Afghanistan is a state in southwest Asia - the official name is the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, a state in the Middle East, landlocked. One of the poorest countries in the world. Over the past 32 years (since 1978), there has been a civil war in the country. stateMiddle East poorest countries in the world1978 civil war Borders Iran in the west, Pakistan in the south and east, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan in the north, China in the easternmost part of the country.IranPakistanTurkmenistanUzbekistan TajikistanChina

Brief encyclopedic information Afghanistan is an ancient country inhabited by people of various nationalities. The main religion is Islam in its most radical forms. Almost 64% of the population is illiterate. The development of the country seems to have stopped, and if the capital is constantly shaken by various metamorphoses, then they affect the rest of the population only indirectly, without making any special changes in the way of life.

Due to the different national composition (Pashtuns, Tajiks, Hazaras, Uzbeks, etc.), the country is torn apart by contradictions on interethnic grounds. In fact, the country is united into a single whole only artificially; each province, each village, is subordinate to a local leader, and practically does not accept centralized power. This explains the fact that when, during various wars, the capital Kabul and other large cities were captured, this did not mean victory at all. Afghanistan gained its independence from England in 1919, after the third Anglo-Afghan war.

In 1989, Mikhail Gorbachev decided to withdraw troops. It probably wasn't easy for him. And then there were generals who declared this a betrayal. But ours left Afghanistan - and the flow of “200 cargoes” stopped coming from the south. And Russia, at least for a while, stopped paying with the lives of its citizens for the ambitions of its leaders.

The end of the war implies a Winner and a Vanquished. For a limited contingent of Soviet troops, the Afghan War ended on February 15, 1989. Victory or defeat? B.V. Gromov answered this question this way: “I am deeply convinced: there is no reason to assert that the 40th Army was defeated, as well as that we won a victory in Afghanistan. Soviet troops entered the country without hindrance, completed their tasks and returned to their homeland in an orderly manner. The 40th Army did what it considered necessary, and the dushmans did only what they could. Our tasks were6: providing assistance to the Afghan government in resolving the internal political situation. This assistance consisted of fighting armed opposition groups. We had to prevent aggression from outside. These tasks were completed. No one set us the task of winning victory in Afghanistan. My attitude towards those who served and fought in Afghanistan is filled with sincere and deep respect. The most sad result of the Afghan war is the death of our soldiers and officers. Military personnel were killed, including 1,979 officers and generals, 572 KGB soldiers, 28 employees of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, 190 military advisers, including 145 officers, were killed, 6,669 Afghans became disabled, of which 1,479 were disabled people of the 1st group. Hepatitis affects people, typhoid fever affects soldiers and officers. The state owes an unpaid debt to the families of the victims.

According to official data, during the years of the war in Afghanistan, we lost more than 15 thousand killed, 36 thousand wounded, and more than 300 military personnel went missing. Young guys, sent to hell, to the land of sands and winds, died for no reason. And they were only 20 years old. Among the killed, wounded and maimed children, there were also those who were captured, those who felt the burden of war.

A Russian guy is lying on Afghan soil. A Muslim ant is crawling along his cheekbone. It’s very difficult to crawl. The dead man is too unshaven, And the ant quietly tells him: You don’t know exactly where he died from his wounds. You only know one thing – Iran is somewhere nearby. Why did you come to us with weapons, hearing the word ISLAM here for the first time? What will you give to our Motherland - poor, barefoot? If in your own turn for sausage? Isn’t it enough for you to kill enough to add another to twenty million? A Russian guy is lying on Afghan soil. A Muslim ant is crawling along his cheekbone, and he wants to ask Orthodox ants about how to raise him and resurrect him. But in the northern homeland of orphans and widows, there are not enough of these ants left.

Here, the deceptive days are wiser than the evening, All the spooks have hidden in holes. The Afghan battalion commander and I are sitting by the fire and slowly talking. So the mountains have put on their evening attire, the sun no longer burns or dries, Only bursts of lights and the loss of soldiers Burn our souls furiously. Wait. , Tarzhaman, the battalion commander tells me, There is no need to stir up this wound. Somewhere there, among the dushmans, my brother is fighting, Tomorrow I may meet my brother. My heart senses that he has leaned into these lands. He, of course, is wrong, but still, I will not forgive myself if my bullet destroys His pathetic life. almost didn’t shout and suddenly fell silent, But the silence was immediately broken. Someone howled in the distance, like a hunted wolf, Well, maybe it was just my imagination.

Every time gives birth to its own songs. But they do not go away with the time that gave birth to them, but remain, exciting and disturbing. The best amateur songs and poems, sensitive to the events of Afghan life. Poems and songs of internationalist soldiers entered our homes, the guitar spoke about the courage of the guys in a restrained and heartfelt manner.

If Evil and Good In a frank struggle And latest prophecies The moment has come to come true, Look into your soul: What is truly dearer to you, What attracts you with greater force - Good or Evil? And then take a closer look at who is strong and will wear the crown, and who will be cursed and forever forget their name. And again look into your soul: is the end good? And ask yourself again: is there really a desire to interfere? What kind of joy is it to die unknown in an unequal battle? Maybe hide your eyes, because you can’t save anyone?.. There is little use in heroism that is not sung... Time heals - one day you will be able to forgive yourself. And also, believe me, it happens, there are no worse enemies, Forgetting all honor in a cruel battle, Than those who stand, one and the other, for Good and Love... Where is the difference between them? With whom is the truth? Whom to prefer? ...And then the winner wearily lowers his sword: The enemy is on his knees, and no harm has befallen the world... And the order will be heard: “All disobedient people should be taken off their shoulders.” With whom will your choice be, my valiant friend? With whom then?...

What was it - a feat or meanness? Help for the brotherly Afghan people or occupation of an independent state? International debt or war of conquest? Disputes about this are still raging. Many people have completely democratic views (for example, the coordinator of the “Democratic Faction” in Legislative Assembly St. Petersburg Sergei Gulyaev, a former “Afghan” officer) still say that the invasion of Afghanistan was not a mistake, since it allowed “to delay the flow of drugs coming to our borders for ten years”...

Unfortunately, the Afghan war taught those in power little. That war was started by “elders from the Politburo” who were out of touch with reality. Five years after the invasion of Afghanistan, the “people's” President Yeltsin and his entourage began the war in Chechnya. In 1996, peace was concluded in Khasavyurt, but a few years later, under President Putin, this peace was declared “shameful”, and its results were consigned to oblivion. They began to explain to us that “the Russian army is being revived” in Chechnya, and anyone who disagrees with this is a traitor...

The Middle East is famous for its ancient history, and also as the region where Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Zoroastrianism emerged. Now the region is attracting attention as the most turbulent. It is with him that most of the news is connected at the moment.

In the Middle East there were ancient states on the planet, but the current state of the region is of particular interest.

What is happening in Yemen, the agreement on Iran's nuclear program, Saudi Arabia's actions in the oil market - all this forms the news flow and greatly influences the global economy.

Middle Eastern countries

The Middle East now includes Azerbaijan, Armenia, Bahrain, Georgia, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Cyprus, Lebanon, Palestinian National Authority, Syria, Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, Oman and Saudi Arabia.

Politically, the Middle East has rarely been stable, but instability is now extremely high.

Arabic dialects in the Middle East

This map shows the enormous extent of the different dialects of Arabic and the great linguistic diversity.

This situation takes us back to the caliphates of the 6th and 7th centuries, which spread Arabic from the Arabian Peninsula to Africa and the Middle East. But over the past 1,300 years, individual dialects have become very distant from each other.

And where the distribution of the dialect does not coincide with state borders, that is, with the boundaries of communities, various problems may arise.

Shiites and Sunnis

The history of Islam's division between Sunnis and Shiites began with the death of the Prophet Muhammad in 632. Some Muslims argued that power should pass to Ali, who was Muhammad's son-in-law. As a result, the struggle for power was lost by Ali's supporters in the civil war, who were precisely called Shiites.

Nevertheless, a separate branch of Islam has emerged, which now includes about 10-15% of Muslims around the world. However, only in Iran and Iraq do they constitute a majority.

Today the religious confrontation has turned into a political one. Shiite political forces led by Iran and Sunni political forces led by Saudi Arabia are fighting for influence in the region.

This is a trip to cold war within the region, but often it develops into real military clashes.

Ethnic groups of the Middle East

The most important color on the map of Middle Eastern ethnic groups is yellow: Arabs, who form the majority in almost all Middle Eastern countries, including North African countries.

The exceptions are Israel, where Jews predominate (pink), Iran, where the population is Persian (orange), Turkey (green) and Afghanistan, where ethnic diversity is generally high.

Another important color on this card is red. Ethnic Kurds do not have their own country, but are strongly represented in Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey.

Oil and gas in the Middle East

The Middle East produces about a third of the planet's oil and about 10% of its gas. The region accounts for about a third of all natural gas reserves, but it is more difficult to transport.

Most of the extracted energy resources are exported.

The region's economies are heavily dependent on oil supplies, and this wealth has also led to many conflicts in the past few decades.

The map shows the main hydrocarbon reserves and transportation routes. Energy resources are largely concentrated in three countries that have historically competed with each other: Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

The most interesting thing is that the confrontation has been actively supported by the United States since the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s.

The importance of the Suez Canal for world trade

The facility that forever changed world trade is located in the Middle East.

After Egypt opened the canal in 1868 after 10 years of work, the 100-mile man-made route firmly connected Europe and Asia. The importance of the canal to the world was so obvious and great that after the British conquered Egypt in 1880, the world's leading powers signed a treaty that remains in effect to this day, declaring that the canal would forever be open to trade and warships of any country.

Today, about 8% of all global trade flows occur through the Suez Canal.

Oil, trade and military in the Strait of Hormuz

The world economy also depends largely on narrow strait between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula. In 1980, US President Jimmy Carter issued the “Carter Doctrine,” which required the US to use military force to protect its access to Persian Gulf oil.

After this, the Strait of Hormuz became the most militarized stretch of water on the entire planet.

The USA pulled in big naval forces, to protect export supplies during the Iran-Iraq War and later during the Gulf War. Now forces remain there to prevent Iran from blocking the canal.

Apparently, as long as the world remains dependent on oil and the Middle East remains unsettled, the armed forces will remain in the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran's nuclear program and a possible Israeli attack plan

Iran's nuclear program has raised many questions from other states, but Israel's reaction was one of the strongest, since these countries have far from friendly relations.

The Iranian authorities are trying to convince the whole world that the program is exclusively peaceful. However, UN sanctions led to the fact that Iran's economy faced great difficulties, since it was impossible to export oil.

At the same time, Israel fears that Iran could develop nuclear weapons and use them against it, and Iran may be concerned that it will always be under the threat of an Israeli strike if it does not possess weapons.

The threat of the "Islamic State"

The Islamic State threat still remains strong. The situation in Libya is rapidly deteriorating, despite Egypt's bombing of positions of militants of a terrorist organization " Islamic State"Every day they manage to expand their spheres of influence in the country.

Libya may soon be completely under the control of IS militants. There is a threat to Saudi Arabia, since the leaders of the Islamic State have already stated that it is part of the “holy caliphate” that needs to be liberated from the “wicked.”

There is a serious possibility of a cessation of supplies from Libya altogether, as well as problems with transportation. In early February, US President Barack Obama sent an appeal to the US Congress asking for permission to use military force against IS for a period of three years.

Yemen - a new point of risk

The Shia Zaidi rebels, whose paramilitary wing the Houthis captured Sanaa, the Yemeni capital, in February 2015, forcing Yemen's Saudi-loyal President Abd Rabbu Mansour Hadi to flee, are beginning to expand their spheres of influence.

Their success may push the Shiites from Saudi Arabia to start an armed struggle with the country's authorities.

Civil War, into which Yemen is sliding, may become a new episode of confrontation between Shiite Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia, which is the most rich country region, which also has the largest oil reserves in the world.

At the same time, most of the kingdom’s proven reserves are located in the southern regions of the country, populated mainly by Shiites and located in close proximity to the border with Yemen, the total length of which is about 1.8 thousand km.

The process of the genesis of pre- and proto-state institutions described in the previous chapter is universal in its main points - with countless variations and modifications. This or roughly this is how supra-communal political structures matured among all peoples and at all times, right up to the 20th century, as evidenced by the field materials of anthropologists, who played perhaps the most important role in the reconstruction of this process. But how did things go further? How, on the basis of a small and relatively primitively organized proto-state, which often arose on a tribal basis (this is especially obvious and typical for nomads), more developed socio-political structures were formed? What played the main role in this?

It should be recalled again that options are possible here, and of a decisive nature. It was on the basis of the familiar proto-state structure of Homeric Greece that revolutionary transformation (social mutation) took place, which brought to life the ancient structure, which fundamentally negated the one that preceded it. But this is a unique case, worse and never repeated. What was it like in all other societies that crossed the line of a primitive proto-state? How did the forms of society and state characteristic of the non-European world develop, what was their structural basis?

Power and property:

End of work -

This topic belongs to the section:

History of the East

Preface.. the two-volume book offered to the reader’s attention is expanded and revised.. the two-volume book offers, first of all, the author’s concept, that is, one of the possible interpretations of the history of the east of the place..

If you need additional material on this topic, or you did not find what you were looking for, we recommend using the search in our database of works:

What will we do with the received material:

If this material was useful to you, you can save it to your page on social networks:

Tweet

All topics in this section:

History of the East
Preface. 2 What is the East?. 4 Europe and the East: two structures, two development paths. 6 History of the study of the East. 7 The phenomenon of developing countries and traditional B

What is the East?
What is this - the East? The question is not as simple as it might seem at first glance. It's about not about geographical concept- rather about historical, cultural, sociopolitical, civilizational... R

Europe and the East: two structures, two development paths
Having developed on a local “Homeric” basis, but borrowing something from outside (in particular, focusing on the Phoenician standard), ancient society was formed primarily on the basis of developed trade

History of Oriental Studies
The active interest in Eastern societies that arose during the Greco-Persian wars was by no means the initial impulse of this kind. On the contrary, the Greeks have been in contact with Egypt and other countries since ancient times.

The phenomenon of developing countries and the traditional East
The study of the developing world has been the subject of many special works and many summary works, the authors of which sought to understand and explain this phenomenon. One can also notice a certain tendency

Marxism and Russian historiography about the East
It is not easy to form an adequate, and especially scientifically verified, idea of ​​the East, both ancient and modern, for many reasons. But it is a hundred times more difficult to achieve this in conditions where there is no

Marx, Marxism and the East
The teachings of Marx are well known in our country, which eliminates the need to repeat his provisions within the framework of the proposed work. It is worth dwelling only on its most basic positions, which played a decisive role

And history about the East
Marx died at the end of the 19th century. The revolution was made in the Marxist way at the beginning of the 20th century. What were those who committed it thinking about, to what extent did they follow Marx’s recipes? It should immediately be noted that the revolutionary

Searching for alternatives
Russian orientalists, although before 1917 they represented an impressive and respected group of specialists in the world community, the history of the East and the problems of the historical process in the East inter

Oriental studies
Although in recent years experts have placed a conscious emphasis on civilizational, religious and cultural factors in the evolution of society, it is important to note that this has not yet been reflected in historiography.

History begins in the East... This well-known and now fundamentally undisputed thesis is convincingly supported by the data of modern archeology, paleographic materials and other firsts.

The Genesis of Social Bonds: Reciprocal Exchange
Human society, standing out from the living nature that gave birth to it, already at the dawn of history contrasted natural instincts with culture, i.e., such a system of norms, symbols and connections that became a substitute

And the redistribution system
The Neolithic Revolution and the transition to regular food production contributed to a noticeable increase in surplus product, which gave a sharp impetus to changes in the forms of social relations that were changing in parallel

Administration in an agricultural community
The Papuan big man is a candidate for community leadership, and there is reason to believe that the institutionalization of community leadership took place precisely during the selection and sporadic re-election of candidates from among

Structures
Field surveys by anthropologists make it possible to reconstruct the process of the genesis of primary supra-community structures using the example of closed enclaves, be it the Trobriand Islands or Polynesia, as well as some

The phenomenon of power-property
The proto-state, formed on the basis of an agricultural community (to some extent, also applies to nomads, but the typical option is agricultural), largely goes back to the norms of mutual relations

Early State
An ordinary proto-state, including a composite and even ethnically heterogeneous one, despite the very noticeable difference between the lower peasantry and the upper ranks of the rulers, was still densely entangled in the system

Developed state in the East
The early state “grows” into the developed one gradually - although not everyone succeeds. The fundamental differences between the developed political state structure and the early one come down to the emergence of two

Ancient Mesopotamia: the emergence of the first states
The sociological model presented in the previous chapters cannot, of course, be considered universal. It is rather a kind of guidebook that allows you to understand the intricacies of those many

Proto-states of ancient Sumer
From about the middle of the 4th millennium BC. in the Southern Mesopotamia the first supra-communal political structures appeared in the form of city-states. An example of this is Uruk, with its culture and social structure

Early states of Mesopotamia
Mid-3rd millennium BC was marked by the vigorous settlement of Mesopotamia by cattle-breeding Semitic tribes, who had previously penetrated into Sumer in considerable numbers. Their settlements in the north became

Babylonia
Caused by serious economic processes, primarily privatization, the social crisis was accompanied by a noticeable weakening of political power and decentralization, under the sign of which the two

Laws of Hammurabi
It was this policy that was reflected in the famous laws of Hammurabi - the first in history to be a fairly complete and multilateral set of legal norms and administrative regulations that developed in

Ancient Egypt
The Egyptian version of the formation of the state and society was noticeably different from the Mesopotamian one. Egypt, as you know, is the gift of the Nile. And this attachment to the Nile valley with its strictly regular regime does not

Structure of early Egyptian society
The high degree of centralization of management, which arose at a very early stage in the development of society and the state, shifted many of the usual accents and played a significant role in the formation of specific features

Changes in socio-economic structure
Started at the end Ancient kingdom the process of privatization began to be noticeably felt after the 1st Transition Period, from the beginning of the Middle Kingdom. In place of the almost absolutely dominant Tsarist

And the rise of Ancient Egypt
Ahmose's successors, especially Thutmose 1 and Thutmose II, and then the latter's widow, Queen Hatshepsut, were strong and powerful rulers, under whom an active foreign policy and conquests were launched

Akhenaten's reforms
Started by the board Thutmose III, who spent 54 years on the throne (the first 22 of them were actually ruled by the hated Hatshepsut), the brilliant period of political power of imperial Egypt continued

Ancient Egypt under Ramesses II
Despite the failure of Akhenaten's reforms, many of them took root. In particular, this applies to the strengthening of the role of the service bureaucracy, including low-ranking officials and army soldiers, and to the weakening of regional

Egypt under foreign rulers
The accumulation of Libyans in the north of the country and the use of many of them as mercenary soldiers led at the turn of the 2nd - 1st millennium BC. to bring ambitions to the forefront of the political life of the country

Ancient states of Western Asia
If the 3rd and even the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC. passed in Middle Eastern antiquity under the sign of the formation and development of the primary centers of civilization and statehood in the Sumerian-Babylonian Mesopotamia and D

Mitanni and the Hittites
The areas of Asia Minor and the Armenian Highlands (Lake Van) adjacent to northern Mesopotamia at the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC were inhabited by various tribes, in particular the Hurrians and Hattis. Infiltration into

Assyria
Just south of the Hittite state and east of it, in the region of the middle Tigris, at the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC. one of the largest powers of Middle Eastern antiquity was formed - Assyria. Here

Eastern Mediterranean
The lands of the Eastern Mediterranean, which connected Africa and Eurasia, due to their favorable climate and favorable strategic location, have been the most important center of human habitation since ancient times. It is here in

Neo-Babylonian kingdom
After the rule of the Kassites, Babylonia entered a long period of decline. Invasions of Elam and Assyria, the invasion of the Arameans at the turn of the 2nd - 1st millennium BC. greatly weakened the political power of Va

Achaemenid Empire and Alexander's conquests
History of Near Eastern antiquity 1st millennium BC. was marked by the creation of great “world” powers and empires. The fundamental difference between empires and large states of earlier times would be

Ancient Iranians. Mussel
The ancient Iranians, who belonged to one of the branches of the Indo-Europeans, appeared on the territory of modern Iran at the turn of the 2nd -1st millennia BC, and science has still not resolved the question of where they came from

Cyrus II the Great and the Achaemenid Empire
Becoming in 558 BC. King of the Persians, Cyrus II in 553 marched against Media and in 550 conquered it, thereby uniting in his hands power over both related branches of the ancient Iranians. Soon energ

And the social structure of the Achaemenid Empire
Having created a huge empire, the small ethnic group of Persians had to develop an optimal formula for managing a diverse conglomerate of highly developed and primitive peoples, different in their

And the death of the Achaemenid Empire
The Greeks were one of the branches of the Indo-Europeans who migrated in waves in the 2nd-1st millennia BC. to the west. If the earliest of these waves, which gave rise to Mycenae and later Homeric Greece, are not, in principle,

Empire of Alexander the Great
Since the satrap of Bactria Bese, who killed Darius, proclaimed himself the new emperor, Alexander opposed him and sent his army further east, through the capital of Persia Persepolis and Ecbatana in Greece.

Hellenistic Age in the Middle East
Alexander's campaigns and his conquest of the Middle Eastern world up to India gave rise to colonization on a scale unprecedented before. Greeks and Macedonians flocked en masse to the rich lands of the East, su

Formation of the foundations of social structure
The civilization and entire history of India is a completely different world, in many ways different from the Middle East-Mediterranean. Sometimes you can even find paradoxical parallels with ancient culture rather than with

Indo-Aryans in the Ganges Valley
Consolidated at the turn of the 3rd - 2nd millennia BC. somewhere in the Black Sea and Caspian region (maybe Asia Minor and Transcaucasia) Indo-European tribes from the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC. V

Social structure of the Indo-Aryans
Vedic period (end of the 2nd - beginning of the 1st millennium BC) The Indo-Aryan tribes in the early Vedic texts appear as groups acting as a single whole, but already a sign

Northern India in the middle of the 1st millennium BC
About the historical process in ancient india, as mentioned, little is known. Passages from various religious texts and semi-legendary traditions suggest that, in general, it proceeded

Ancient India: political system
and social structure Having captured in 317 BC. power in the Punjab and decisively clearing this part of India of the remnants of the Greco-Macedonian garrisons, Chandragupta, ka

India after the Mauryans. Kushans. Guptas
Opponents of the Greco-Bactrians, who pushed them back in the middle of the 2nd century. BC. and those who took their place were the Central Asian tribes of the Yuezhi. Migrated under pressure from the North Chinese tribe of the Huns (Xiongnu

Rural community in ancient India
The weakness and inefficiency of the centralized administration throughout most of Indian history was always compensated, as already mentioned, by the exceptional internal strength of the basic

Slaves and inferiors
Indian society, like any other, knew slaves, and a slave in the proper sense of the word (we are talking about the essence of the phenomenon, and not about terminology) could be, at least at first, only from among

Varnova-caste social hierarchy
The varna system, developed over centuries, had already changed in many ways at the turn of our era. Changes came in a number of directions. About one of them - the convergence of the status of the two lower varnas and their opposition to the two higher ones

Formation of the foundations of the state and society
Unlike India, China is a country of history. Since ancient times, skillful and diligent chroniclers recorded on oracle bones and turtle shells, bamboo strips and silk, and

The emergence of Chinese civilization
The ancient Chinese center of the agricultural Neolithic arose approximately in the 6th-5th millennia BC. in the Yellow River basin. This is the Yangshao culture well known to specialists. Painted pottery and cultivation skills

Shang-Yin Dynasty and the Xia Problem
The ancient Chinese historiographical tradition begins the history of China with a description of the reign of five legendary emperors, the era of whose rule is perceived as the golden age of wisdom, right

Shang-Yin Society and the Zhou People
Being a strong and prosperous proto-state, surrounded by a diverse population, more backward both militarily and in other respects, the Yin were active foreign policy, including wars and

The decline of the king's power and the strengthening of his fiefs
Several decades of stabilization led to some transformation of the political administration in Zhou. The first strong rulers were replaced by their weaker successors, who habitually relied on

Transformation of the Zhou structure; and the emergence of an empire
Despite the clearly expressed ethnic superstratification, the essence of which at the time of conquest was reduced to the privileged position of the Zhou conquerors, social, legal and property

Transformation of the Zhou structure
So, from the second half of Chunqiu, around the turn of the 7th-6th centuries. BC, in Zhou China the process of internal transformation is becoming more and more noticeable. This process occurred in two main streams. WITH

Confucianism and Legalism
Although the Zhou people, like the Yin people, idolized the forces of nature, at the head of which they placed the Great Heaven, their religious system was noticeably different not only from the ancient Indian one with its characteristic zeal

Ancient East: state and society
Getting to know the most important events ancient Eastern history, with the destinies of numerous ancient societies and states, provides a lot of material for sociological and anthropological analysis, for reflection

Forms of farming
Before the start of the privatization process, in all early states and proto-states there was only one form of economic management, which could be called community-state. Its roots rise

Principles of Social Structure
As a result of the formation of the first centers of urban civilization and the subsequent fairly rapid process of the formation of proto-states and early states, the consolidation of social organisms due to

State and society
According to the social structure, the relationship between the state and society as a whole has developed. If in Europe since antiquity the state contributed to the prosperity of the ruling class, its own

Specifics of regions and dynamics of the historical process
Structural features The East, the place and role of the state and society in it, the nature of the economy and the position of the private owner - all this, like many other things, ultimately determined the dynamics

Conservative stability
For non-European, and in particular, ancient Eastern structures with their characteristic secondary and subordinate position of the private owner and the omnipotence of the state, the dominance of the government apparatus

Dynamics of the historical process
So, at the heart of the historical process in the traditional East since ancient times was a clearly expressed desire for conservative stability. Naturally, this had a huge impact on Dean

Specifics of regional centers of civilization
The word “civilization” is very capacious. First of all, this term is used to designate the cultural level, the achievement of which meant the emergence of primitive groups on the boundaries of urban

Ancient India
From these, and from some other points of view special attention at comparative analysis India deserves. In some ways, the Indian center of civilization is quite similar to others. It is closer to Western Asian

The Middle Ages and the problem of feudalism in the East
The division of history into chronological stages that are dissimilar to each other appeared in European historiography with the beginning of the vigorous development of bourgeois society, and the reason for this was the need

The problem of feudalism in the East
We have already discussed how historical mathematics tried to postulate the presence of a slave-owning formation in the East. Something similar happened with the feudal formation. Moreover, the search for feudalism turned out to be even

The Middle Ages as a stage in the history of the East
For the history of Europe, where the term “Middle Ages” first began to be used, the meaning of this term is clear and easily explained: we mean the chronological interval between antiquity and the revival of many

The Middle East and Iran from Hellenism to Islam
Strengthening Rome and turning it into world power played significant role in the collapse of the Hellenistic states created on the ruins of Alexander’s empire, Ptolemaic Egypt and the Seleucid kingdom

Bactria and Parthia
The fates of those parts of the Seleucid kingdom that were located further east of the borders of Rome and Byzantium were different. Back in the middle of the 3rd century. BC. two large states arose here

Sasanian Iran
The rulers of Pars (Persia), one of the vassal principalities of Parthia, came from those places that were once considered the core of the Achaemenid power. Pars, located in the southeast of Parthia, belonged to

Arabia before Islam
Conquerors of Sasanian Iran, eastern provinces Byzantium and many other countries and peoples, the Arabs came from Arabia, this gigantic desert peninsula, where many people lived from ancient times

States of the collapsed caliphate
The deprivation of the caliph of political power caused the effect of polycentrism in the Middle East. One after another, emirates and sultanates began to emerge on the site of the former unified state, whose rulers, more often

Internal structure of the empire
The successes of the Turks in the wars, which ensured the growth of their political power, were largely due to the dynamic system of social organization, which went back to the usual tribal ties of the nomads.

The crisis of the military-feudal system of the empire
The timar system was optimal for Turkey in the first centuries of its existence, when there was a lot of land, and the insignificance of taxes on peasants was more than compensated by regular and abundant military supplies.

Arab countries under Turkish rule
As for Iraq, after the fall of the Hulaguid state, this country for a short time (1340-1410) became part of the Jelairid Sultanate, whose wars with the conqueror Timur led to ruin

Safavid State
The decline of the real power of the caliphs at the beginning of the 2nd millennium AD. contributed not only to the political decentralization of the world of Islam, its polycentrism, but also to the emergence, or rather, increase in the role of certain

Safavid Iran after Abbas. Nadir Shah
Weakening central government under Abbas's successors led to the economic decline of the country and, as a consequence, to an increase in the tax burden. Increased taxation in the countryside led to the flight of the people

Afghans and the Durrani Empire
While in the main territory of Iran there was a struggle between the khans over the legacy of Nadir Shah, its eastern part, as mentioned, came under the rule of the Afghans.

For centuries, the territory of Afghanistan
Iran under the rule of the first Qajar Shahs

Agha Mohammed Khan, who proclaimed himself the new Shah of Iran in 1796, was a merciless tyrant who sought to restore the unity of Iran mainly through brutal violence. The cruelty of the Shah and the general atmosphere
Political history of India in the VI-XII centuries In the north of the country after the Guptas at the end of the 6th century. greatest influence

used by the Gouda state, centered in Bengal. Expanding through conquests in Orissa and Magadha, this state under vigorous
Internal structure

The forms of economic and other relations and the role of the state in the described time remained in principle the same in Northern and Southern India as they had been before, for example, in the Mauryan era, if not earlier.
Community-caste system Dating back to the ancient Indian varnas and sanctified by Hinduism, the caste system has been the basis since ancient times social structure

India. Belonging to one caste or another was associated with the birth of a person and children
In the specific varna-caste-communal society of medieval India, the relationship between producers and the state was unusual. Perhaps this unusualness is not too great, but, according to

India under Muslim rulers
The collapse of the Pratihar state at the turn of the 10th-11th centuries. coincided with the intensification of the onslaught of the Muslim Turks, who at that time had strengthened themselves in Central Asia, and then in Afghanistan and Iran, on Northern India. On

Internal structure of the Sultanate
The strength and vitality of Islamic societies and states was based both on religious-political unity and on the effectiveness of centralized administration, based on strictly declared

States of South India in the 15th-16th centuries
Back in the middle of the 14th century, immediately after Muhammad Tughlaq left the South India he had conquered, rebel emirs in the center of the Deccan rebelled against him and proclaimed him their ruler-sul

China in the early Middle Ages, the Han era and the crisis of the empire
The severe economic and social crisis, as well as the political chaos caused by the popular uprising against the Qin despotism, the collapse of the administrative system - all this led to the extreme decline of China.

Wang Mang's reforms and the collapse of the first Han Dynasty
The question was who and how to carry out reforms. With the general weakening of state power, emperors usually lost control over it, or even became toys in the hands of rivals.

The Age of the Three Kingdoms (220-280) and the Jin Empire
End II and beginning III V. took place in China under the sign of internal political strife, during which several of the most successful commanders came to the fore. One of them, the famous Cao Cao, state

Transformation of Tang society in the 8th-10th centuries
The successes of the first Tang emperors, including foreign policy, including the conquest of some territories in the north, the re-opening of the Great Silk Road, the strengthening of power in other outlying areas

Jurchen (Jin) and Southern Song Empire
The Jurchen tribes living in the territory of Southern Manchuria have been associated with China since ancient times, traded with it, and then entered the sphere of influence of the Khitan Liao Empire. Accelerated pace of their development

Decline of the Chinese Empire Yuan, Ming, Qing
Strictly speaking, it is not entirely fair to characterize the entire history of the Chinese empire after the Song with the unambiguous term “decline”: for more than six centuries after the death of the South Song empire under the

Manchus and Qing Dynasty in China
Over the course of a century and a half of protracted political struggle at the top for the reforms necessary for the country, the process of ruining the peasants has reached an extreme degree. The activities of secret societies such as the White L

Qing China and the outside world
The Manchu dynasty was in some ways unique to China. None of the peoples who conquered China managed to fit so successfully into the classical structure of the empire. And not just an entry

Southeast Asia: Ceylon and Indochina countries
Over the course of thousands of years, the relationship between the developed centers of world civilization and the barbarian periphery has been quite complex. Actually, the principle of the relationship was unambiguous: more than once

Cambodia
The most ancient public education On the territory of Cambodia there was Funan - an Indianized state, the history of which is known mainly from Chinese chronicles. Everything we know about Funa

Vietnam
The most numerous of the modern peoples of Indochina are the Vietnamese, whose history, if we mean statehood, also dates back to approximately the 3rd century. BC. Proto-state of Nam Viet (h

Southeast Asia: an island world
Island world South-East Asia(Indonesia, Philippines), as well as the Malacca Peninsula (Malaya), which is close to it geographically and historically and culturally, is a special part of the Southeast Asian

Indonesia
Malaya has always been closely connected with the entire island world of Southeast Asia - suffice it to recall that it is sometimes called the Malay Archipelago. It seems that in ancient times it was through

Philippines
Geographically, the Philippines is part of the same island world of Southeast Asia. But, being its eastern and historically peripheral part, the Philippine archipelago developed more slowly

Formation of statehood in Korea
On the Korean Peninsula south of the river Amnokkan (Yalujiang) at the beginning of our era there were several tribes, the most powerful among which were the northern, proto-Korean (Koguryo). In the III-IV centuries. on the floor

Medieval Africa: Sudan
Although it was in Africa that man arose as a biological species, and here, in the Nile Valley, one of the most brilliant civilizations in antiquity arose, this continent as a whole lagged significantly behind in St.

Western Sudan
Western Sudan from the 7th - 8th centuries. was the place of the most intense transit trade, the point of intersection of many migration flows. Savannah farmers lived here. They also moved here sporadically

Central Sudan
Geographically, Central Sudan is the vast central part of the Sudanese belt, the middle of which is approximately Lake Chad. However, we will talk about political structures located in the western

Eastern Sudan. Ethiopia
Eastern Sudan, bordering Egypt to the north, has been markedly influenced by Egyptian culture for thousands of years. This played a role in the formation of such well-known and already mentioned

East Africa. Coast
Although geographically this region of Africa, adjacent to the Sudanese belt, still does not belong to the territory of Sudan, politically and in religious and cultural terms it forms a kind of unified whole:

Tropical Africa and Islam
As is clearly seen from the material presented, Islam as a whole played a huge role in the formation of African statehood in the zone of its Sudanese belt (northern Muslim Africa is not discussed here

Medieval Africa: the south of the continent
The Africans of the rainforest zone, the southern savannah and the southern tip of the continent were largely unaffected by the influence of Islam. Their development was significantly influenced by other important factors, such as

State entities of Guinea
Since ancient times, the eastern part of the Guinea coast was inhabited by the Yoruba ethnic community, to the west of which the Akan lived. This is mainly a zone of tropical forests, partly forest-steppe; growing to

Southern Savannah States
The tropical forest zone, massive in the west, decreases in the east and practically disappears in the Mezhozerye region. There is a hypothesis according to which it is the migration movements of the Bantu-speaking peoples

South Africa
South Africa south of the Zambezi Basin presents a mixed picture. Its western part, consisting of the Kalahari Desert and swampy Atlantic lowlands, was unsuitable for habitation - t

Social and political structures of Africa
Sub-Saharan Africa is usually viewed in many ways as a single entity. And there are many reasons for this. First of all, the population of this part of the continent, with all its racial and ethnic diversity

States and societies of the medieval East
Although the era of the Eastern Middle Ages is highlighted in the work conditionally, because structurally states and societies in the Middle Ages remained the same as they were in antiquity, the medieval East was nevertheless

Islamic statehood
First of all, this is Islam - Islam as a religion, as a civilization, as a new model of statehood. Being the latest of the great religions of the East, Islam absorbed, as I just mentioned,

Transit trade and nomads
Let us now turn our attention to another significant phenomenon of the Eastern Middle Ages. The role of transit trade, including navigation, was unusually large already in ancient times: it was thanks to it that the rise of

Power and owner
Another of the problems, rooted in ancient times, but worthy of attention in the light of everything that is characteristic of the medieval East, is the question of property. Privatization process

State and society
Although relationships with the owners were almost decisive for the fate of the eastern centralized state, it is important to say that the relations of the state, the apparatus of power, with society as a whole,

Traditional Eastern society and its potential
If traditional eastern society and its basic basis - the peasantry - were, in principle, fully consistent with the classical eastern state, if there was sufficient

Issues of territorial delimitation in the Near and Middle East have always been extremely acute. This is explained not only by the fact that the relationships between peoples that have developed over centuries were extremely complex, and not only by the fact that in some areas of the Arab East there were no geographical, ethnographic and historical demarcation lines. It is worth saying that the situation was complicated by the intervention of the imperialist powers, which “favored” this area due to its strategic importance and rich oil reserves. The borders of the states that arose in the region after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire were established by European powers, and in some cases these borders were established artificially without taking into account the interests of the peoples.

Even more serious consequences were the fact that the borders were determined by foreigners, hostile

friendly with each other, ready to completely ignore national interests and the rights of peoples if competition required it.

The resolution of every territorial conflict was, to one degree or another, a clash of imperialist, primarily Anglo-American, interests in that area. About two-thirds of the known oil reserves in the capitalist world are concentrated in the countries of the Arab East. This oil is produced mainly by American and British oil companies. According to the American weekly New Week, England receives from this region in “one form or another” about 600 million dollars a year.

The oil reserves controlled exclusively by Arabian American Oil Company (ARAMCO) exceed all oil reserves in the United States. In recent years, American monopolies have been persistently and unsuccessfully ousting their English competitors. Group: Rockefeller does not hide their claims to create a new, American “oil empire” here.

The influence of the struggle of imperialist monopolies for oil in resolving territorial problems is clearly illustrated by examples of the resolution of the “Mosul issue” in the territorial delimitation between Turkey and Iraq and the recent conflict between England and Saudi Arabia over the Buraimi oasis.

At the same time, an idea of ​​the nature of territorial. The problems of this region will be incomplete if we do not take into account the so-called “strategic interests” of the colonial powers in this region. The Cyprus question and the question of Pashtunistan demonstrate how the legitimate rights of peoples are ignored in the name of the “strategic” interests of imperialist states.

It should be noted that the growth of the national liberation movement of the peoples of the Near and Middle East, increasingly opposed to imperialism and colonialism, led to attempts by the imperialist states to develop a unified program of action in the Near and Middle East.

Thus, in 1950, the United States, England and France published a Declaration on maintaining the status quo (i.e., existing spheres of influence) in the Near and Middle East. The Declaration was adopted in violation of the Charter

The UN, behind the backs of the peoples of the countries of the Near and Middle East. Events showed, however, that the collusion of the three competing powers in the Near and Middle East had nothing to do with their declared goal of preserving security in that region of the world." Under the guise of the Declaration, the Western powers incited conflicts between the countries of the region, in particular they incited Arab- The Israeli conflict, which they are trying to use to interfere in the internal affairs of Arab countries.

Based on the collusion of the same powers, in 1951 a plan emerged to create the so-called “Middle Eastern Command.” After the failure of this project, the Western powers began to implement the “Dulles Plan,” which provided for the creation of a military bloc.

The conclusion of the Baghdad Pact was one of the most important measures designed to stop the decline of American and British influence in the Middle East. It is worth noting that it poses a serious threat to the sovereignty and national independence of the countries of the Near and Middle East.

J. Nehru rightly noted that “The Baghdad Pact created much stronger tensions and conflicts in the western part of Asia than ever before. It is worth noting that he pitted one country against another. “I don’t understand,” he said, “how anyone can claim that such a pact ensured the security and stability of West Asia.” Guided by the principle of “divide and conquer,” the organizers of the Baghdad Pact separated countries that were connected historically, economically, and by a common culture. It is worth noting that they threatened the territorial integrity of almost all countries in the region: both participants in the pact and states not participating in it.

The Baghdad Pact posed a threat primarily to the Arab states and, in particular, to Syria.

According to press reports, the Turkish government informed the organizers of the Baghdad Pact that Turkey would like to extend its power to the Syrian region of Aleppo. According to the same reports, the United States made it clear that if Syria joins the Baghdad Pact, the issue of Turkey’s territorial claims “will be resolved easily.”

The threat to the security of Arab countries has especially increased after the Anglo-French-Israeli aggression against Egypt

and the proclamation of the “Eisenhower Doctrine.” The latter contributed to increased tensions, strengthened divisions and extended the Cold War to this part of the world, legalizing foreign interference in the internal affairs of Arab countries.

The creation of military groups in the Near and Middle East poses a serious threat to India. J. Nehru, speaking in Parliament, said: “SEATO and the Baghdad Pact not only have an organically wrong direction, but also affect us in the most direct way and, in a certain sense, tend to limit us in two or three directions.”

We should not forget that it will be important to say that the creation of the Baghdad military bloc is fraught with danger for its participants themselves.

For example, the Indian newspaper The Daily Times reported that the United States promised Turkey to eventually return Mosul, which was given to Iraq at the insistence of England. American monopolies interested in Mosul oil would benefit greatly if the region were transferred to Turkey.

Iran is also in serious danger. “Unrest in Iran,” La Tribune de France reported, “... would lead... to the fulfillment of the desires of Turkey, which would covet Iranian Azerbaijan. Turkey's annexationist intentions are encouraged by its American advisers." According to press reports, the organizers of military blocs are planning actions by Turkish troops not only on the territory of Iranian Azerbaijan, "but also in the Iranian part of Kurdistan.

The Bombay newspaper "Blitz" reported that the leaders of the Pakistani government do not hide the fact that Iran's entry into the pact creates a favorable environment for resolving a number of territorial disputes in favor of Pakistan, including the question of Pakistani sovereignty over the territories inhabited by the Baluchis and located on the other side of the Iranian Pakistani border. The newspaper reported that former Pakistani Defense Minister Ayub Khan, during his stay in Turkey, reached an agreement with representatives of the United States, England and Turkey that

after Iran joins the Baghdad Pact, Turkey and Pakistan will seek the entry of their troops into Iran. It was decided, in particular, that Turkish troops would be stationed in Iranian Azerbaijan, and Pakistani troops in Khorasan. In view of the fact that the routes leading to Khorasan pass through Balochistan and Seistan, the Pakistani government will ask the Iranian government to grant Pakistan the right to station some of their troops in South-East Iran as well. In connection with this, Pakistan, quite naturally, will be able to expand its influence and extend it to such areas as Iranian Balochistan, Iranian Mekran, as well as part of Sei-stan.

On the other hand, the press has received numerous reports that Iran is, in turn, demanding the Bahrain Islands, as well as other islands located along the coast of Trucial Oman (formerly the Pirate Coast), as payment for its accession to the Baghdad Military Pact.

Thus, under the cover of the Baghdad Pact, a new attempt is being made to redraw the map of the Near and Middle East in the interests of those foreign colonial circles that are trying to establish dominance in the region.

Conflict between England and Saudi Arabia over Buraimi

The Buraimi oasis is located on the Arabian Peninsula near the Persian Gulf (within 24°15" north latitude and 55°45" east longitude from Greenwich). It is worth noting that it is located on the border of Treaty Oman with the Sultanate of Muscat and Oman. To the southeast of it lies the Rub al-Khali (Dakhna) desert, which belongs to Saudi Arabia. Borders between Trucial Oman, the Sultanate of Muscat and Oman and Saudi Arabia<в районе оазиса Бурайми никогда не были точно уста­новлены.

Now the Buraimi oasis is claimed by Saudi Arabia, the British protectorate of Trucial Oman (or rather, the Sheikh of Abu Dhabi - the ruler of one of the seven principalities that are part of Trucial Oman) and the Sultanate of Muscat and Oman.

The Buraimi oasis occupies a small area, on which there are only 8 villages with a population of ten thousand. But it was not ϶ᴛᴏ that obviously attracted the attention of the disputing parties. Buraimi became the cause of intense territorial conflict over water sources, its strategic location and mainly because of the oil reserves discovered there.

In the northeastern part of the Rub al-Khali desert, owned by Saudi Arabia, there are no sources of water more significant than the Buraimi oasis. This water is used by the tribes inhabiting a large part of the Arabian Peninsula. Therefore, the question of Buraimi's ownership is of vital importance to Saudi Arabia.

For England, Buraimi is important because of its strategic significance: it represents a kind of outpost, moved towards the possessions of Saudi Arabia and at the same time covering the British “protectorates” of the Arabian Peninsula. Finally, in 1953, oil was discovered in Murban (Abu Dhabi), superior in quality to everything that had been produced so far on the Arabian Peninsula.

After the discovery of oil reserves, the issue of borders in the oasis area became extremely acute. The conflict involved the interests of two warring oil companies: ARAMCO, dominated by American capital, and Iraq Petroleum Company, dominated by British capital. These oil companies stated that the limits of their concessions would be the boundaries agreed upon by the three states.

In 1951, the governments of England and Saudi Arabia agreed to respect the status quo in the region and begin negotiations to clarify the borders. Events, however, have shown that negotiations on territorial demarcation are almost impossible.

According to a representative of the British Foreign Office, the British government believed that six of the eight villages should belong to the ruler of the principality of Abu Dhabi and two villages to Buraimi itself and the Hamas Sultan of Muscat and Oman. The British ensured that the Sheikh of Abu Dhabi and the Sultan of Oman and Muscat entered into an agreement on their respective

responsible claims. Since, by virtue of a number of treaties concluded by England with these vassal principalities, their foreign relations were entrusted to the British government,” the dispute had to be resolved between the governments of the United Kingdom and Saudi Arabia.

When on August 31, 1952, the official representative of Saudi Arabia, Turki bin Atayshan, arrived in Hamasa with 40 armed men, the British government protested to the Saudi government and demanded the withdrawal of the Saudi armed forces from the oasis area. Saudi Arabia rejected this protest, claiming its right to own the Buraimi oasis.

Then the British forced the Sultan of Muscat and the Sheikh of Abu Dhabi to defend their “rights” to the oasis with British weapons and under the leadership of British officers.

On October 26, 1952, a truce was signed in Riyadh. At the same time, the situation remained tense, the armed forces in Treaty Oman were increased. Food supplies to the Hamas village occupied by Turki Biya Atayshan stopped. At the end of 1953 and the beginning of 1954, Saudi Arabia declared a series of protests to England against the attacks of the British armed forces on the Arab population of the Buraimi oasis, as well as against attempts to resolve the dispute at the cost of dooming the population to starvation.

To resolve the conflict, Saudi Arabia proposed holding a plebiscite in the disputed territory in order to determine the will of the population of the area. England

і In particular, in 1892, the sheikhs of seven small Arab principalities that were part of Treaty Oman signed an agreement with England, according to which they pledged not to cede their territory to any third party and transferred the issues of external relations of the principalities to the jurisdiction of the English government. As for the Sultanate of Muscat and Oman, although formally it is independent, in 1939 and 1951. Treaties were signed between the Sultan and the English government, confirming the actual complete dependence of Muscat and Oman on England. The armed forces of the Sultanate are under the leadership of the British, the Minister of Foreign Affairs is an Englishman... The foreign press reported that “the Sultan of Oman is nothing more than a mask under which the Farin Office and some British oil companies operate” (see “La tribune des Nations" 30 December 1955)

rejected the proposal, but fearing the claims of the United States, she proposed that the issue of borders in the Burai-mi oasis be submitted to a decision by an international arbitration tribunal. Saudi Arabia gave its consent.

On July 30, 1954, in Jeddah, Emir Faisal and British Ambassador to Saudi Arabia Pelham negotiated an agreement to resolve the conflict over the Buraimi oasis. The agreement provided for the creation of a five-member arbitration tribunal to determine the border between Saudi Arabia and the Principality of Abu Dhabi and resolve the issue of sovereignty over the Buraimi region.

It is important to note that one member of the tribunal was appointed by the British government, acting on behalf of the Sultan of Muscat and Oman and the ruler of Abu Dhabi, and the second member was appointed by the government of Saudi Arabia. These appointed tribunal members were to select the other three neutral tribunal members.

The agreement provided that the parties would withdraw troops from the disputed territory. It is worth saying that to maintain law and order in the oasis during the consideration of the conflict by the arbitration tribunal, a police detachment of 30 people, 15 from each side, was created.

Except for the above, the disputed area was temporarily divided into two parts, and a neutral zone was created between them. The agreement stipulated that in the northern part exploration of oil fields should be carried out by companies that received concession rights from the sheikhs of Treaty Oman, i.e., British companies, and in the southern part - by a company that received a concession from Saudi Arabia, i.e. ARAMCO . In the neutral zone, which included in particular Buraimi and its environs, no exploration work was to be carried out. At the same time, it was specifically stipulated that these temporary agreements should not predetermine the resolution of the issue of territorial demarcation of the parties.

On December 29, 1954, the composition of the international arbitration tribunal was announced. The British government, acting on behalf of the Sultan of Oman and Muscat and on behalf of the Sheikh of Abu Dhabi, elected Reader Bullard, a former British diplomat and prominent Orientalist, as a member of the tribunal. Saudi Arabia elected member

Tribunal of Sheikh Yusuf Yassin, Deputy Minister of ■Foreign Affairs of Saudi Arabia. These two arbitrators appointed two other arbitrators - Judge Mahmud-Hassan (Pakistan) and Judge Ernesto de Digaigo (Cuba) Former member of the International Court of Justice Dr. Charles de Visoer (Belgium) was elected Chairman of the Tribunal

England, fearing that the decision of the arbitration tribunal would be unfavorable for it, decided to disrupt its meetings and, with the help of armed force, subjugate the disputed territory to its power.

At the very first meeting of the tribunal, Hartley Shawcross, the chief lawyer of the British government, made a statement that the Saudi Arabian government, with the help of bribes and bribes, was trying to attract sheikhs and noble people in the disputed area to the other side.

And although the Saudi lawyer rejected the British government's claims and put forward their witnesses, the British delegate "indignantly" accused the Saudi government of allegedly trying to buy witness testimony.

On September 16, Reeder Bullard resigned, citing the fact that Sheikh Yassin would not be an impartial arbiter.

On September 23, the British Foreign Office announced that it had received a letter from Charles de Visser, in which he refused to chair the international arbitration tribunal. On October 4, 1955, the ministry issued a statement accusing Saudi Arabia of attempting to overthrow the ruler of the Principality of Abu Dhabi and of systematically bribing influential individuals living in the disputed area.

In October 1955, a British official invited ARAMCO intelligence officers and the accompanying Saudi Arabian military escort to leave the disputed area. ARAMCO personnel left the area, while Saudi Arabian military forces remained there. Then the British armed forces (troops of the English protectorate of Treaty Oman) came into action on October 26, 1955, they invaded the territory

Buraimi oasis and after a clash with Saudi Arabian troops, occupied the area."

Prime Minister of England Eden, speaking in the House of Commons on October 26, said that the decision to carry out the operation to seize the Buraimi oasis was made due to the “failure” of an attempt to resolve the dispute between England and Saudi Arabia over the fate of the territory. The English Times at the time reported that until the territorial affiliation of Buraimi was determined, companies operating in the oasis could not be sure of the safety of their investments.

Saudi Arabia sent notes to the British government on October 29 and November 9, 1955, in which it protested against the armed attack it had undertaken. The government of Saudi Arabia also drew the attention of the UN to the situation in the Buraimi oasis, reserving the right to ask the Security Council to discuss this issue.

November 14, 1955 It is worth mentioning that the political committee of the Arab League, meeting in Cairo, considered the issue of Buraimi. It was decided to provide “full support” to Saudi Arabia in its dispute with England. The League's Political Committee recommended resuming arbitration consideration of this issue.

In November 1955, Saudi Arabia proposed to Great Britain that until the issue of sovereignty over Buraimi was resolved, it should be governed by “an international organization such as the UN.” England was also asked to refer the dispute to an international tribunal. At the same time, the British government rejected these proposals as “unrealistic.”

The conflict over the Buraimi oasis has a serious impact on many aspects of Anglo-American relations in the Near and Middle East. The Western press even talked about a small “Anglo-American war” 2. The issue of “England’s support with Saudi Arabia over the Buraimi oasis” was put on the agenda of the Anglo-American negotiations, which began on January 30

1 On October 31, 1955, the Sultan of Muscat and Oman declared that the management of the Buraimi oasis was in the hands of his representative. a See “Le Monde” 6 October 1955.

14 Yu G. Barsegoa 209

1956 in It should not be forgotten that in Washington between Prime Minister Eden and Foreign Secretary Lloyd, on the one hand, and President Eisenhower and Secretary of State Dulles, on the other. The press reported that at these negotiations Eden intended to achieve United States support for the British position on the issue of Buraimi.

Representatives of Saudi Arabia were not invited to participate in the negotiations. The negotiators resolved this problem behind the backs of the people, without "consultation with the governments of the countries concerned. The results of the negotiations were not published, but British Prime Minister Macmillan, speaking in the House of Commons, unequivocally noted that Standard Oil of New Jersey, which has 30 % of the shares of ARAMCO, and Soconi Do not forget that Vacuum, which owns 10% of the shares, at the same time have 12% of shares each in the Iraq Petroleum Company. But it is the Iraq Petroleum Company under the guise. Petroleum Development Limited has oil production concessions in the protectorates of Oman and Muscat.

Thus, at the expense of the interests of the peoples of the Arab East, the imperialist powers are trying to resolve contradictions in this region of the world.

Dispute over Bahrain Islands

The total area of ​​the Bahrain Islands is 552 square meters. km. The population is about 120 thousand people, mainly Arabs and Persians.

In the X-XI centuries. The Bahrain Islands served as a refuge for the Qarmatian sect, and then became the center of the state they created. Since 1507, the islands were occupied by the Portuguese, who were expelled by the Arabs in 1602. In the 17th and 18th centuries. This territory was intermittently owned by Iran. In 1783, Arab sheikhs declared the independence of the islands, and in 1820 they were captured by England. In 1861, England imposed a treaty on the Sheikh of Bahrain obliging him to resort to British “assistance” against “external aggression.” This agreement was aimed against Turkish and Iraqi claims to Bahrain. In May 1871, in connection with the occupation of the Al-Hasa region neighboring Bahrain by Turkish troops, England sent to Bahrain

the Rhine Islands, the ϲʙᴏth fleet and officially declared that, on the basis of the 1861 treaty, this territory was under its protectorate.

In 1880, England concluded the so-called “first exclusive agreement” with the Sheikh of Bahrain, according to which the Sheikh undertook not to negotiate or enter into agreements with other states without the permission of England, and also not to allow them to establish diplomatic and consular agencies and coal mines on the territory of Bahrain. stations. This agreement was confirmed and expanded in 1892 by the last "exceptional agreement". The Sheikh undertook "not to cede, sell, mortgage or otherwise alienate any part of its territory to anyone other than the British Government."

At the same time, Iran stubbornly continues to consider the Bahrain Islands as its territory and is seeking their return. In August 1948, the Iranian government declared that the Bahrain Islands formed an inextricable part of Iran. The British government replied that it considered the Bahrain Islands "an independent possession of an Arab sheikh having special relations with England."

England categorically rejects all attempts by the Iranian authorities to achieve recognition of their rights to these islands. The withdrawal of British troops from the Suez Canal zone increased the importance of the Bahrain Islands, which were turned into a military-political base, into a “strategic center” of British positions in the Near and Middle East.

After oil was discovered here, this territory became the object of intense struggle between the British and American imperialists. In 1932, the Sheikh of Bahrain, despite the existence of “exclusive agreements,” transferred the development of the oil resources of the territory into concession to two American companies that formed the Bahrain Petroleum Company, and subsequently also allowed the opening of an American consulate.

1 See Anglo-Bahrain Treaties and Agreements. Diplomatic Dictionary, vol. 1, M, 1948, pp. 80-- 81.

Today oil production reaches 2 million tons. in year. Oil from Saudi Arabia is also delivered here via an oil pipeline for processing.

The United States is seeking to oust England from the Bahrain Islands and at the same time is using the Anglo-Iranian conflict to weaken the position of its English competitor in Iran."

As the Al-Ahram newspaper reported on October 19, 1955, “the American and Turkish governments encouraged Iran to join the Baghdad Union, promising in return to support its claims to Bahrain.”

1 Notable in this regard is the book of the American historian and lawyer F. Adamiat (F. A d a m i u a t, Bahrein Islands. A Legal and Diplomatic Study of the British-Iranian Controversy. New York, 1955, p. 268), which represents an outline of the diplomatic struggle between England and Iran on the issue of the territorial ownership of the Bahrain Islands and a legal study of this dispute. The author sets himself the task: “to draw certain conclusions regarding the validity of the claims of Iran and England to these islands in the light of generally accepted principles of international law.” The author subjects to legal analysis those arguments on the basis of which England carries out the actual occupation of the Bahrain Islands. The British government puts forward three main legal arguments in this regard: 1) The Bahrain Islands are geographically separated from Iran and do not form a single whole with it; 2) ethnically they have a number of significant differences from Iran; 3) Iran has no historical rights to the Bahrain Islands. Analyzing these arguments, Adamiat comes to the conclusion that they are untenable. The material was published on http://site
It is worth noting that he believes that both geographically and ethnically the Bahrain Islands are closely related to Iran. Iran's historical rights to the Bahrain Islands also seem to him indisputable, despite the fact that these islands were torn away from Iran for some time as a result of the Portuguese conquest in the 16th century. As the author emphasizes, the long-term actual occupation of the islands by England does not give the latter legal rights to them. In this case, the theory that England acquired legal rights to the Bahrain Islands due to prescription cannot be applied, since Iran has not renounced its sovereignty in relation to these islands. “We inevitably come to the conclusion that, firstly, the rights of England in respect of the Bahrain Islands were not acquired by means sanctioned by international law; secondly, the actual situation of the Bahrain Islands does not correspond to the international order; thirdly, there remains a discrepancy between the actual and legal position of the islands; fourthly, Iran’s claims to the Bahrain Islands are based on law, they are confirmed by historical facts and many legal precedents” (p. 252)

We should not forget that it will be important to say that Iranian claims to the Bahrain Islands caused a strong reaction in Arab countries. The latter stated that “Bahrain is an Arab country that is not subject to Iran and has no ties with it.”

Cyprus issue

Cyprus is one of the largest islands in the Mediterranean Sea. Note that its territory is 9,251 square meters. km. Over half a million people live on the island. The vast majority of the population - about 400 thousand - are Greeks, who have lived here since the end of the second millennium BC. e. In addition to the Greeks, 90 thousand Turks live on the island, as well as Armenians and others who make up the rest of the island's population.

Cyprus occupies an exceptionally advantageous strategic position on the routes from Europe to India and other Asian countries.
It is worth noting that the island occupies a key position on the approaches to the countries of the Near and Middle East. It is worth noting that it is located only 65 km from the coast of Turkey, 160 km from Syria and 360 km from Egypt.

With its position and its wealth, Cyprus attracted the attention of various conquerors who constantly challenged power over the island. In 1400 BC. e. The island was taken over by the Egyptian pharaohs, and 700 years later by the Assyrian kings, who were in turn replaced by the Persians. Then the island came under the rule of Alexander the Great. Cyprus also belonged to the Roman emperors, and one of them, Anthony, gave the island to Cleopatra as a gift. After the collapse of the Roman Empire, Cyprus, which was its province, passed to Byzantium.
It is worth noting that the Arabs also sought to take possession of the island. During the Crusades in 1191, Richard the Lionheart appeared here. A year later, he sold the island to the Order of the Templars, but the population of Cyprus caused so much trouble to the Templars that they demanded that the deal be annulled and the island passed to the Luziyaans, who ruled it for three centuries. In the second half of the 15th century. The Lusignans were replaced by the Venetians, but in 1571 the island was conquered by the troops of Sultan Suleiman P. Cyprus,<как и весь эллинский мир, оказался под туїрец-

kim ig. When, after a seven-year war of national liberation, Greece finally gained independence in 1829, it failed to include all ethnically Greek territories into the state territory. The rule of the Turks in Cyprus lasted for over three centuries. They drowned every attempt by the Cypriots to achieve liberation in the “Rovi”. This was the case in 1821, 1839, etc.

In 1878, when the process of collapse of the Ottoman Empire had already begun, the British, as a result of a political deal between Disraeli and Sultan Abdul Hamid II, took possession of the island. “England,” said Gladstone, “seized Cyprus by dishonorable means; even if the acquisition is profitable, the method that ensured it is shameful for the English.”

On June 4, 1878, an agreement on a defensive alliance against Russia was concluded between England and Turkey. According to the treaty, England undertook to defend Turkey by force of arms “in the event that Batum, Ardahan, Kare or one of these areas were retained by Russia or if Russia ever made an attempt to seize another part of the territories of e.v. Sultan in Asia." In return, Turkey undertook, “to enable England to have the necessary means to fulfill her obligation... to designate the island of Cyprus for the occupation and administration of England.”

Additional articles to the agreement, signed in Constantinople on July 1, 1878, provided that “if Russia returned to Turkey Kara and other conquests she made in Armenia during the last war, the island of Cyprus would be evacuated by England and the convention of 4 June 1878 will lose its power" 1.

Meanwhile, preliminary, according to an agreement with Russia concluded in London on May 30, 1878, England withdrew its objections to Russia’s claims to Batum, Ardahan and Kare. Thus, the conditions provided for by the Anglo-Turkish treaty were created for the indefinite English “occupation and administration” of Cyprus.

■ Within the meaning of these agreements, Cyprus nominally remained under the sovereignty of the Turkish Sultan, in fact

..-" ,1 “International politics of modern times in treaties, notes and declarations”, part 1, M., 1925 No. 217, p. 226.

However, the Sultan's sovereignty over Cyprus was stripped of the last vestiges of power. From the position of the classical bourgeois concept of territory as the limit of power, as well as from the position of object theory with their general idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe impenetrability of state territory, such a situation should have been considered an anomaly. Soon, however, England “resolved” the discrepancy by declaring Cyprus British territory.
It is worth noting that the island was annexed by royal decree on November 5, 1914 after Turkey attacked Russia.

On October 18, 1915, the British government offered Cyprus to the Greek government in exchange for assistance to Serbia. Greece did not accept this condition. When Greece joined the Entente, the question of Cyprus joining Greece again arose. The British promised to give Cyprus to Greece on the day that Italy returned Rhodes to it, and Italy promised to return Rhodes on the day that England returned Cyprus.

In 1923, in the Treaty of Lausanne, Turkey stated that it "recognizes the annexation of Cyprus, proclaimed by the British Government on November 5, 1914." Thus, Cyprus, contrary to the will of the people inhabiting it, was turned into an English imperial colony, and the population of the island was deprived of political rights and freedom. From the very first days of the British occupation, Cypriots protested against enslavement and demanded the annexation of the island to Greece. From time to time they presented petitions to the English authorities and sent delegations to London. An uprising broke out here in 1931, but it was suppressed.

The fascist aggression against Greece in October 1940 led to a new demonstration of the national feelings of the Cypriots. Some 35,000 Cypriots joined the armed forces and fought bravely against fascism. “By fighting on the side of England, you are fighting for Greece,” the British told them and promised to provide Cyprus with freedom, but after the end of the war they did not fulfill their promises.

The Cypriot struggle entered a new phase of development after the Second World War.

In January 1950, after the British government refused to hold a plebiscite, a population survey was conducted under the leadership of the Greek diocese. And although the plebiscite was held under conditions of British occupation and brutal persecution, out of 224,747 voters, 215,108 voted

ϲʙᴏand votes for the annexation of the island by Greece. Copies of the ballots were presented by a specially designated delegation to the UN Secretary General. But the British authorities did not want to recognize the results of the plebiscite. The petitions and memorandums of the Cypriots sent to the United Nations came to nothing.

As for the Greek government, it, as the Western press reported, “played deaf for a long time,” and when it subsequently tried to start negotiations with “the British government, the latter categorically refused them. Eden, then Foreign Secretary, declared in Athens in September 1953 that “for the British Government there is no Cyprus question at present and cannot be in the future.”1 Later, on July 28, 1954, in the House of Representatives, when asked about the future status of Cyprus, Secretary of State for Colonial Affairs Henry Hopkins replied that certain territories of the British Commonwealth of Nations, due to the peculiarities of its situation, could never count on gaining independence. Churchill, wanting to somewhat soften the tone of his statement, said that the word “never” should not have been used, but that it was also impossible to set any specific deadline.

Since the British Government categorically refused to discuss the status of Cyprus with Greece, the Greek Government had no choice but to raise the issue of Cyprus with the United Nations, with reference to Art. Art. 10 and 14 of the Charter. The Cyprus issue was included in the agenda of the IX session of the General Assembly under the title: “Application to the population of the island of Cyprus of the principle of equal rights of peoples and their right to self-determination.”

It was only on December 14, 1954 that the First (Political) Committee took up the Cyprus issue. Despite an attempt to force Greece to withdraw from discussing the issue at the UN, the Greek delegation proposed a draft resolution stating that the General Assembly, considering that one of the purposes of the United Nations is “to develop friendly relations among nations on the basis of respect for the principle equality and

1 Greek News Agency. Weekly Survey of Greek News. February 11, 1955, N 446.

self-determination of peoples", and, taking into account resolution 637A (VII) of December 16, 1952, expresses the wish that the principle of equality and self-determination be applied to Cyprus. To avoid discussing the issue on its merits, the states of the Anglo-American bloc resorted to a proven technique. It is worth noting that they tried to drown him in disputes over procedural issues. New Zealand introduced a draft resolution proposing “not to discuss” the Cyprus issue. The proposal was motivated by the fact that discussion of this issue could have undesirable political consequences, namely the deterioration of relations between Greece, on the one hand, and Great Britain and Turkey, on the other. And although the representative of Greece indicated that a two-thirds majority was essential in order to change the order of discussion adopted for this issue or postpone its discussion, the commission, by a simple majority, decided to consider the New Zealand proposal first. Representatives of El Salvador and Colombia proposed an amendment to the New Zealand draft, which stated that “it would be inappropriate at this time to adopt a resolution on the question of Cyprus.” The New Zealand project with the “addition” of El Salvador and Colombia was adopted, it should be said, by the political committee and approved by the General Assembly by a majority of votes, including the vote of the representative of the Greek government.

In Greece and Cyprus, people eagerly awaited the results of the discussion of the Cyprus issue. The decision taken at the UN to postpone its consideration for an indefinite period of time caused indignation among the people. This gave rise to impressive protest demonstrations both in Cyprus and in Greece itself. It is worth saying that British troops were used to suppress the demonstrations in Cyprus. A memorandum presented to the UN Secretary General by the Greek representative in May 1955 indicated that as a result of repression by the British administration, the Cypriots were forced to defend themselves with weapons in their hands. It is worth saying that the situation in Cyprus had become extremely aggravated.

and Dr. A. Q. Tsoutsos, La question internationale de Chypre. “Revue generate de droit international public” juillet-septembre 1955, N 3, pp. 454-455.

Under these conditions, the British government invited the governments of Greece and Turkey to send their representatives to London to participate in a meeting “on political and military issues relating to the Eastern Mediterranean, including Cyprus.” Representatives of Cyprus were not invited to the meeting. The composition of the meeting participants allowed England to take the position not so much of a disputing party, but rather of a mediator and arbiter in the dispute between Greece, which supports the Cypriot struggle for self-determination, and Turkey, which does not claim the right of the population of Cyprus to self-determination. The Greeks viewed the English proposal as a “trap” designed to delay the question of self-determination of Cyprus indefinitely and prevent Greece from appealing to the UN.

“We have noticed,” the letter said, “that almost the entire British press is trying to present the Cyprus issue as a dispute between Turkey and Greece, in which Great Britain acts as an arbiter.
It is worth noting that special emphasis was placed on Turkish statements that if the status quo of our island changes, Turkey will rightfully lay claim to Cyprus and that the Turks will oppose any change in sovereignty by all means.

The parties to the current conflict will be: Great Britain, as a power exercising colonial rule, and the people of Cyprus and Greece, demanding the immediate and unconditional application of the right to self-determination, which is one of the generally recognized fundamental principles of the UN. Therefore, any attempt to confuse the issue is doomed to failure."

The London Conference began its work on August 29, 1955 at Lancaster House. It is worth noting that it reached a dead end immediately after the opening speeches of the representatives of the three countries. From the very beginning, the delegations took completely irreconcilable positions, repeating and developing previously put forward arguments. In a joint communique published on September 1, the positions of the meeting participants were determined.

The Greek representative continued to insist on recognition of the Cypriot right to self-determination. The Turkish Foreign Minister rejected this proposal in the most categorical form. It is worth noting that he threateningly stated that if Great Britain renounces sovereignty over Cyprus, the island can and should go only to Turkey. England demanded the consent of Greece and Turkey and the preservation of English sovereignty over Cyprus.

Ten days of negotiations came to nothing, and on the evening of September 7, an official communiqué announced that “the tripartite meeting... is adjourned.”

After the failure of the London meeting, Greece again referred the issue of self-determination of Cyprus to the United Nations. 21<и 23 сентября 1955 г. вопрос о включении греческого предложения в повестку дня X сес­сии обсуждался на заседаниях Генерального Комитета и Генеральной Ассамблеи. Делегация Греции вновь просила рассмотреть вопрос о предоставлении населению Кипра права на самоопределение. При этом Англия и США доби­лись исключения его из повестки дня X сессии Генераль­ной Ассамблеи.

After repeated discussions of the Cyprus issue in the United Nations, at the tripartite meeting in London and in national parliaments, the positions of the interested parties were fully determined.

British representatives categorically objected to consideration of the Cyprus issue by the United Nations. British sovereignty over Cyprus, the British declared, was based on international treaties and, in particular, on the Lausanne Peace Treaty of 1923, to which Greece was a party. From the position of the British government, we are talking about the transfer of the territorial sovereignty of one state to another state. Consequently, Greece is seeking the transfer of sovereignty over Cyprus to it in violation of the international agreement to which Greece voluntarily entered into.

Referring to the provision of the UN Charter, which does not allow the latter to interfere in the internal affairs of UN member states (clause 7 of Article 2), the British representatives argued that they considered the transfer of the Cyprus issue to the UN as interference in the internal affairs of England. On this basis, they argued that allegedly Gene-

The UN Assembly is incompetent to consider this issue. Cypriots advocating self-determination were declared “terrorists” by the British authorities, and Greece, which supported the rights of Cypriots, was accused of “inciting” the Cypriot population to “unrest and violence.”

The refusal of the British government to recognize the right of self-determination for the population of Cyprus, guaranteed to the people by the UN Charter, Macmillan “justified” by the fact that “Great Britain does not recognize the universal application of the principle of self-determination, from which exceptions must be made for geographical, historical and strategic reasons.”

In the military plans of the Western powers, Cyprus is assigned the role of a link between NATO and the Baghdad Pact organization.
It is worth noting that the island can be used as a “non-sinking aircraft carrier”: the range of strategic aviation based in Cyprus includes the Balkans, the Near and Middle East, and large areas of the European and Asian parts of the Soviet Union. Cyprus has been turned into a stronghold of the British colonial system in the Middle East and Africa. After the evacuation of the Suez Canal zone, Cyprus became the residence of the British commander-in-chief in the Middle East, whose competence, as indicated in the Western press, extended to Aden and East Africa. When discussing the issue of Cyprus, the British government repeatedly emphasized the interests of “joint” defense of the eastern Mediterranean” within the framework of the North Atlantic Alliance, of which Greece and Turkey will be members. The British did not agree to give the Cypriots the opportunity to freely resolve the issue of joining Greece. Moreover, Conservative Patrick Bytheland, speaking in parliament, said: “If Cyprus cannot join Greece, why can’t Greece join Cyprus?” Former Colonial Secretary Leopold Emery, responding to a United Press correspondent, said: “If Greece were to join the Commonwealth of Nations, it would simultaneously solve the problem of Cyprus.”

1 “Perspectives”, Bulletin hebdomadaire de la societe d'etudes et d'informations economiques, Paris, N 32, 24 September 1955, p. 3; see also “Le Monde” 7 December 1955.

Member of Parliament William Yate put forward an equally original “idea”: “Cypriots are “royalists,” he argued, “and therefore there is another solution, ... another way to neutralize Cyprus in international affairs.” It is worth saying that for this reason, the Greek and British governments would have declared that Cyprus “will be considered a royal property under the joint sovereignty of the Royal House of Windsor and the Royal House of Greece.”

Official politicians in England tried to replace the issue of self-determination of Cypriots with the so-called self-government of Cyprus. British policy, stated British Minister of State Anthony Nutting at the IX session of the UN General Assembly, has always been and is to assist the population of Cyprus in achieving self-government. But enosis (unification) does not mean self-government. Only the preservation of British sovereignty will lead to self-government of Cyprus!

Later, at a tripartite conference in London, the British government proposed a constitution that preserved colonial rule!. Moreover, even such a decision was rejected by Turkey, which England, for political reasons, put forward as a third party in the dispute. “Cyprus can be either English or Turkish,” said the Turkish representative. In the event of the departure of Great Britain, Turkey will lay claim to Cyprus - the force of the title, which it “considers historically more justified than the title of Greece.”2 From the position of the Turkish government, Greece’s claims “have no historical or legal basis.” In support of their “historical “The Turks rightly stated that in ancient times the island was owned by various states, from 1571 to 1878, that is, for three centuries it belonged to Turkey. On the other hand, Cyprus was never ruled by Greece, and, therefore, in the state. Legally, he never belonged to her. Turkish representative Selim Sarper argued.

1 It is interesting to note that all the draft constitutions put forward deprived the Greek majority of Cyprus of the opportunity to have proportional representation in parliament: it had to submit to the laws established by the Turkish minority and the British government. About this, see E. Dzelepi, The Truth about Cyprus, Foreign Literature Publishing House, 1958.

that not only the territory of Cyprus, but also its population will also not be Greek: out of a population of 500,000, 100,000 are Turks, 11,000 are from various races and religions and about 380,000 "Greek dialect speakers" belong to the Greek Orthodox Church. They have no racial ties to Greece; they were Levantines, a race with characteristics characteristic of the population of the entire south-eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea. On the other hand, the Turks assured, not all Cypriots live in Cyprus: a significant part of them are scattered in other countries. The Turks claimed that many Cypriots went to the USA and England, 25,000 to Egypt and, finally, 300,000 live in Turkey!

From an economic point of view, Selim Sarper said, the Greek demand is also unreasonable. Cyprus cannot be economically independent. In the past, Cyprus enjoyed the benefits of economic ties with Anatolia. Subsequently, the island's population existed only thanks to the help of the United Kingdom. Greece is not in a position to provide Cyprus with such assistance.

Representatives of the Turkish government argued that, under the guise of the right of peoples to self-determination, Greece intended to annex Cyprus, regardless of the provisions of the international treaty. The Turkish representatives argued that their government's position was due to its desire to respect existing treaties and international law, as well as its loyalty to their friends the United Kingdom and Greece.

The representative of Turkey at the tripartite conference in London said that it was in vain to try to “pretend that the question of Cyprus can be resolved only through the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination,” since the main thing is to “respect treaties and fulfill the obligations arising from these treaties "". The Turkish government does not renounce the provisions of the Treaty of Lausanne, according to which Turkey ceded sovereignty over the island to Great Britain. It is worth noting that it believes that the existing status of Cyprus, based on an international agreement to which Greece is a party, cannot be changed without consent and co-

actions of Turkey. Moreover, in the event of a transfer of sovereignty, Türkiye demands a return to the status quo ante. The Turkish government claims rights “acquired” by Turkey as a result of three centuries of occupation.

Representatives of Greece explained that the Cyprus question is, first of all, a question of justice, affecting one of the basic principles of the United Nations - the principle of self-determination of peoples. The Greek population of Cyprus strongly demands the right to self-determination, and Greece is bringing this issue to the UN, since the population of Cyprus is not represented at the UN.

The Greek request cannot be called interference in the internal affairs of Great Britain, firstly, because “recommendation”, “advice” would not be interference and, secondly, because the question of Cyprus would not be an internal matter of Great Britain. We note that especially since, by virtue of Art. 73 of the UN Charter, this island is under the control of Great Britain, but it belongs not to it, but to the population of Cyprus.

Based on all of the above, we come to the conclusion that the right to decide the issue of the future of Cyprus does not belong to Greece or any other state, but belongs to the Cypriots. This is not about the transfer of territory, but about the right to self-determination, about giving the population of Cyprus the right to decide their own fate. Granting the people of Cyprus the right to self-determination is in strict harmony with the principles and purposes of the United Nations.

Greek representatives pointed out that although “hell Cyprus has been dominated by many conquerors, it has always been part of the Hellenic world. Cyprus is one of the oldest areas of Hellene settlement and now more than 80% of Cypriots speak Greek, belong to the Greek Orthodox Church and consider themselves Greeks.

The Turkish representative compared the Cypriot liberation movement with the Anschluss. To this question, the Greek delegate responded that the Greek people had experienced Nazi and fascist methods and that they were more disgusted by such actions as the Anschluss than the Turkish people. The goal of the Anschluss was to impose foreign domination by force on the poor people. Giving Cyprus the right to self-determination means giving freedom to a people forced into colonial slavery.

By virtue of Art. 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne, Turkey ■renounced all rights and title, of any kind, to islands other than those whose sovereignty was recognized by the said treaty; consequently, she renounced her rights and title to the island of Cyprus. In Art. 20 of the same treaty, Turkey declares that it recognizes the annexation of Cyprus, proclaimed by the British government on November 5, 1914. Except for the above, by virtue of the same art. 16 Turkey agrees that the fate of these islands, formerly belonging to the Ottoman Empire, is or will be regulated by the parties concerned without the participation of Turkey. Thus, this article provides for the possibility of the return of the Dodecanese Islands and Cyprus to Greece in the future and, in any case, does not exclude such a possibility.

Greece further considers that Art. 20 of the treaty by which Turkey recognized the annexation of Cyprus by Great Britain, in reality represents a bilateral agreement between Turkey and Great Britain, included in a multilateral document and counter-signed by other states that will not be direct participants in the act of recognizing the annexation. Turkey's recognition of the annexation of Cyprus by Great Britain does not mean that other states that signed the Treaty of Lausanne also recognized the legality of such annexation.

In addition, the Lausanne Treaty did not take into account the aspirations of the people of Cyprus, and if this treaty contradicts the UN Charter, then by virtue of Art. 103 of the Charter it will be deprived of force. At a meeting of the UN General Assembly on September 23, 1955, the head of the Greek delegation Stephanopoulos said that Greece cannot agree with those who propose to abandon the principle of granting peoples the right to self-determination under the pretext of “strategic considerations.” Cypriots categorically object to the infringement of their legitimate rights due to the strategic interests of a colonial power.

England tried to justify its positions with the far-fetched threat of communism. But the representative of the Greek government at the UN rightly rejected this argument as “unconvincing” and not relevant. According to the Greek representative, the use of this argument in order to prevent the self-determination of the people

would be contrary to the UN Charter. This kind of argument is a poor justification for depriving the people of their food.

The British reference to the need to “protect” the Arab world turned out to be equally untenable. The Greek representatives did not even need to refute this “argument”; the Arabs themselves rejected British “patronage”. The representative of Syria said that until now the most pressing issue in the Arab world had been relations with the West, since in the last 150 years the concern for the Arab world had come from the West. The defense of the Arab world, said the Syrian representative, lies in the final liberation of the Arab world. It is known that the political committee of the Arab League recommended that Arab delegations to the United Nations “support the national aspirations of the people of Cyprus, who demand the right to self-determination.”

To the statement of the representative of the Turkish government that the current status of Cyprus cannot be changed due to its geographical location, the representative of the Greek government replied that a number of islands belonging to Greece, such as Symi, Samos, Soe and Chios, lie closer to the Turkish shores, than Cyprus. The fact that Cyprus is located at a relatively close distance from Turkey cannot be considered as a serious reason for keeping its population in a dependent position.

Turkey's argument that Turkish-speaking and Muslim Cypriots oppose the annexation of the island to Greece has no legal significance from the Greek position, since even according to British colonial statistics, out of 511,000 inhabitants of the island, Greeks make up 80.2 %, and the Turks are only 17.9%. The likelihood of internecine struggle in the event of enosis is not real, given that Muslim minorities live in Greece - in the western part of Thrace and on the island of Rhodes - in friendship with their fellow citizens.

With self-determination, the Turkish minority will not lose anything, but, on the contrary, will gain, since, freed from the colonial yoke, it will be able to enjoy all political rights and the benefits of economic and cultural progress. The Turkish minority will only receive freedom when Cyprus is liberated from British colonial rule. Self-determination-, ta-

15 Yu. G. Barsegov 225

In this way, it would benefit not only the Greeks, but also the entire population of the island.

Justifying the need to resolve the issue of Cyprus on the basis of the free expression of the will of the population, Greece emphasized that it “rejects any use of force that is contrary to its peaceful policy.”

In response to Greece's defense of the right of the people of Cyprus to self-determination, England and Türkiye resorted to direct military threats. Even on the eve of the trilateral meeting in London, Turkish Prime Minister Menderes said that Turks living on the island of Cyprus can count on the Turkish armed forces.

A report from the Turkish News Agency, published by the Ulus newspaper on August 29, 1955, stated that if Greece did not abandon its position, “coercive measures” would be taken. The British demanded that Greece stop “playing with fire.” English troops and naval ships began to converge on the island.

The colonial authorities intensified repression against the national liberation movement of the Greek population of Cyprus. It is worth saying that police brutality has reached unprecedented proportions. Cypriots were shot at, tear gas grenades were thrown at them, mass arrests and house-to-house searches became commonplace.

The violence against the Cypriot population was accompanied by the persecution of the Greek minority in Turkey. Anti-Greek demonstrations were provoked in Istanbul, Izmir and other Turkish cities.

Thousands of crowds, armed with iron crowbars, sticks and stones, smashed shops and houses belonging to the Greeks, Orthodox churches and monasteries with impunity. The Greek consulates and the Greek pavilion at the Izmir International Fair were set on fire and looted. The pogroms were accompanied by mass beatings of Greeks.

Having caused the Greek-Turkish conflict, England did not fail to take advantage of it.

England's position was supported by other members of the North Atlantic bloc.

NATO leaders demanded that Greece subordinate its national interests to the alien interests of the aggressive bloc. Despite broadcast

statements of commitment to anti-colonialism and support for the principle of self-determination of nations, the United States considered it possible to ally with Great Britain on the issue of Cyprus. Thus, on May 24, 1955, a State Department representative stated at a press conference that “The United States continues to be sympathetic to the presentation of the Cyprus question in view of the fact that it is a matter of principle and because it is put forward by a friendly and allied nation. At the same time, the United States regrets that it will have to oppose a new formulation of this issue. The United States believes that the deterioration of the international situation makes raising the Cyprus issue very untimely and inappropriate and therefore believes that the position of the Greek government is in no way justified and is detrimental to the unity of the allies."

Greek Foreign Minister Stephanopoulos, speaking in parliament, confirmed that one of the main reasons for the failure of the Greek government's attempt to achieve a solution to the Cyprus issue at the UN was the irreconcilably hostile attitude of the US government towards it. The US government placed both military and political interests above the legitimate rights and interests of peoples.

The USSR, the only one of the great powers represented in the UN, supported the Greek proposal. The USSR believed that, in accordance with the Charter, the United Nations was competent to consider this issue and make recommendations on it. Speaking on September 21, 1955 at a meeting of the General Committee of the Tenth Session of the General Assembly, the representative of the USSR said that the issue deserves the most serious attention and that the UN should carefully look into it.

The position of the Soviet Union on the Cyprus question is determined not by whether Greece is or is not a member of NATO, but by the general principles of the foreign policy of a socialist state, based on the unconditional recognition of the right of all peoples to self-determination, the concern of the Soviet Union to ensure that in any area where the creation of

1 Greek News Agency. Weekly Survey of Greek News, June 3, 1955, N 461.

"there is a threat to peace, the necessary measures have been taken to eliminate such a threat."

Dissatisfaction with the solution to the Cyprus issue swept across all segments of the Greek population. The Greek public began to demand the country's liberation from the shackles of foreign dependence and the pursuit of an independent policy that meets national interests.

Many politicians and political parties began to call on the country to pursue a new foreign policy course and withdraw from NATO.

The desire of the Greek people for freedom and national independence alarmed the organizers and inspirers of military blocs.

To force Greece to abandon the idea of ​​self-determination for Cyprus, the United States and England increased pressure on its “ally”, and for greater success they limited the discussion of the Cyprus issue to secret negotiations, thereby isolating Greece from the support of the world community.

The issue of Cyprus was discussed at the NATO Council, between Greek, British, Turkish and American representatives in London, Paris, Athens and Ankara.

In September 1955, the new governor, Field Marshal John Harding, was sent to Cyprus.

Having entered into the performance of their duties, Harding introduced a state of siege, intensified repression against patriots, and banned all meetings and rallies, as well as any demonstrations. It is worth saying that the police and troops began to shoot at the demonstrators. The leaders of the liberation movement were arrested or expelled. Emergency rules were introduced on the island, according to which telephone conversations with Greece were prohibited, and all telegrams from and to Greece were subject to censorship. The British authorities began to jam Athens radio broadcasts to Cyprus.

“In a show of strength,” the new governor at the same time promised that if the Cypriots behaved like “good guys,” then over the next ten years he would “spend 38 million pounds” on plans for the economic development of the island. At the same time, the British plan "economic development" was immediately exposed by the Cypriots<как попытка подкупить их с целью заставить отказаться от борьбы за самоопределение.

Neither police terror nor promises to turn Cyprus into a “paradise” could snatch their passionate desire for freedom from the hearts of the Cypriots. The Cypriot struggle for liberation intensified every day.

Greece again began to insist on discussing the Cyprus issue by the UN General Assembly.

In June 1956, the Greek representative to the UN, Palamas, presented a special memorandum to the UN Secretary General calling on the UN to “use its political and moral influence” to achieve a solution to the Cyprus problem. The memorandum stated that in 1955, when the UN General Assembly decided not to discuss the issue of Cyprus, many delegations preferred this solution because Great Britain promised to negotiate with representatives of the population of Cyprus, the majority of whom favored a union with Greece. Despite this, Britain refused to recognize the Cypriots' right to self-determination and "turned the island into a colossal concentration camp." If the General Assembly, the memorandum said, had fulfilled its responsibilities from the very beginning in accordance with the letter and spirit of the UN Charter, then the world would not have faced “such a critical situation as the one that has now developed in Cyprus.”

Reaffirming its decision to raise the issue of self-determination of Cyprus at the next session of the General Assembly, Greece called on the United Nations to show wisdom and determination, fulfill its duty and use its political and moral strength to achieve a “reasonable and constructive solution to the problem.”

Despite the objections of the delegates of England and Turkey, the Cyprus issue was included on the agenda of the XI session of the General Assembly without a vote.

At the XI session, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution that expressed the wish that a peaceful, democratic and fair solution to this issue be found. It was to be expected that further negotiations would be held with representatives of the Cypriot population and that the Cypriots would be unconditionally recognized as having an inalienable right to self-determination. But that didn't happen.

The British government did not take any effective measures to reach an agreement with representatives of the population of Cyprus. In certain circles, plans began to be hatched for the division of Cyprus, turning it into a NATO nuclear base, into a military stronghold of the colonialists in the Eastern Mediterranean. Realizing that their intentions did not suit the aspirations and aspirations of the island's population, the colonialists further intensified their terror and turned the island into a huge concentration camp.

Under these conditions, Greece again included the Cyprus issue on the agenda of the XII session of the General Assembly in the following wording: “Cyprus. Application to the population of the island of Cyprus, under the general guidance of the United Nations, of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples. Human rights violations and atrocities committed by the British colonial administration against the Cypriots."

Discussion of the proposed clause in the General Committee caused a great deal of discussion.

The delegate from Norway made a proposal to include this item on the agenda under the short title “Cyprus Question”. The Committee approved Norway's proposal by 11 votes.

In an effort to gather more votes at the UN, the British government announced the appointment of a new governor from among civil servants - the “liberal-minded” Hugh Foot. According to the British government, this should have created the impression that England had taken a conciliatory position. It is important to note that at the same time the British made attempts to provoke a civil war among the Greek population of Cyprus and continued their efforts to worsen and aggravate relations between Turkey and Greece and between the Turkish and Greek communities in Cyprus itself. This, of course, was done with the aim of proving the necessity of England’s presence on the “contradiction-torn” island.

Despite the attempts of the delegations of England and the United States to bury the Cyprus issue, not allowing it to be discussed at the UN, on December 12, 1957, it is worth saying that the Political Committee of the General Assembly adopted a resolution proposed by Greece. It stated that the situation in Cyprus posed a serious threat and expressed “sincere hope that new negotiations will be undertaken in

spirit of cooperation with a view to applying the right of self-determination to the people of Cyprus.” There were 33 votes in favor of the resolution, 20 against and 25 abstentions.

At the plenary meeting of the General Assembly, there were 31 votes in favor of this resolution, 23 against and 24 abstentions. Since a qualified majority of two-thirds of the votes was required for the adoption of this type of resolution, the Greek proposal is not considered adopted.

At the same time, the fact that 31 states voted for the self-determination of Cyprus is considered by everyone as a great victory, as a major step towards resolving this problem.

Assessing the results of the vote, Archbishop Makarios noted: “Due to the stubborn opposition of the colonial powers and the strong pressure they exerted on some delegations, “We were unable to obtain the two-thirds of the votes required by the UN Charter. This, however, does not diminish the significance of the victory we won, the victory ᴏᴛᴏᴩwhich represents a slap in the face of colonialism."

Since no decision was taken at the XII session, apparently, the decision of the Assembly adopted at the XI session in February 1957 on the need to continue negotiations with a view to resolving the Cyprus issue in accordance with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter remains in force.

Officially, there is no such thing as “countries of the East”. Although formally this term is used everywhere, including in the media. Since our site is dedicated to this topic, it is important for us to specifically determine the list of Eastern countries that should be written about here. We are interested in understanding by this term those countries that have corresponding traditions, philosophy, religion, and culture. However, if we rely on geographical characteristics, we can confidently include the entire Asian region in the list of countries of the East. So this is:

Near East: Bahrain, Israel, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Qatar, Kuwait, Lebanon, UAE, Oman, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Syria.
Northeast Asia: Macau, Taiwan, Tibet, Korea, Mongolia, .
Southeast Asia:, East Timor, Indonesia, Cambodia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Singapore, Thailand, .
South Asia: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Maldives, Pakistan, .

In addition, we can speak with confidence about the Eastern mentality of some Russian nationalities.

Langtang is a stunningly beautiful mountain region of the Himalayas, located in Nepal north of Kathmandu, which is a National Park. Borders with Tibet. The highest mountain peak is Langtang Lirung (7246 m). The population of the park area is around 4,500 people, mainly the Tamang people. Below are some facts and incredible beauty of photography.