In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Reviewed by:
  • Western Imperialism in the Middle East: 1914-1958
  • Jennifer M. Dueck
Western Imperialism in the Middle East: 1914-1958. By D. K. Fieldhouse. Oxford University Press, 2006. xvi + 376 pp. Hb £65.00.

D. K. Fieldhouse's most recent contribution to the field of imperial history addresses the comparative British and French experiences as administrators of the Middle Eastern Mandates, which they acquired after the fall of the Ottoman Empire during the First World War. The author offers an overview of the contrasting imperial techniques of Britain in Palestine, Jordan and Iraq, and France in Syria and Lebanon, as well as the reaction of the indigenous populations. In particular, he seeks to explain why these 'relatively quiescent provinces of the Ottoman empire [became] some of the least stable and internationally explosive states in the world' (p. vi). Intended for students and the general reader, this volume not only illuminates the Mandate period, but also evaluates the degree to which France and Britain bear responsibility for the subsequent political histories of these nations, [End Page 542] including the long-lived military dictatorships in Syria and Iraq, the violent inter-confessional hostilities in Palestine and Lebanon, and the stable, if autocratic, monarchy in Jordan.

This work comprises three parts. The first part consists of two introductory chapters which map the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and the plans for dividing up its Middle Eastern territories. More specifically, the first chapter synthesizes evidence about the importance of burgeoning Arab nationalism in determining the fate of Ottoman rule, while the second chapter evaluates the 'extraneous' factors between 1914 and 1922. The middle section devotes a chapter each to Iraq, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, and two chapters to Palestine. Here Field-house addresses a wide range of issues, including the ambiguity of the Mandate concept, the religious and ethnic demographics of the territories, British and French economic, political and military interests, as well as the socio-economic structure of the local communities and their internal political evolution. In the eleven-page concluding chapter Fieldhouse turns his attention to the comparative aspect of his study. He approaches the comparison first by asking what might, 'theoretically, have happened if [Britain and France] had not taken control of these provinces in the form of Mandates' (p. 337), and suggests a series of alternative outcomes. Following that, he discusses various tests by which to judge the success of the different Mandates, such as the existence of 'cordial goodwill' between the European rulers and the local inhabitants, the quick establishment of self-governing institutions, and socio-economic improvements. He concludes that the mandates' best accomplishment was to create 'a system of states with viable western-type governmental institutions with the potential to develop into nations' (p. 347). However, he tempers this praise with criticism of the British and French styles of governance, notably as regards their reliance on the ruling elites, and their divisive policies which later caused particular problems in Palestine and Lebanon. Overall, the value of this work lies in its exceptional clarity and the succinctness of its synthesis, which make it ideal for students and the uninitiated. The slim, but judiciously chosen, select bibliography and the detailed index add to its usefulness. Given the unfortunate paucity of comparative studies of the Middle Eastern mandates, it should also spur interest and research into a seminal era of Arab history.

Jennifer M. Dueck
Corpus Christi College, University of Oxford
...

pdf

Share