Compare the Ways the British and French Ruled Their Respective Essay

Compare the Ways the British and French Ruled Their Respective Mandates. What Are Some of Their Legacies in the Region Today - Essay ExampleThe British and French endure in the Middle eastern United States A look into history proves that before the 1st World War, Britain and France were rivals in nature and were worried about(predicate) the increasing influence of each other in the Arab and African region (Brainard, 2004). While the British substantial a north-south axis of power, to balance the equation, the French developed a firm east-west axis of power. However, as some(prenominal) of them realized the benefits of supporting mutual interests, they came together by the beginning of the 20th century through assisting Suez line reflexion by Egypt, the Sykes-Picot agreement and the alliance in the First World War. The period thereafter witnessed a considerable change in the strategy adopted by both. They decided to divide the Middle east into a large itemise of countries. Thi s helped them balance the power without conflict, and also, it ensured that they could continue their exploitation without considerable amount of antonym from the territories. Similarities and dissimilarities between he French and British rule in the Middle East Evidently, both the British and the French tried to rule their own regions through established elites, though the British seemed more automatic to move their mandates ahead and towards a better qualified form of independence, and the solo exception in this inter-group communication is Palestine (Iraq Initial contacts with the British). In Palestine, for the first time in British history, it had to end its rule without establishing a government behind it. In other words, unity can say that the British only wanted protectorates and mandates like Egypt and Palestine as permitted by the League of Nations. So, the British allowed the territories under its rule to consider their own domestic political policies though the Bri tish continued their military bases and disciplineled their foreign policies. This is evident in the case of Egypt and Iraq. For example, though the British got support from the Arabs in its campaign against the Ottomans starting in Basra, the British short realized the position that the Arabs would not support them in the long term. Though 1919 saw the British acquiring the responsibility to administer the area from the League of Nations, soon they found widespread unrest and rebellion, and they realized the fact that the only way to bring the situation under control was to make a puppet government, and the dupe selected for the purpose was Hashemite ruler Faysal as it was thought that being a descendant from Prophet Muhammed, he would be accepted by all factions. In addition, as he was not from Iraq, it was thought that he would not feel confident enough to rule without the help of the British. The strategy worked out and there were a number of treaties ensuring proper flow of oil and total control of the regimes affairs. Almost a similar picture one can see in the case of Egypt too. Though the British allowed monarchs to rule Egypt, the period after the construction of Suez Canal (1859-69) saw the British dethroning Ismail, and it was followed by widespread resentment against the foreign domination. So, the British had to capture the control Egypt again, and thus made a protectorate. Later on,