Conclusiones Parciales

In the aftermath of a war against Fascism that was rationalised as a war for freedom and self-determination, allied politicians would now have to compromise with their ethics to ensure the continued flow of oil. Almost bankrupted by five years of war, Britain reached an agreement with the United States over control of Middle Eastern oil. Allegedly in 1944, American President Franklin Roosevelt told the British Ambassador, ‘Persian oil is yours. We share the oil of Iraq and Kuwait. As for Saudi Arabian oil, its ours’. Subsequently, on the 8th of August 1944, western superpowers signed the Anglo American Petroleum Agreement splitting Middle Eastern oil between the United States and Great Britain. Such realist discussions leave little doubt as to the contempt held for local leaders and the genuine lack of recognition afforded to Middle Eastern countries in terms of state sovereignty.6 Islamic fundamentalists commonly use the western pursuit of energy security to convince fellow Muslims there is a war against Islam and therefore jihad is necessary in order to shake off interference from foreign crusaders.

In essence, neo-colonialism describes the post-UN strategy to secure Middle Eastern oil. Smith has suggested Marxist commentators used the term to denote the continued economic domination of newly 'independent territories by their former imperial overlords.7 Put simply, a means to extract natural resources from a country without actually having to govern it directly. Examples are bountiful. In 1949, Syrian Army Chief of Staff Husni al-Za’im gained power with assistance from the CIA.8 During his four months in charge, Za’im approved a pipeline allowing the flow of Saudi Arabian oil to Mediterranean ports, signed peace treaties with Israel and cracked down heavily on communist politics. In 1951, Iranians democratically elected

6 _{Information Clearing House, ‘U.S. intervention in the Middle East’, Information}

Clearing House, [web blog], 6th November 2004,

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6308.htm, (accessed 9th October 2014)

7 _{S. Smith, ‘The making of a neo-colony? Anglo-Kuwaiti relations in the era of} decolonization’, Middle Eastern Studies, vol. 37, no. 1, 2001, pp. 159-172 8 _{D. Little, ‘1949-1958, Syria: Early Experiments in Covert Action’, Press for}

Conversion, no. 51, May 2003,

http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/issue51/articles/51_12-13.pdf, (accessed 23rd October 2014)

prominent lawyer Mohammed Mosaddeq as Prime Minister.9 Strongly opposed to foreign control, Mosaddeq nationalised the country’s oil industry and cut all diplomatic ties with Britain. Heavily petitioned by the Anglo-Iranian oil company who stood to lose millions in revenue, the British and American governments approved a joint MI6-CIA effort to oust the new Prime Minister.10 By 1954, this led to the return of western friendly Shah of Iran. Mohammed Reza Pahlavi governed until a student uprising in 1979 finally brought an end to western interference and manipulation of the Shia dominated state. Today the process of neo-colonialism continues unabated in Libya, Nigeria, Yemen and Egypt. What Lord Curzon told the British Parliament in 1939 holds true in modern times: western leaders must never allow Muslims to unite and form an Islamic Caliphate since it would challenge their capitalist driven democratic hegemony.11

Determined that the Second World War would be the last global conflict, the victorious allies established a forum known formally as the United Nations (UN). Theoretically, the UN, and especially its Security Council, would act as mediator between conflicting member states in order to prevent escalation towards all out war. Contained within the founding articles of this new leviathan was the right to pursue self-determination. As long as member states refrained from threatening neighbours, they could govern domestically free of external interference. States like India, who achieved independence as early as 1947 employed UN mechanisms to help promote independence for remaining colonial states in Africa, leading to a so-called ‘Wind of Change’ in the 1960s. As a result, by 1958, the European states enjoyed almost no territory under direct colonial rule in the Middle East region.12. Moreover, bound by their public commitment to the principles of the UN, western superpowers could no longer subjugate and exploit weaker nations directly through the historical practice of colonisation.

9 _{M. Gasiorowski and M. Byrne, Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 coup in Iran,} Syracuse, Syracuse University Press, 2004

10 _{M. Gasiorowski, ‘The 1953 coup d'etat in Iran’, International Journal of Middle}

East Studies, vol. 19, no. 3, 1987, pp. 261-286

11 _{D. Little, 'Mission Impossible: The CIA and the Cult of Covert Action in the} Middle East', Diplomatic History, vol. 28, no.5, 2004, pp. 663-701.

12 _{T. Millar, 'The Commonwealth and the United Nations', International}

Unquenchable desire for oil however, meant that in the post-colonialist era, a new strategy of covert interference evolved. Both the CIA and MI6 assisted dictators favourable to the West into positions of power and more importantly to hold on to it. For example, in the case of Egypt, the authoritarian Hozni Mubarak was far more preferable to British and American politicians than leaders of Islamic fundamentalist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood or Islamic Jihad.13 Vast amounts of American military “aid” ensured he was able to retain power for 30 years before widespread protest eventually led to his overthrow and subsequent prosecution.14 Notwithstanding extensive covert action designed to subjugate the nation of Islam, opposition movements continued to act both politically and militarily in campaigns designed to liberate Muslim land from colonial occupiers and establish an Islamic Caliphate.