Hasan Kayali - Arabs and Young Turks, Ebooks (various), Geopolitics + Sociology
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
ArabsandYoungTurks
Ottomanism,Arabism,andIslamismin
theOttomanEmpire,1908–1918
HasanKayalı
UNIVERSITYOFCALIFORNIAPRESS
BerkeleyLosAngelesLondon
©1997TheRegentsoftheUniversityofCalifornia
Morethanenglishebooksforcontactme:
onlyTurkey(sociology,philosophy,history)
cenkeri@gmx.net
Acknowledgments
IoweaspecialdebttoFerozAhmad,whohassharedwithmeovertheyearshiswealthof
knowledgeandinsightsontheYoungTurkperiod.Iamfortunatetohavereceivedinspiration
andguidancefromthelateAlbertHourani.Thedoctoraldissertationthatantecededthisbook
wassupervisedbyZacharyLockman,whohasgraciouslysupportedmyworksince.Engin
Akarlı,ChuckAllen,SelimDeringil,StephenHumphreys,WilliamOchsenwald,RogerOwen,
andananonymousreaderkindlyreadandcommentedonpartsorthewholeofdrafts.
IwouldliketoacknowledgethefinancialandinstitutionalsupportoftheHarvardCenter
forMiddleEasternStudies;theHistoryFacultyattheMassachusettsInstituteofTechnology;
theAmericanResearchInstituteinTurkey;theAmericanCouncilofLearnedSocieties;the
DepartmentofHistory,theAcademicSenate,andtheHellmanFamilyFoundationatthe
UniversityofCalifornia,SanDiego.ThanksarealsoduetothestaffsoftheBabakanlık
Archives(Đstanbul),thePublicRecordsOffice(KewGardens,London),theAuswärtigesAmt
Archives(Bonn),Haus,Hof,undStaatsarchiv(Vienna),ArchivesduMinistèredesAffaires
Etrangères(Paris),thearchivesoftheTurkishGeneralChiefofStaff(Ankara),theWidener
LibraryandtheGeiselLibrary(especiallyLibraryExpress).
IamindebtedtoPhilipKhoury,ThomasPhilipp,andLeilaFawazforsupportingmy
academicendeavorsovertheyears.Inthisregard,IwishalsotoexpressmygratitudetoL.
CarlBrown,RenataCoates,AliGheissari,ükrüHanioğlu,KemalKarpat,RashidKhalidi,Walid
Khalidi,AvigdorLevy,MichaelMeeker,DonaldQuataert,BassamTibi,JudithTucker,and
MaryWilson.
LynneWitheyoftheUniversityofCaliforniaPresstookanearlyinterestinthe
manuscriptandsponsoreditwithgraceandefficiency.TonyHicksdirectedtheproductionof
thebook,andLynnMeinhardtcopyreadthetext.
ThecheerfulcompanyoftheRC,Mufundi,andĐTÜfellowsandfriendshipsthatgrewover
countlesscupsofteaattheBabakanlıkmadethewritingofthisbooklessofalonely
experience.
Iowebyfarthelargestdebttomywife,AyeKayalı,andtomyparents,Reidand
MihriverKayalı,forallthesacrificestheyhavemade.
LaJolla
May1996
NoteonSources
Twoconsiderationsgovernedthechoiceofprimarymaterialforthisproject.First,the
objectivebeingtoinvestigatetrends,attitudes,andpoliciesinĐstanbulintheir“imperial”
context,particularattentionwasgiventodocumentsofthecentralgovernment,
parliamentaryproceedings,andthecapital’scontemporarydailypress.Second,asfarasnon
Ottomanprimarymaterialisconcerned,theunbeatentrackofGermanandAustrianconsular
correspondencewasexplored,inadditiontoFrench,American,andtheextremelyrich(and
equallywellexploited)BritishPublicRecordOfficecollections.Eachofthesecollectionshas
provedtohavedifferentdegreesofusefulnessfordifferentperiods.Forinstance,forperiods
ofstrictcensorship,theOttomanpresslosesmuchofitsutility.FortheyearsofWorldWarI,
thevalueofGerman,Austrian,andAmericansourcesincreasesasBritishandFrenchconsular
reportscease.
Thefollowingabbreviationshavebeenusedinthetext:
ArchivalSources
AA
AuswärtigesAmt,Bonn
ATASE
AskeriTarihveStratejikEtütDairesi(ArchivesoftheTurkishGeneralChiefofStaff,
Ankara)
BBA
BabakanlıkOsmanlıArivi(OttomanPrimeMinistryArchives),Đstanbul
BEO
BabıÂliEvrakOdası
DH
Dahiliye(MinistryoftheInterior)
DUIT
DosyaUsulüneGöreĐradeTasnifi
FO
ForeignOffice
HHS
Haus,Hof,undStaatsarchiv,Vienna
IJMES
InternationalJournalofMiddleEastStudies
Đ.Um.
ĐdareiUmumiye
KMS
KalemiMahsus
MAE
ArchivesduMinistèredesAffairesEtrangères,Paris.Correspondancepolitiqueet
commercial,1908–1918
MMZC
MeclisiMebusanZabıtCerideleri(ProceedingsoftheOttomanParliament,1908–
1918)
MTV
MuhaberatıUmumiyeĐdaresiMütenevviaKısmı
PA
PolitischesArchiv
PRO
PublicRecordOffice,London
SYS
MuhaberatıUmumiyeDairesiSiyasiEvrakı
TCTA
Tanzimat’tanCumhuriyet’eTürkiyeAnsiklopedisi(EncyclopediaofTurkeyfromthe
TanzimattotheRepublic)
US
RecordsoftheU.S.DepartmentofStateRelatingtoInternalAffairsofTurkey,1910–
1929
NoteonTransliteration
LestIappeartoconcurwithT.E.Lawrence’sdictumthat“Ispellmynamesanyhow,toshow
whatrotthesystemsare,”awordofexplanationisneededaboutspelling.ArabicandTurkish
wordsthatarefamiliartothereaderintheirAnglicizedversionsarerenderedassuchandnot
intransliterationorinitalics(e.g.,vizier).Onlyanincompletesystemoftransliterationisused
forArabicwords.MostmarksthatarenotonanEnglishkeyboardareomitted.Onlythe
hamza(’)and‘ayn(‘)areindicated.
IhavechosentouseTurkishrenderingsofwordsthatarecommontoMiddleEastern
languagesandregions,asmostofthenonWesterntextsIusedwereOttomanormodern
Turkish.Thetransliterationofpersonalnamesposesamoresubstantiveproblemandmay
prejudgeimportantissuesinthepresentstudy,whichtouchesonquestionsofethnic
identification.PersonalnamescommontoArabsandTurks(oftenArabicinorigin)have
identicalrenderinginOttomanTurkishandArabic.However,intheirmodernTurkishrendition
someArabicnamesbecomeunrecognizable(e.g.,EsatandAs‘ad).Ihavehadtomakea
decisionbetweentheTurkishandArabicversionsofatransliterationofapersonalnameona
casebycasebasis.(Thus,forinstance,MahmudShawkatPashahasbeenpreferredto
MahmudevketPasha.)Ifcertaintransliterationsappearunusual,theyshouldbeevaluated
withinthecontextofthearguments.
Introduction
WeknowbynowsomethingofwhattheBritishthoughtabouttheArabs,andofwhatArabsthoughtabouttheBritish
andTurks,butwhattheTurks,andinparticulartheTurksoftheCommitteeofUnionandProgress,thoughtaboutthe
Arabsisstilllargelyanunansweredquestion.
[
1
]
Fifteenyearsaftertheywerewritten,AlbertHourani’swordsremainvalid.Thisstudy
addressestheveryvoidHouranimentioned.Itspurposeistoilluminatenotsomuchwhatthe
TurksthoughtabouttheArabs(forthepreoccupationwithmutualperceptionsonlyproduces
sterileandpolemicalanalyses),
[
2
]
butwhatthepoliciesofOttomangovernmentswereinthe
Arabpopulatedpartsoftheempire,aswellashowthesepolicieswererefashionedatthe
beginningofthetwentiethcentury,specificallyduringthelastdecadeoftheOttomanstate.
AnexaminationofOttomangovernmentandtheArabsalsohastoaddressthegenesisand
developmentofTurkishandArabnationalism,becausenationalistdiscourseissalientinthe
establishedscholarshipontheperiodingeneralandthetopicoftheArabpolicyofthe“Young
Turk”governmentsinparticular.
ThereinstatementoftheOttomanconstitution(firstpromulgatedin1876butsuspended
withintwoyearsbySultanAbdülhamidII)on23July1908marksthebeginningofthesecond
constitutionalperiodoftheempire.Thoughonlyabriefepisodewhenviewedagainstthevast
spanofOttomanhistory,thesecondconstitutionalperiod(1908–18)
[
3
]
wasmarkedby
extraordinarysocialandpoliticaltransformations.TheYoungTurkRevolutionof1908
introducedparliamentaryruleandlibertiesthatrecastsocial,political,andculturallifeinthe
wakeofthelongautocraticreignofAbdülhamid.Therevolution,however,failedtoarrestthe
rapidterritorialdissolutionoftheempire.InEurope,theeventsofJuly1908prompted
Bulgaria’sdeclarationofindependence,Crete’sdecisiontounitewithGreece,andtheAustrian
annexationofBosniaHerzegovina.WithinfouryearstheOttomangovernmentcededLibya
andtheDodecaneseIslandsintheAegeanSeatoItalyandvirtuallyallremainingEuropean
territoriesexceptĐstanbul’sRumelianhinterlandtotheBalkanstates.Itconfronted
insurgenciesinSyria,Albania,andArabia(i.e.,theArabianPeninsula).Thesecond
constitutionalperiodalsoencompassesWorldWarI,themajorwatershedinthehistoryofthe
modernMiddleEast.
Onemayarguethatlessisknownaboutthesecondconstitutionalperiodthantheearlier
periodsofOttomanhistory.Inspiteofitssignificanceandthepresumableeaseoftreatinga
fairlyrecentperiod,thiseraofconstitutionalmonarchyhasescapedsystematicexamination
andconsequentlyhassufferedfrommisrepresentation.Thereareanumberofreasonsforthe
historians’neglectoftheperiod.
First,thereistheelusivenessofOttomanofficialdocumentsfortheseyears.Thisis
partlyexplainedbythedisarrayofdocumentarysourcesduetodisruptionscausedby
revolutionarychange,theadministrativeinexperienceofthenewlyforgedgoverningelite,the
successionofunstablegovernmentsaftertherevolution,andthecontinualstateofwarin
whichtheOttomansfoundthemselvesfrom1911on.Importantdepositoriesofofficial
documentswerelost,whilesomeremainedinthehandsofindividuals.
[
4
]
Government
documentspertainingtotheperiodafter1914remainedclassifieduntiltheninetiesandare
graduallybeingopenedtoresearch.Occasionalmemoirsproducedbytheperiod’sstatesmen
makescantuseofdocumentsandtreattheeventsoftheperiodhaphazardlyanddefensively.
Afurtherprobleminscholarshiponthesecondconstitutionalperiodcanbedescribedas
acaseoflosingsightoftheforestforthetrees.Someofthemostimportantquestionsofthe
subsequenthistoryoftheMiddleEastoriginatedinthisperiodasaresultofconditions
createdbythewarand,toalargedegree,oftheinvolvementofEuropeanpowersinMiddle
Easternaffairsinordertopromotetheirwartimeaims.ThisWesterninvolvement,in
particularBritain’sdeceptiveandconflictingpledgestotheArabsandZionists,hashad
momentousconsequencesforlaterMiddleEasternhistory.Anattempttobetterunderstand
contemporaryMiddleEasternpoliticalandsocialeventshasgenerateddisproportionate
interestinthestudyofBritain’srelationswithitswartimealliesandlocalagentsandhas
emphasizedthewellspringsofselectedproblemshavingcontemporaryrelevance.Thebroader
Ottomancontextoftheissueshasfailedtoattractscholarlyattention.
Thegeneralneglectoftheperiodalsohastodowiththeideologicalattitudethatthereis
littlevalueinstudyinganerathatwasarelativelybriefinterludebeforetheinevitable
downfallofaonceillustriousempireledbyoneofthelongestrulingdynastiesinhistory.In
fact,theOttomanEmpire’scollapsewashardlyapparentuntilthelatestagesofWorldWarI.
TheOttomanstate—“SickMan”thoughitmayhavebeen—actuallyhadmoreresilienceinits
lastdecadethanhistoriansgenerallycredititwith.
Ageneralizationthathassurvivedwithoutcriticalscrutinyagainstthefailuretoexamine
thiserainitsownrightpertainstotheCommitteeofUnionandProgress(CUP),the
conspiratorialconstitutionalistsocietythatengineeredthe1908Revolution.Theprevalent
viewoftheCUPisasamilitaryoligarchy(thefavoritetermis“triumvirate”)thatgoverned
throughoutthesecondconstitutionalperiodwithacommitmenttopromote,overtlyor
covertly,Turkishnationalism.TheCUP,however,neitheradheredtoacoherentagendanor
alwayssucceededinexertingitswillinimperialpoliticsduringthisperiod.Initially,its
inexperienceledtoexcessivedependenceonthestatesmenoftheoldregime.Subsequently,
itwaschallengedvigorouslybyitsdecentralistopponentsandevenbrieflylostpowerto
them.WhentheCommitteefinallyattainedpowerinJanuary1913,itexercisedacollective
leadershipthatwasnotdecisivelydominatedbymilitaryofficers.
Evenmoreproblematicandpervasiveinexistingstudiesofthesecondconstitutional
periodisaprejudicethathasdistortedthesocialandpoliticalpictureofthatera:the
nationalistbiassharedbyWesternobserverscontemporarywiththeperiodaswellasbylater
MiddleEasternhistorians.
ContemporaryEuropeaneyewitnessesviewedtheprewarMiddleEastwiththeirown
nationalistperspective.Theyportrayednationalismasamajor,ifnotthemajor,politicalforce
inthislatephaseoftheOttomanEmpire,eventhoughformostMuslimsthenotionof
belongingtoanation(muchlesstoanationstate)hadnomeaningatthetime.Often
WesternEuropeanobserverslookedattheBalkanChristiancommunitiesthatwere
experiencingnationalistmovementsanddrewparallelsbetweenthemandtheMuslim
communities.Theirperceptionswereoccasionallyshapednotonlybyuninformed
extrapolationsbutalsobyanelementofwishfulthinking,especiallyintheappraisalof
domesticunrestintheempire.
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]