Essay代写：British diplomacy in the middle and near east during World War I－r51due

下面为大家整理一篇优秀的essay代写范文- British diplomacy in the middle and near east during World War I，供大家参考学习，这篇论文讨论了一战期间英国在中近东地区的外交。在第一次世界大战期间，英国在中近东地区建立了一个包括《海峡协定》、麦克马洪一侯赛因通信和《赛克斯一皮科协定》在内的相互依存、互为补充的条约体系。在这个体系中，英国几乎在同一时间与阿拉伯王公和法国代表谈判，对土耳其亚洲领土做出了互为矛盾的承诺。对中近东地区，英国首先关注的是战局进展，在战时特定条件下与法俄两个盟友的协调关系，但也需要长远的战略考虑。

During the first World War I, Britain established an interdependent and complementary treaty system in the middle and near east, including the straits agreement, McMahon-hussein communications and the sykes-picot agreement. The straits agreement was the starting point of this system. In wartime, Britain agreed to solve the problems of Constantinople and the straits in accordance with Russia's will after the war. It abandoned the traditional policy of sticking to Turkey for decades and started the prelude of carving up the Ottoman empire and changing the pattern of the middle and near east. McMahon-hussain's communications reflect both Britain's wartime demands for defeating Turkey and its Allies and Britain's strategic consideration of seeking new goals to replace Turkey. The sykes-picot agreement divided the interests of the great powers in Turkey and Asia, which pushed the partition of the Ottoman empire to the climax. In this system, Britain negotiated with Arab princes and French representatives almost at the same time and made contradictory commitments to Turkey's Asian territory. It can be seen from the analysis of the contradictions in British policies that, for the middle and near east region, the UK first pays attention to the progress of the war, and coordinates the relationship with France and Russia under specific wartime conditions, but it also needs long-term strategic consideration. It is against this complex background that McMahon hussain communications and the sykes-picot agreement have emerged, both of which are attempts by the British government to coordinate all aspects of its relations in order to achieve its strategic intentions. This paper tries to analyze and explain the contradiction of Britain's dual-track diplomacy and explore the root and essence of its constantly changing and adjusting policies.

In March 1915, in order to keep Russia on the eastern front in the war against Germany, the British government was prepared to satisfy Russia's long-standing desire for the Turkish strait, and held two meetings to discuss Britain's compensation demands. Foreign secretary Edward gray made it clear that: "the divide Turkey is premature." It was essential, he argued, to create a british-sponsored Arab kingdom in the middle and near east to replace Turkey, which had defected to its Allies, as a barrier to Britain's path to the east. In particular, gray stressed that religious sentiment in the islamic world could serve Britain's purpose. The secretary of state for the army and others, while pressing for territorial compensation, also favor the creation of new barriers to replace Turkey. "If we carve up Turkey, our interest is to create an Arab kingdom under the auspices of the United Kingdom," he said. He also detailed the kingdom's geographical reach: "the northern borders are on the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, including the holy land, mecca, medina and akbar." It can be seen that he combined the partition of Turkey with the establishment of an Arab kingdom to protect the interests of Britain in the middle and near east.

Several meetings to Turkey Asian territorial issues specific solutions are put forward, and the war situation requires the development of the British government has a clear policy and so on April 8, 1915, asquith from the ministry of foreign affairs, Indian affairs, the war department, the admiralty sent a personnel, composed of Morrison's deputy foreign minister, assistant ? gravels, gravels, committee for the President. The task of the commission is to study in a comprehensive and detailed manner Britain's position and strategy in the middle and near east, provide constructive advice to the government, and study and answer the question "once the war is won, how to solve and deal with the Turkish issue is in the best interest of Britain".

From 12 April to 28 May, the debundsen commission held 13 meetings to discuss various views on the arrangements made by Turkey after the war and to envisage various solutions and their possible implications. After six weeks of discussion, the committee submitted the debonsen report on 30 June 1915.

The report systematically put forward four ideas: one is to carve up the Ottoman empire; The second is to divide the spheres of influence of the great powers in the Ottoman empire. Third, conditionally maintain the independence of the Ottoman empire; Fourth, the decentralization system of the Ottoman empire was adopted. The report provides a detailed analysis of the four options:

Russia controls the straits and Armenia, France gets silesia and Syria. Britain acquired Haifa and Baghdad and built a railway connecting them. Turkey is confined to Anatolia. The report analyzes that although the partition plan is easy to be accepted by all parties, it will also bring a series of unfavorable factors to Britain. On the one hand, it will hurt the feelings of muslims around the world and endanger British rule in India. On the other hand, it makes it possible for France to change the sea power balance in the eastern Mediterranean region by controlling alexandre letta. The report therefore believes that the partition of Turkey should be avoided and postponed to the extent possible.

On the premise of basically maintaining the original territory of the Ottoman empire, it was divided into the spheres of influence of the great powers to protect the economic rights and interests of the great powers. This arrangement is conducive to Turkey's early withdrawal from the war. However, the division of spheres of influence also involves disputes over the interests of foreign powers, which may lead to conflicts within the entente. The report is very concerned about such consequences.

To maintain the independence of the Ottoman empire, the specific approach is similar to the second approach, but the scope of interests of the great powers is not clearly divided and the status quo of the empire is maintained as far as possible. This approach allows Turkey to continue to act as a buffer zone based on the consideration of delaying the resolution of this difficult issue. But the report argues that France and Russia will not be satisfied with such an arrangement, which may create new contradictions among the entente parties and bring "hidden dangers to long-term peace". The conflict between Britain and France and Russia will intensify sooner or later because of the uncertainty about the sphere of influence of the great powers.

To decentralize the Ottoman empire and continue to maintain the existence of the Ottoman empire in the form of decentralization. The idea was to divide the empire into five autonomous provinces: Anatolia, Armenia, Syria, Palestine and iraq-jezira. The report believes that this arrangement can avoid direct acquisition of Turkish Asian territory by foreign powers without further negative impact. The final conclusions of the report therefore favor this programme.

In the analysis of Britain's future strategy, the report, for the first time, takes Britain, France, Arab princes and other factors into consideration, and further deepens politicians' thinking on solving the problems of the middle and near east. The report sees that the Ottoman empire is difficult to maintain, does not advocate continuing to insist on its independence, but also does not want to change the status quo immediately, and tends to compromise options: make the Ottoman empire decentralization, limit the political infiltration and military expansion of the great powers, avoid early division of contradictions. But this ignores some important factors: first, the Ottoman empire itself has been severely weakened, and formal unity is difficult to maintain; Second, the rise of Arab nationalist movements in imperial territories has gradually become an important force affecting the war situation. Moreover, the premise of such an idea is that the UK can lead the situation in the middle and near east alone, which is extremely unrealistic from the perspective of the development of the situation.

In addition, although the report does not endorse the immediate partition of Turkey, it stresses the need for special treatment of the territory of Turkey in Asia, which is of the greatest concern to the United Kingdom because of its strategic importance. According to the report, Britain has always enjoyed political and economic advantages in the Persian gulf and has not allowed other powers to infiltrate the region politically and militarily. Mesopotamia, which is located in the Mesopotamia basin and rich in oil resources, is of great economic significance to Britain and has a prominent strategic position and should be controlled by Britain.

The author thinks that, not the gravels sen report at that time, the British government's decision is only reflect the opinion to the report, some crucial characters, such as gray, qin na, Churchill, did not attend the draft report, report has never been formally approved by the British government, from this perspective, the value of it cannot be overestimated. It should be noted, however, that some of the principles and recommendations of the report laid the foundation for a change in British policy. The report's particular focus on the control of Mesopotamia shows the great interest of senior British officials in the creation of a new Arab monarchy, with Turkey losing its grip and hoping to be replaced by the Arab kingdom.

Of course, the war was not clear when the report was presented. Although the European battlefield was deadlocked, and in the middle and near east, the Allies' dardanelles offensive in early 1915 met with stiff resistance from the Turkish army, Britain defeated Turkey in Mesopotamia and Russia won in the Caucasus. There is still more optimism about the war in Britain, with some in the political arena even suggesting that a renewed offensive in dardanelles could change the battlefield and quickly achieve Britain's strategic intentions. It can be said that the DE bundsen report is the product of the relatively stable situation in the early stage of the first world war. But after observing the situation on the ground in November, Mr Kitchener concluded that the withdrawal from dardanelles had come sooner or later. On the 23rd all the British troops withdrew.

The abandonment of the dardanelles expedition further made the British government realize the European war situation and the overall situation, feel unable to dominate and control the situation in the middle and near east, and decide to adopt the strategy of breaking the deadlock. Militarily, the focus was on the eastern front against the central European states, the diplomatic neutral states, and negotiations with the Arab tribal princes and the French. It can be said that the setback of the dardanelles expedition is the last impetus for Britain to implement the dual-track diplomacy in the near east.

想要了解更多英国留学资讯或者需要英国代写，请关注51Due英国论文代写平台，51Due是一家专业的论文代写机构，专业辅导海外留学生的英文论文写作，主要业务有essay代写、paper代写、assignment代写。在这里，51Due致力于为留学生朋友提供高效优质的留学教育辅导服务，为广大留学生提升写作水平，帮助他们达成学业目标。如果您有essay代写需求，可以咨询我们的客服QQ：800020041。