… They First Make Mad
The Still Sun: The British Empire after WW2 by Cecil Moore
On June 6th 1950, a bright flash lit the Libyan Desert, leaving scorched glass as its feet. All of a sudden, the nuclear duopoly that the Americans and Soviets held had been broken. What was interesting about this was that it wasn’t merely the Italians who had entered the Nuclear Club. At the test site, British and French scientists freely mixed with Italians, under the command of Enrico Fermi, who is considered the father of Nuclear Weaponry in Europe. After the panic-attack that swept Europe upon news of the Soviet nuking of Warsaw, the Mussolini, DeGaulle and Churchill immediately agreed to combine their nuclear programs under one roof to speed up the process. The Italians were the most advanced scientifically on the project (mostly due to the amount of resources that Mussolini could shovel into the project that a Democracy could not), though the British Empire was the primary supplier of the required resources, especially uranium. It culminated in the explosion of a test device, full agreements between the three parties to trade all resources required to construct the weapons, while full disclosure of the process of making one was spread to all the military elites of all three countries. Quite literally in a flash, there were five members of the Nuclear Club instead of just two.
Behind the scenes of glory after the successful use of a Nuclear Bomb, the colder reality of decolonization began to bite. All across the world, the colonial peoples of Africa, Asia and elsewhere were growing increasingly impatient with political reform. While Gaitskell and others desperately wanted to push decolonization, two major factors stood in the way. Firstly, due to the fate of India, the withdrawal option from the colonies was looked upon as both weak and immoral by the Right, who argued that colonization was necessary to preserve Britain’s place in an uncertain world, defeat Communism and ensure the wellbeing of the native populations. The second was a more recent trend. Many colonial groups were now actually contacting the British to state how much they
didn’t want them to leave, in light of the new threat from the Roman Alliance. British Somaliland in particular was terrified of the thought of being left to fend for itself on the borders of the Italian Empire. A petition of ten thousand prominent members of the territory said they would ‘never accept a day the British flag doesn’t fly when hostile flags fly so close’. Tunisia had likewise maintained close ties with France as it became independent, due to the fear of Libyan invasion. Even in South-East Asia, the Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotians were much more comfortable with accepting French rule when Thailand joined the Roman Alliance – resulting in the formal creation of the Francophonie in 1952 as a French version of the Commonwealth. Head of State for Vietnam, Bao Dai, tried to sell it as a successful devolution of power to Dominion status, which it was for the most part – though the majority of the population wanted independence. Gaitskell was sympathetic to this argument, and thus decolonization was slower than it may otherwise have been, especially due to the drop in Soviet aid to fighters to finance the Chinese War and Patton’s outright support of colonialism (sending advisers from everywhere to Kenya to Vietnam to support the host regimes).
In terms of European politics itself, the rebirth of German Conservatism had met mixed reaction in France. De Gaulle was concerned about what a revived German militarism could mean, especially with Rommel having gained such international credibility. For that reason, De Gaulle decided that it was best to find a way to work around German armament. This led to the creation of the EDC in 1951, or European Defence Community. It was a way of integrating the small German army, alongside the Low Countries, Czech Republic and Scandinavia into a single cohesive unit with the French military. Of course, France would dominate the arrangement, not in the least due to her Nuclear advantage. Though De Gaulle was not thrilled with the perceived loss of French sovereignty, he considered it a necessary price to pay to nip German nationalism in the bud. Likewise, the creation of the European Economic Community in 1951 created a gigantic free trade bloc stretching along the ITO nations of Europe. Britain, focusing on the Commonwealth and feeling in the words of Churchill ‘of Europe but not in it’, decided not to join. The actions of France in forging a Europe where she remained the premier was noticed by Mussolini, who sought even laxer trade restriction with the Roman Alliance. As she was by far the most powerful member of the Alliance, Italy continued to economically dominate the region – a role that would only increase when Libya’s oil became a gigantic source of wealth and the Second Arabian War would forge a new global order.
‘The Arab Tragedy: 1944–1956’ by Abdul Nazim
While the Ba’ath Party had secured dominion over Syria, neighboring Iraq was plagued with internal issues. Though the country was totally hostile towards Israel, it maintained relatively friendly relations with the West. The last bastion of Hashemite rule was loathed in all quarters – from the Kurds in the north who wanted independence to the religious who decried Royal decadence to the Pan-Arabian supporters who wanted to merge with Syria into a single state. Aflaq was convinced that this party was strong enough to take power in the neighboring kingdom. For that reason, he suggested something extraordinary to his commanders: an invasion of Iraq. Iraq was larger, had a more developed economy, stronger army and would have international support. Most Syrian commanders considered it suicide. But Aflaq was convinced that the country was ripe for revolution. He also believed that with the world distracted in China and India, now was his only chance to seize glory. Organising his army along the Euphrates, far enough away from Israel and Turkey for the two parties not to care, on February 2nd 1951, the Syrian army marched into Iraq. Aflaq’s prediction about Western non-involvement proved correct. So correct, in fact, Israeli Prime Minister Begin took to the radio to gloat about the division that ran rampant in Arab ranks. He was soon silenced.
The Iraqi army was sent to repulse the invasion at Tall ‘Afar. The Iraqis were surprised that no bombing or shelling had been launched – only leaflets demanding national revolution against the unpopular Hashemite Regime. That was when a startling piece of news was announced – the Ba’ath forces wished to meet under a white flag in the city. However, what was vastly more surprising was when Aflaq himself, having been inspired by Napoleon, showed up in the city, defying fears of assassination. He gave a speech to startled Iraqi troop, saying, “You do not serve a King but a servant of a King – a European one. You do not serve an enemy of Zionism – but a supporter of it. You do not serve a man – but a boy. Soldiers of Iraq! If you shoot your Arab brothers then who will rejoice but the Zionists and Colonialists? Join us to end the oppression of Arabia, that she may stand above the world!” Aflaq stated he had fully accepted the probability of death while concealing a cyanide capsule in case he would be captured – he wanted to be a martyr to the Arab World, and was resolved to have his moment of truth at Tall ‘Afar. He believed that whatever happened would be God’s will. Having violated the terms of the armistice, Iraqi commanders demanded their troops arrest Aflaq, who quickly ordered his bodyguards to stand-down. Instead, much to the commanders’ horror, the Iraqi troops dropped their weapons and rushed towards Aflaq to raise him on their shoulders like a conquering hero. When news of the defection of the Iraqi Army reached Baghdad, senior commanders told King Faisal (who was only 16 years old) to get out while he still could. Faisal fled to London as quickly as he could with his family on February 7th, narrowly escaping the wave of revolutionaries attempting to storm the airfield.
With almost no opposition to speak of and Aflaq leading the march, the Syrian leader walked into Baghdad on February 10th 1951 to waves of public celebration. Iraqi commanders, many of whom were likewise disgusted by their regime’s alliance with Britain, pledged the allegiance of the Iraqi armed forces to the new Republic. Speaking from the ransacked Palace, he proclaimed the birth of the United Arab Republic, which he said would unite the Arab world under one roof. The capital would be established in Baghdad, owing to its greater significance in the Islamic world than Damascus. Most Syrians didn’t care owing to many believing their country was a false colonial construction, and that they were all Arabs at heart. The connection to the Gulf also allowed Syria access to the sea again, albeit in a very roundabout way.
While the world still reeled at the news, another shock soon awaited. On March 3rd, with unrest sweeping the Arab world in reaction to the startling events unfolding on all sides, King Farouk ordered Ba’athist marches in Tahrir Square to be stamped out. Instead, the group of officers that had been entrusted with quelling the crowds went up to the marchers and offered to lead them to the Palace. The man who led the officers lead a group known as the Free Officers Association, by the name of Gamal Nasser. He had little distinct ideological affinities before the ‘Velvet Invasion’ of Iraq (as ‘no blood’ was supposedly spilled, though that was not entirely true due to riots and reprisal), but Aflaq’s movement inspired him. He thus declared himself and his movement to be Ba’athist in nature, and decided to strike while the iron was hot. He knew the Israelis were never going to lift a finger for Farouk after his pogroms and that he was safe in his conduct. The crowds cheered and marched on the centre of Egyptian power. Soldiers broke ranks and gladly joined the crowd against the hated Farouk. Farouk would be lynched attempting to escape the Palace before order could be restored, thus beginning the Ba’athist era of Egypt.
The distance and division between Egypt and the UAR created issues of administration. For that reason, Egypt would officially join the UAR, although for all intents and purposes it was an independent state outside of foreign policy and the military. Nasser wasted no time in developing his own cult of personality within Egypt, much to Aflaq’s outrage, who wanted to take the sole credit for the Arab revival. Their first meeting in Baghdad was so awkward, it was described by one observer as, “like boys talking out of necessity when their mother had scolded them for fighting”. Nasser also felt that Egypt had its own identity that it had to protect. After all, he was not a through-and-through Ba’athist – it was merely an opportunity to seize power and restore Egyptian dignity. In reality, he had no interest in surrendering Egyptian identity to an Arab super state, or at the very least he wanted Egypt to be the heart of any such state, which was not going to be any time soon.
The UAR was supported strongly by the Trans-Jordanian Arab refugee populations in all three countries, as well as the secularist, militarist and nationalist segments of society, all of whom felt they had something to gain. Sectarianism was highly frowned upon by the government (with the obvious exceptions of Anti-Semitism and increasingly Anti-Hinduism). The long-suffering Kurdish population suffered yet further under the virulent Arab nationalism of the UAR, as well as the small Persian population in the east and Turkish in the north. Ironically, though the Roman Alliance were identified as near-Satanic, the UAR took a lot of inspiration from Fascism. The state was Totalitarian with Aflaq identified as a savior figure for the nation (and Nasser added to the posters in Egypt). Such was the level of personality cult in the UAR, that one man in a coffee shop who accidentally spilled his cup over a newspaper with Aflaq’s face on it was beaten to death while still in the shop by a squad of Ba’athists. Every school classroom had Aflaq’s picture on it, listening to Western radio and records was punishable by shooting and even the newly composed national anthem ‘An Arab Heart’ made explicit reference to ‘Our Noble President, sent to save us’. It was a level of megalomania few people could fathom, which went hand in hand with the expansion of state power. Most industries were nationalized, though some private property was allowed, not that the state couldn’t grab it whenever it wanted. Islamists were given minor sops to try and incorporate their Anti-Israeli/Turkish/Western attitudes.
The UAR joined the Comintern and became the sole representative of the Arab world. Stalin was impressed by the revolutionary character of the movement and guaranteed his support – even when Communists were detained and even executed in the new regime. Economic support would only increase after Stalin’s death. Naturally, relations with the Roman Alliance were abysmal, with Mussolini declaring Aflaq, “Another Hitler”. President Orbay of Turkey went even further, calling the UAR and Ba’athism, “A greater threat to the world than the Communists. If they are able to gain nuclear weapons, it will be the end of mankind.” While these declarations may seem premature in light of the Second Arabian War, they were especially scary thoughts to Europeans in the 1950s. When word came out that Algerian independence groups had tied their movements to Ba’athism as well, France started to pay attention. When Kuwait started to be paralyzed by strikes organized by Bat’athists, the British reluctantly increased their stretched military presence in the region, despite Gaiskell’s instinctive Anti-Colonialism. Many historians believe that his rejection of King Faisal’s letter forced his hand on the matter. At the same time, he desperately attempted to rally the Gulf Monarchies to oppose the Republic, fearing what would happen if the UAR was allowed to continue growing. Then, on November 22nd 1951, he would get the horrifying answer.
That day, Aflaq met King Ibn Saud in Ridyah. They formed the ‘Treaty of Arab Friendship’, which promised that Saudi Arabia would merge with the United Arab Republic 100 years in the future. There were many reasons for the treaty. From Aflaq’s side, he did not want to start a war with a respected Arab leader like Ibn Saud (who was no Farouk or Faisal) – he also worried about the religious implication of a Christian leader invading the country that at that point in time had both Mecca and Medina. Lastly, he also feared that if he launched an invasion, then the Roman Alliance would leap on top of him and defeat him while he was distracted in the south. From Ibn Saud’s perspective, he knew Aflaq was popular in the Middle East, much more popular than him, and he was still popular. But he knew that his links with the West were under increasing scrutiny. Anti-Israeli hatred had grown at such a rate that any attempt to side with the West (seen as an extension of Israel by many) against Aflaq was doomed to failure. Thus, an alliance was in both sides’ interest against far more hated foes. At the same time, neither party was sure how to normalise relations, as the stated goal of the UAR was the total control of the Arab world. That was when a brilliant stop-gap emerged. It was agreed that the Saudis would join in a hundred years, which would allow more than enough time for an effective alliance. Once that was up and the Saudis apparently had to join, it could even be extended from then. Of course, neither side had any intention of respecting the treaty. Aflaq would tell his second in command, al-Bitar, that ‘Once Israel is gone, the Saudis are next’. Ibn likewise told his son Saud that Aflaq and Nasser were a conflict waiting to happen, and when that came around, ‘the whole Republican insanity will fall apart’. Many in the West compared it to the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement, and many wondered whether it spoke of an imminent march to war.
