towards Israel, which was seen as a symbol of Western influence and intervention in the region. This perception fuelled the imagination of political Islam, where the fight against Israel and opposition to Western interference became central themes.
Against this backdrop, Islamist movements gained in popularity by presenting themselves as credible alternatives to failed pan-Arabism and promising to restore the dignity and autonomy of Muslim societies through the implementation of Islamic principles. These movements varied in their approaches, some advocating gradual political and social reform, while others adopted more radical positions. The failure of pan-Arabism and the events of 1979 created fertile ground for the rise of political Islam, an ideology that has since played a major role in Middle Eastern politics. The rise of this ideology has been a response to the political disillusionment, socio-economic challenges and aspirations of many Muslim societies, redefining the political landscape of the region.
Political Islam Faced with the Failure of Pan-Arabism
Fundamentalism, a significant trend within political Islam, took root in the Muslim world as early as the 8th century, but it was with the emergence of Wahhabism in the 18th century that this trend gained significant influence. Mohammed ibn Abd al-Wahhab, the founder of Wahhabism, advocated a return to the practices and beliefs of the first generations of Muslims, a rigorous interpretation of Islam that became the ideological basis of modern Saudi Arabia. Fundamentalism as such is characterised by a desire to transcend history and return to the original sources of religion. This approach manifests itself in a literal and uncompromising reading of the sacred texts, often rejecting contemporary or contextual interpretations. Fundamentalism frequently opposes Western cultural and political influences, which are perceived as threats to the authenticity and purity of the Islamic faith.
The colonial period had a profound impact on the political imagination of the Arab world. European domination and intervention in Middle Eastern affairs were perceived as a direct aggression against Muslim societies. This perception has fuelled a sense of resistance that has often been expressed through recourse to Islamic values and principles. The national liberation movement, which emerged as a reaction to Western penetration, was strongly imbued with the Islamic tradition. Struggles for independence, while seeking to free themselves from the colonial yoke, also sought to reaffirm Islamic identity as the basis of national sovereignty. In this context, Islamic fundamentalism evolved into a response not only to the internal challenges of Muslim societies, but also to foreign interference. The resulting Islamist movements have varied in their approaches and objectives, ranging from social and political reform to more radical forms of resistance. This complex dynamic between tradition, modernity and external influences continues to shape the political and social landscape in many Muslim-majority countries.
The Muslim Brotherhood movement, founded in Egypt in 1928 by Hassan Al-Banna, represents an important milestone in the history of political Islam in the 20th century. The organisation emerged as a response to the social, political and cultural challenges facing Egyptian society at the time. Hassan Al-Banna founded the Muslim Brotherhood with the initial aim of Islamising Egyptian society, as a reaction to the rapid modernisation and growing Western influence in the country. Al-Banna's vision was to reform society based on Islamic principles, considering the Koran to be the ultimate and infallible constitution for social and political life. One of the distinctive features of the Muslim Brotherhood was its organisational structure, which included a paramilitary branch. This characteristic not only reflected the military tradition of Egyptian society, but was also a response to the British presence in Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood's ability to mobilise both politically and militarily contributed to its growing influence.
The Muslim Brotherhood rapidly gained in popularity and influence, becoming one of the first and most important Islamist organisations of the 20th century. Their approach, combining social, political and sometimes militant activism, served as a model for other Islamist movements throughout the Muslim world. However, the movement was also subject to controversy and repression. Successive Egyptian governments have alternated between tolerance, cooperation and severe repression of the organisation. The Muslim Brotherhood has been involved in various political struggles in Egypt, including the overthrow of President Mohamed Morsi in 2013, who came from its ranks.
Since its creation in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna, the Muslim Brotherhood movement has gone through fluctuating periods, oscillating between significant political influence and severe repression. Although the organisation did not originally adopt armed action as its main tactic, it has found itself involved in major conflicts that have marked the history of the region. During the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, a conflict crucial to the future of Palestine, the Muslim Brotherhood took part in the fighting. This involvement reflected their commitment to the Palestinian cause, seen as both a national and a religious struggle. Their involvement in this war illustrates the organisation's flexibility in the use of armed force for causes it considered just and in line with its Islamic objectives. In 1952, the Muslim Brotherhood played a role in the Egyptian revolution that overthrew the monarchy and led to the founding of the Egyptian Republic. Initially, they supported the free officers, hoping that the new regime would be favourable to their Islamic aspirations. However, relations between the Muslim Brotherhood and the revolutionary leader Gamal Abdel Nasser soon deteriorated, leading to a period of intense repression against the organisation.
The history of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is characterised by highs and lows, illustrating the complexity of its political positioning. Under different regimes, they have alternated between an influential political presence and periods when they were repressed and marginalised. This dynamic reflects the persistent tensions between Islamist movements and secular or secular governments in the region. The history of the Muslim Brotherhood is therefore that of an influential but often controversial organisation, whose role in key events such as the 1948 war and the 1952 revolution testifies to its importance in Middle Eastern politics. However, their path has also been marked by confrontations and conflicts with the powers that be, reflecting the complex and sometimes conflicting nature of political Islam.
Sayyid Qutb, born in 1906 and died in 1966, is an emblematic figure of political Islam. His thought and work have had a considerable impact on the vision of the Islamic State and on the Islamist movement in general. An eminent theorist, Qutb developed a radical critique of the Muslim societies of his time, which he judged to have strayed from the true path of Islam. Qutb was a virulent critic of Westernisation and pan-Arab nationalism, dominant in Egypt and other Arab countries in the mid-20th century. In his view, these societies had drifted away from the fundamental principles of Islam, falling into a state of "Jahiliya", an Islamic term traditionally used to describe the religious ignorance prevailing prior to the revelation of the Koran to the Prophet Muhammad. For Qutb, the modern Jahiliya was not just religious ignorance, but also a departure from Islamic laws and values in governance and social life.
His personal experience of repression also influenced his thinking. Arrested and tortured by Nasser's regime in Egypt for his dissident views and membership of the Muslim Brotherhood, Qutb became convinced that the regimes in place in the Arab world were corrupt and illegitimate. In his writings, he developed the idea that resistance, including the use of violence, was legitimate against these "jahili" governments. Sentenced to death for plotting against the Egyptian state, Qutb refused to appeal his conviction, choosing to become a martyr for his cause. His death in 1966 reinforced his status as an emblematic figure in radical Islamism, and his writings continue to influence Islamist movements around the world. Qutb thus played a central role in the development of political Islam, notably by justifying violent opposition to regimes deemed un-Islamic. His vision of Islam as a complete system of life, encompassing both governance and society, has had a profound impact on contemporary Islamist movements and the debate on the nature and future of the Islamic state.
Although initially marginal, Sayyid Qutb's thought gained in influence and relevance in the late 1970s, a period marked by several crucial events that redefined the political and ideological landscape of the Muslim world. In 1979, several major events changed the ideological context in the Middle East and beyond. Firstly, the failure of pan-Arabism, symbolised by the signing of the peace agreements between Egypt and Israel, left an ideological vacuum in the Arab world. The decision by Egypt, a major player in Arab nationalism, to normalise relations with Israel was seen as a betrayal by many Arabs and weakened the credibility of pan-Arabism as a unifying movement. At the same time, the Iranian Revolution of 1979 saw the emergence of the Islamic Republic of Iran, establishing a government based on Shia Islamic principles. This revolution had a considerable impact throughout the region, demonstrating the viability of political Islam as an alternative to secular or pro-Western regimes. On the other hand, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 triggered a ten-year war in which the Afghan Mujahideen, supported by various countries including the United States, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, fought against the Soviet forces. This war attracted Islamist fighters from all over the Muslim world, galvanised by the call to defend a Muslim land against a non-Muslim foreign power. These events contributed to a revival and radicalisation of political Islam. Qutb's ideas, in particular his critique of modern Jahiliya and his legitimisation of armed struggle against regimes deemed un-Islamic, resonated with those who were disappointed by the failures of pan-Arabism and worried about foreign influence in the Muslim world. As a result, political Islam, in its various forms, became a major player in regional and global politics, influencing power dynamics and conflicts in the decades that followed.
The Notion of Martyr in Political Islam
The notion of martyrdom in political Islam gained greater significance and importance towards the end of the 20th century, particularly in conflicts pitting Islamist forces against various foreign powers. This conceptualisation of martyrdom, over and above its traditional religious meaning, has become a key element in the mobilisation and rhetoric of Islamist movements. In the context of conflicts such as the Soviet-Afghan war of 1979-1989, the figure of the martyr acquired a central dimension. Mujahideen fighters against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan were often celebrated as martyrs, heroes who sacrificed their lives in defence of Islam. This glorification of the martyr served to motivate fighters, attract international support and justify armed resistance against a superpower perceived as oppressive. The promotion of martyrdom in these contexts has become a powerful recruitment tool for Islamist movements, attracting fighters from various parts of the Muslim world. The promise of martyrdom, often interpreted as a path to paradise and honour, has been a key element in mobilising individuals ready to take part in armed struggles against enemies deemed unjust or anti-Islamic.
However, the notion of martyrdom in political Islam has given rise to much controversy and criticism. Many consider that the encouragement of martyrdom, particularly in the context of violent action, is a distortion of Islamic teachings and a source of conflict. This conception of martyrdom has been challenged both within the Muslim community and by outside observers. The figure of the martyr in political Islam symbolises the way in which religious concepts can be reinterpreted and used in political and conflictual settings. It reflects the complexity of Islamist movements and the way in which they integrate religious elements into their strategy and ideology. This approach has not only shaped the dynamics of Islamist movements, but has also had profound implications internationally, influencing policies and perceptions of political Islam around the world.
Political and Geopolitical Change
In the complex and sometimes unstable political landscape of the Muslim world, some states have responded to the rise of political Islam by incorporating Islamist policies, aimed at strengthening their authority and stabilising their government. This strategy has been adopted in a variety of contexts, in response to the internal and external challenges facing these countries. The adoption of Islamist policies by certain regimes has often been motivated by the desire to legitimise their power among predominantly Muslim populations. By aligning themselves with Islamic values and principles, these governments sought to present themselves as protectors and defenders of Islam, thereby winning popular support and countering opposition movements that might threaten their stability.
This approach has been particularly visible in contexts where governments have sought to counter the influence of radical Islamist groups or to respond to political and social crises. For example, Iran, following the Islamic Revolution of 1979, introduced a system of Islamic governance, with Ayatollah Khomeini as its emblematic figure, establishing an Islamic republic based on Shia principles. In countries such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and some Gulf States, Islamist elements have been incorporated into legislation and public policy, reflecting and reinforcing dominant religious values. However, this strategy is not without its risks and criticisms. The use of political Islam as a tool of governance can lead to internal tensions and contradictions, especially when the aspirations of the population differ from government policies. Moreover, the use of Islamism to consolidate power can lead to restrictions on civil liberties and human rights, raising concerns at both national and international level.
Transformation of Political Islam in the 1990s
During the 1990s, some scholars and observers concluded that political Islam had failed, partly because Islamist movements had failed to seize power in many countries. However, this analysis proved premature in the light of subsequent developments and the resurgence of Islamism in various forms. After the end of the war in Afghanistan and the withdrawal of Soviet forces in 1989, the Islamist fighters, or mujahideen, who had waged jihad against the USSR, began to redirect their struggle towards new enemies. One of the most significant changes was the rise of jihad against the United States, perceived as a new imperialist force in the region, and its allies, including Israel. This reorientation of jihad was in part a response to the US presence in the Persian Gulf, particularly after the 1991 Gulf War, and the perceived alignment of the US with Israel and against the interests of Muslim populations.
This period also saw the emergence or consolidation of radical Islamist groups such as al-Qaeda, led by Osama bin Laden, who had previously fought in Afghanistan. Bin Laden and other Islamist leaders began to target the United States and its allies as the main enemy in their struggle to establish an Islamic order. The view that political Islam had failed was therefore contradicted by these later developments. Islamist movements may not have come to power in the conventional way, but they had managed to establish themselves as significant forces in regional and global politics. Their ability to mobilise, influence and carry out violent actions demonstrated that political Islam remained a dynamic and influential force, capable of adapting to new contexts and challenges.
From the 1990s onwards, there was a marked evolution in political Islam, with a significant transformation in the approaches and tactics employed by certain Islamist movements. This period saw the emergence of a form of violence that could be described as sacrificial, a radical departure from previous practices. This new phase of violence in political Islam was characterised by the use of suicide bombings and other forms of terrorism. These acts were no longer seen simply as a means of fighting an enemy, but also as acts of ultimate sacrifice. The perpetrators of these attacks were often celebrated as martyrs, an evolution of the traditional notion of martyrdom in Islam, where voluntary death in an act of violence became a glorified ideal. A striking example of this evolution was the 11 September 2001 attacks in the United States, orchestrated by al-Qaeda under the leadership of Osama bin Laden. These attacks, carried out by suicide bombers, not only caused massive destruction and loss of life, but also changed the way in which political Islam was perceived and fought against on a global scale.
This period also saw the rise of groups such as the Taliban in Afghanistan, who used similar tactics in their fight against Western forces and the Afghan government. These groups justified the use of sacrificial violence with a radical interpretation of Islam that legitimised jihad against what they perceived as oppressive, anti-Islamic forces. The rise of this new form of violence in political Islam had far-reaching consequences. It led to an international response, with military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, and sparked a global debate on the nature of political Islam and the appropriate response to its most extreme manifestations. These developments not only had an impact on the international scene, but also provoked debate and division within Muslim communities, between those who supported these tactics and those who condemned them. The transformation of political Islam in the 1990s and early 2000s was marked by a rise in sacrificial violence and terrorism. This has redefined the tactics and objectives of some Islamist movements, with lasting consequences for global politics and Muslim societies.
Political Islam in post-Saddam Hussein Iraq and the emergence of the Islamic State in 2014
At the beginning of the 21st century, the players in political Islam underwent significant changes, in particular with the emergence of al-Qaeda as a major player in the panorama of international terrorism. This period was also marked by a geographical relocation of these actors, particularly in Iraq, following the American intervention and the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime. After the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003, Iraq entered a period of political and social chaos. The Baath Party, which had long dominated Iraqi politics under Saddam Hussein, was banned, and a new power structure emerged in which the Shiite majority took a leadership position. This transformation created sectarian tensions and a feeling of marginalisation among the Sunni population, which had been dominant under Saddam Hussein's regime.
Al-Qaeda, led by figures such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, took advantage of this climate of instability to establish a presence in Iraq. Zarqawi, a Jordanian, founded the organisation "Al-Tawhid wal-Jihad", which later merged with al-Qaeda, becoming one of the most active and violent branches of the terrorist network. Under its leadership, al-Qa'ida in Iraq targeted not only US forces and their allies, but also the Shia population, whom they regarded as apostates and collaborators with the occupying forces. Al Qaeda's tactics in Iraq, including suicide bombings and mass killings, exacerbated sectarian tensions and plunged the country into a spiral of violence. Zarqawi's strategy, focused on provoking sectarian conflict, has turned Iraq into a battleground for regional and ideological power struggles, with profound repercussions for the region and the world. The evolution of political Islam in Iraq during this period reflects the complexity and fluidity of these movements. Al-Qa'ida in Iraq, although linked to the global al-Qa'ida network, developed its own objectives and strategies, rooted in the Iraqi political and social context. This period also highlighted the role of sectarian dynamics and political marginalisation in fuelling extremism and conflict.
In 2014, the group known as al-Qaeda in Iraq underwent a significant transformation, marking a turning point in the history of political Islam. The group, which had evolved and gained influence in the post-invasion context of Iraq, announced the formation of the Islamic State (IS), also known as Daech (Arabic acronym for al-Dawla al-Islamiya al-Iraq al-Sham). The announcement of the creation of the Islamic State was made by its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. This declaration signified not only a change of name, but also an extended territorial and ideological ambition. The EI aimed to establish a caliphate, a political entity governed by sharia (Islamic law), encompassing not only Iraq but also Syria and potentially other regions. Under the banner of Islamic State, the group rapidly extended its control over vast areas of Iraq and Syria, exploiting the power vacuum created by the Syrian civil war and the weakness of the Iraqi government. The EI gained notoriety for its brutality, including mass executions, acts of ethnic cleansing, destruction of historical sites and terrorist attacks around the world. The proclamation of the Islamic State represented a major challenge to regional stability and international security. It led to international military intervention to contain and eventually reduce the territory controlled by the EI. The rise and fall of the Islamic State also sparked important debates about the causes of and appropriate responses to violent Islamist extremism, as well as how to deal with the humanitarian and security consequences of its expansion.