|
T. E. Lawrence to D. G. Pearman
[Karachi]
Dear Pearman,
This not a statement. There is nothing I wish to say. The
consequences of what we did are going forward: and we have only the duty
of spectator. Too much is being said.
However, if you are committed to saying more, then I hope you'll stress
the local nature of the Arab Revolt. The Arabic speaking peoples are as
diverse as the English-speaking and equally distinct. From Morocco to
Mesopotamia is as far, spiritually, as from San Francisco to Aberdeen.
Further there's a world between the Beduin at Azrak, and the peasant at
Amman:- though the journey is only fifty miles. Only a criminal would wish to
make them all alike.
Our aim was to free from Turkey, and make self-governing, not the Beduin,
who have a secure, unenvied freedom: but the settled peoples of Syria
and Irak. To avoid upsetting places like Egypt and Algiers, the Arab
Movement had to be kept within these dykes. In the Middle East religion
has completely yielded to nationalism as the motive in politics. So our
job was relatively easy.
When people talk of Arab confederations or empires, they talk
fantastically. It will be generations, I expect - unless the vital tempo
of the East is much accelerated - before any two Arabic states join
voluntarily. I agree their only future hope is that they should join but
it must be a natural growing-together. Forced unions are pernicious: and
politics, in such things, should come after geography and economics.
Communications and trade must be improved before provinces can join.
The nearest approach to an Arab Empire at present is Ibn Saud's. It is a
figment, built on sand. Nothing static will rise in the desert, which
has seen hundreds of such tyrannies as his, all cemented (less
liberally, perhaps) with blood. It will pass.
The only places where Arabic governments are being attempted today are
Hejaz, Yemen, Irak, and Egypt. Of these Hejaz is better under Ibn Saud
than it was under Hussein. Hussein was a legacy of the war. We were in
his debt, for armed help, and couldn't (can't) say all our detestation
of his misgovernment. I was glad beyond words when he went. Ali, his
son, was a decent fellow, who did not deserve his father's legacy of
hostility with Ibn Saud. But of course he went out. I do not think that
Hejaz can ever become a great place. Interesting though.
Irak is the most hopeful spot. It has done wonders since 1921, when
Winston started it: or re-founded it. The war-administration there was
not profitable either to us or to the Irakis.
Syria should have been better, just at first, than Irak, for its people
were more advanced and more experienced. But the French after turning out
Feisal refused a single central government of all but Lebanon: and broke
it into four. So tiny a place cannot afford five administrations.
Eventually it will find such another solution as Irak: but you can gauge
the good fortune of England in having had Winston Churchill as its
Colonial Secretary in 1921, by comparing the cost of Irak, since then,
with the cost of Syria: and the happiness of Irak with the misery of
Syria. French pride is engaged, and they refuse to learn by their
mistakes. We turned over a new leaf, after Curzon went.
Do make clear to your lads, whoever they are, that my objects were to
save England, and France too, from the follies of the imperialists, who
would have us, in 1920, repeat the exploits of Clive or Rhodes. The
world has passed by that point. I think, though, there's a great future
for the British Empire as a voluntary association: and I'd like it to
have Treaty States on a big scale attached to it. We've lots of Treaty
States now, from Nepal downwards: let's have Egypt and Irak, at least,
to add to them. We are so big a firm that we can offer unique advantages
to smaller businesses to associate with us: if we can get out attractive
terms of association.
There, is this the sort of bilge you wanted? Do with it anything you
think useful. What a far cry between us since Azrak. I'd like another
bathe in those pools: flies & all.
Yours sy
T. E. Shaw
 |
|
