Out of the collapse of empires, a volatile struggle to forge national identities

By WILLIAM QUANDT

he Middle East has changed almost beyond recognition in the past 100 years. From Morocco in the west to Iran in the east, the region has been transformed as the result of well-known processes of urbanization, mass education and industrialization. The shifting political landscape of the region, however, has had more to do with the collapse of empires in the first part of the century, and the subsequent struggles in the second half to forge viable nation-states.

Just 100 years ago, the Ottoman Empire still ruled--at least nominally--over much of the region; the Qajars still occupied the Peacock Throne in Persia; the French held Algeria as an integral part of France, as well as a protectorate over Tunisia; and Egypt was under British control. The idea of a Jewish State in Palestine had just been broached, but was hardly taken seriously, including by most Jews. So how did this all change, and who were the leaders from within the region who helped to shape the course of 20th century Middle East history?

Wars have played a great part in the making of the modern Middle East, none more so than World War I. After the guns fell silent, the Ottoman Empire was dismembered and replaced by British and French spheres of influence. The most notable exception to this pattern came in the heartland of the old empire, Turkey, and was largely the result of the visionary leadership of Mustafa Kemal (later known as Ataturk, the Father of the Turks). Kemal led Turks in a national resistance movement, drove out invading Greek troops, deposed the Sultan and Caliph, rejected the onerous terms of the Treaty of Sevres and forced the victorious allies to recognize a new Turkish Republic in 1923. He then presided over a remarkable period of institution building, trying, with partial success, to create a modern, largely secular, state. With all of its problems today, democratic Turkey still reflects much of the Ataturk legacy.

Another state builder worthy of special recognition was David Ben-Gurion, the first Prime Minister of the modern state of Israel in 1948 (see separate profile). His great adversary in the Arab world was Gamal Abdel Nasser. But Nasser's claim to stand among the major Middle East personalities of the century has less to do with his posture toward Israel than his role in promoting Arab nationalism and anti-colonialism. By standing up to the British and calling for Arab unity, Nasser changed not only Egypt but also shook the foundations of many other states in the region. Nasserism eventually faded after the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, and now has few adherents in the region. But in his prime, Nasser was a force to be reckoned with. He nationalized the Suez Canal--and got away with it--and in so doing inspired a generation of nationalists throughout the Middle East. He invited the Soviet Union into the region and for a while seemed adept at playing off Moscow and Washington. His mishandling of the crisis with Israel in May 1967, however, has left a legacy that Arabs and Israelis are still struggling to deal with.

The last "giant" among modern Middle East leaders is the only leader of a successful revolution--Ayatullah Ruhollah Khomeini. From the 1920s onward, the Pahlavi Shahs had tried to forge a modern state, somewhat along the lines of Ataturk's Turkey. But the experiment came to a dramatic end in 1979. Contrary to the expectations of almost all observers, a 75-year-old religious scholar, who had spent much of his life writing about mysticism, emerged as the implacable enemy of the Shah and of monarchy. Khomeini was hardly a traditional cleric, for the Islamic Republic that he forged was original in many respects. Nowhere in traditional Shi'ite Islamic doctrine can one find his concept of rule by the jurist; nowhere can one see the blend of Western institutions (parliament, elections, a presidency) with novel creations such as the Council of Guardians. Although the strict forms of Khomeinism seem to be waning in today's Iran, Khomeini showed that militant Islam could topple the seemingly impregnable regime of the Shah. Throughout the region, those who opposed the despotic regimes in place imagined that political Islam might provide a means for radical change. Those fires have not yet burned out, although the Islamic Republic of Iran has had no imitators.

If Ataturk, Ben Gurion, Nasser and Khomeini stand out as the state builders and revolutionaries, several other leaders also deserve mention for their distinctive contributions to the region's history. Anwar Sadat of Egypt was the first Arab leader to see clearly that peace with Israel was an imperative. Before making peace, however, he went to war in 1973, convincing Saudi Arabia in the process to use its vast oil resources to bolster the Arab cause. Ultimately, Sadat settled for less than he had dreamed of. He could persuade Israel to return only the Sinai, which left Egypt vulnerable to the charge of having sold out Palestinian and broader Arab interests. But Sadat did what he thought was best for Egypt, and thereby began the process of peace negotiations between Israel and the Arabs that has produced both promising results and disappointments. Many in the region are now more willing to speak well of him than was the case just a decade ago.

Sadat's partner and sometime nemesis in peacemaking was the redoubtable Menachem Begin, Israel's Prime Minister from 1977 to 1983. His vision of an Israel which must include ancient Judea and Samaria, the present-day West Bank, set the stage for a major change in Israeli policy, the implications of which are still not clear. Begin believed that Israel could hold on to the territory, while offering its Palestinian inhabitants a form of autonomy. While securing peace with the largest Arab state, Egypt, he did much to ensure long-term conflict with the Palestinians.

While Sadat stands out as premier peacemaker, Saddam Hussein gets the prize for warmaker. The architect of a harsh authoritarian regime, he has endured in the face of enormous pressure. In September 1980, he went to war with Iran--a great strategic blunder, which cost both countries hugely over the next eight years. Then, without time to recover from the war with Iran, Saddam embarked on another venture in August 1990 by invading Kuwait. Despite the massive onslaught from Western and Arab forces mobilized against him, Saddam managed to survive and to govern. The balance sheet for Saddam's legacy is mostly negative, but cannot be ignored simply for that reason. He too has shaped the modern Middle East, and may yet continue to do so for a while longer.

King Hussein of Jordan is easy to overlook in the list of Middle East leaders. His is a small country, but King Hussein has managed to create a surprisingly viable state where none existed when his grandfather was installed in Amman by the British after World War I. Jordan, just by being where it is and surviving under sensible leadership, has helped to stabilize an otherwise volatile region. Without King Hussein and his essentially realistic views, the Arab-Israeli and Gulf conflicts would most likely have come much closer together, in dangerous ways. The role of governing a weak buffer state is not a glamorous one, but doing it well and with a relatively benign touch merits attention.

Many of the struggles in the Middle East this century have revolved around the nation-state. In a few cases, the struggle was remarkably bloody. The Algerian people paid a particularly high price in their bid for independence. At century's end, Palestinians and Kurds are still fighting for recognition of their distinctive identities. Those without secure nation-states still think that statehood will be the solution to their problems. And yet, the lesson of the century is otherwise. True, those with no state to protect them have suffered immensely. But so have many citizens of states that quickly turned into despotisms. Too many leaders have abused their power; too few have made government accountable to the governed.

Statehood has not prevented domestic violence and civil war. Lebanon in the 1980s paid an enormous price for the failure of its political institutions, as has Algeria in the 1990s. The great prize of the political struggles of this century, the independent state, has not been a panacea. Too strong a state has led to massive abuses of human rights; too weak a state has had the same effect. Some Islamists argue that the problem is the artificial nature of the nation-state itself, a concept with no roots in Muslim tradition. Globalists will respond that the nation-state is no longer suited to the economic and technological challenges that lie ahead. The future, they argue, is with larger groupings and transnational actors. This debate has just been joined.

Ataturk, Ben-Gurion, Nasser, and Khomeini did much to define the Middle East of the 20th century. The states that they helped to forge now seem secure, but not always relevant or responsive. The broader challenges of peace, democracy and development are still to be faced by most of the peoples of the region. The great leaders of the next century will have to confront those defining issues.

William Quandt is professor of government and foreign affairs at the University of Virginia. As a member of the U.S. government in the 1970s, he was actively involved in negotiations on the Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty.

MUSTAFA KEMAL
A true visionary, Ataturk carved a Turkish Republic out of the decaying Ottoman Empire. But his modern, secular creation today still faces the challenges of radical Islam.

GAMAL ABDEL NASSER
The Colonel who threw off colonial domination in Egypt, put himself at the center of Arab nationalism and the non-Aligned movement until defeat in war reduced his influence.

RUHOLLAH KHOMEINI
An obscure religious scholar, implacable in his hatred of the Shah and the U.S., the Ayatullah forged a revolution in Iran, but failed in his efforts to extend it to other nations.

MENACHEM BEGIN
Born in Poland, the mystical Zionist and former leader of a terrorist group went on to become Prime Minister and sign Israel's first peace treaty with an Arab neighbor.

ANWAR SADAT
His high stakes visit to Jerusalem in 1977 changed the Arab-Israeli landscape and brought a tense peace between the two states. It also led to his murder by Muslim extremists in 1981.

SADDAM HUSSEIN
Through the combination of an overwhelming cult of personality and a campaign of terror, Iraq's absolute ruler since 1979 has impoverished and isolated his oil-rich nation.