The British conquest of the Arab Gulf Emirates
The British conquest of the Arab Gulf Emirates
And the construction of sovereign nations from the conquest by the conquered
Historical antecedents
The first human migrations to the territory that is today the United Arab Emirates possibly occurred 130,000 years ago. With the passing of time, human settlements emerged, such that six distinct cultural periods have been identified, from 3,200 BCE until the arrival of Islam. These societies maintained extensive trade with civilizations of the Mesopotamia, Persia, and the Indus Valley, most likely based in the copper finds in the Hajar Mountains of the Arabian Peninsula.
Islam came to the region in the seventh century. The Prophet Muhammad sent a letter to the rulers of Oman in the southeastern region of the Arabian Peninsula in 630 CE, resulting in their travel to Medina and their conversion to Islam. This enabled their unification, such that they were able to drive the Persian Sassanids—an unpopular foreign presence that dominated the coast—from the region. Following the death of Muhammad, popular insurrections against the Muslim leaders emerged, creating a tendency toward disintegration. This provoked the sending of an army from Medina to complete the conquest of the territory, which was part of the unification of Arabia into a single state with Islam as its religion.
The unification of Arabia was the foundation for Arab and Islamic conquests, extending to Spain and Morocco in the West and to India in the East, and including North Africa, Mesopotamia, and Persia. Conversion to Islam was not coerced, but it was widespread, due to several factors: its concept of radical monotheism, with specified concrete daily practices; the tendency of Islam to appropriate from the cultures of the conquered peoples, creating a transcultural integration; its anti-ascetic teaching that the blessings of the earth ought to be enjoyed, although in moderation; and its orientation to modify its teachings but not its principles with the evolution of society.
The Islamic Civilization was at its height from 800 to 1500, leading the world in the territorial expansion of its governments; in science, medicine, architecture, and literature; and in moral norms and humanitarian legislation. Following the initial conquest, the rulers fostered a culture based on revelations to the Prophet, with the subordination of human life to the teachings of the one God, and with religions toleration for all monotheistic faiths, such as Judaism and Christianity. The rulers brought administrative efficiency, and they promoted commerce within and between regions, which provided an economic foundation for magnificent cities and for advances in architecture, astronomy, calligraphy, education, philosophy, gastronomy, geography, historical narration, gardening, botany, medicine, music, poetry, and navigation.1
In the Arabian Peninsula, the harsh desert environment led to the development of groups with tribal identities who migrated seasonally in carrying out their economic activities, which included animal husbandry, agriculture, and hunting. There were frequent clashes among the tribal groups, provoked by loosely defined territorial boundaries, which was a consequence of the necessity for seasonal migration.
§
The British conquest
With the expansion of European colonial empires, Portuguese, English, and Dutch forces appeared in the region. In the sixteenth century, the Portuguese built forts and controlled the coastal settlements in the wake of its conquest of coastal communities. During the first two decades of the nineteenth century, the British undertook military expeditions in the region, for the purpose of protecting their Indian trade routes.
The Persian Gulf campaign of 1809 was a joint campaign of the Royal Navy and the British East India Company against the Al Qasimi, one of the Arab dynasties of the Persian Gulf, which today comprises two Arab Emirates of Sharjah and Ras Al Khaimah. The British accused the Al Qasimi of engaging in piracy against British commercial ships, but historians, including the present Ruler of Sharjah, Sultan bin Mohammed Al Qasimi, dispute the British claim, maintaining that the British sought to limit or eliminate Arab trade with India. The British operation succeeded in reducing French influence and in dissuading the political forces in the region from encouraging attacks on British shipping, but it was unable to totally halt Al Qasimi activity in the Persian Gulf.
The Persian Gulf Campaign of 1819 was a British punitive expedition against the Al Qasimi. The campaign was militarily successful, and it led to the General Maritime Treaty of 1820, signed by the British and the sheikhs of the Persian Gulf Coast territory that comprises much of what today is the United Arab Emirates. The treaty led to permanent peace and prosperity in the region.
In my February 9, 2024, commentary, “Western moral reckoning for colonialism,” I critically reflect on Nigel Biggar’s defense of colonialism.2 Among other criticisms, I maintain that Biggar tends to understate the role of conquest in the formation of the British Empire. With this discussion in mind, I quote from the “Persian Gulf campaign of 1819” entry of Wikipedia:
On 3 November 1819, the British embarked on an expedition against the Al Qasimi, led by Major-General William Keir Grant, voyaging to Ras Al Khaimah with a force of 3,000 soldiers. The British extended an offer to Said bin Sultan of Muscat in which he would be made ruler of the Pirate Coast if he agreed to assist the British in their expedition. Obligingly, he sent a force of 600 men and two ships. The naval force consisted of Liverpool, Eden, Curlew, and a number of gun and mortar boats. . ..
On the army side, Grant commanded some 3,000 troops in transports, including the 47th and 65th Regiments of Foot, the 1st Battalion of the 2nd Regiment of Native Infantry, the flank companies of the 1st Battalion of the 3rd Regiment of Native Infantry and of the Marine Battalion, and half a company of Pioneers. In all, 1,645 European soldiers and marines and 1,424 Indian sepoys took part in the expedition. The force gathered off the coast of Ras Al Khaimah on 25 and 26 November and, on 2 and 3 December, troops were landed south of the town and set up batteries of guns and mortars and, on 5 December, the town was bombarded from both land and sea. . .. The bombardment of the town commenced on 6 December, from landed batteries of 12 pound guns and mortars as well as from sea. . ..
The British landed a force on 18 December, which fought its way inland through date plantations to Dhayah Fort on the 19th. There, 398 men and another 400 women and children held out, without sanitation, water or effective cover from the sun, for three days under heavy fire from mortars and 12-pound cannon. . ..
Many of the people in the fort were herders and farmers who had fled there on the arrival of the British and of the 398 people who surrendered, only 177 were identified as fighting men. . ..
The British expeditionary force then blew up the town of Ras Al Khaimah and established a garrison there of 800 sepoys and artillery, before visiting Jazirat Al Hamra, which was found to be deserted. They went on to destroy the fortifications and larger vessels of Umm Al Qawain, Ajman, Fasht, Sharjah, Abu Hail, and Dubai. Ten vessels that had taken shelter in Bahrain were also destroyed. The Royal Navy suffered no casualties during the action.
With the Sheikhs of these communities either in captivity or choosing to give themselves up, a treaty was proposed in order to govern peaceful relationships in the future, the General Treaty of Maritime Peace of 1820. . ..
The treaty was signed by the Sheikhs of Khatt and Falaya; Jazirah Al Hamra; Abu Dhabi, Rams and Dhayah, Dubai, Sharjah, Ajman, and Umm Al Qawain. It was to lead to a permanent peace and an era of unprecedented prosperity, as well as establishing thriving coastal trading communities, some of which would grow to become global cities.
In his defense of British colonialism, Biggar stresses that the colonized participated in the colonial process, and that colonialism had long term benefits. Biggar’s claims here are confirmed in the case of the Arab Gulf emirates. Arabs and Indians were participants in the British operation, and it could reasonably be said that it had beneficial consequences, given the subsequent period of peace and prosperity. However, with due qualifications with respect to the participation of the colonized and the long-term benefits, it is difficult to describe this engagement as anything other than the British conquest of the Persian Gulf coastal region of the Arabian Peninsula, in defense of its commercial interests.
Was the British conquest of the region a response to piracy, or was it the suppression of a commercial rival? This is a question that continues to be disputed to this day. But regardless of the answer to the question, the British engagement of the Arab emirates on the Persian Gulf can be reasonably named conquest.
Subsequent treaties were signed in 1843 and 1853. In 1892, agreements were signed that established the territory as a British protectorate. The 1892 treaty stipulated that the coastal emirates would not enter into any relations with any foreign government other than Great Britain without its consent. In return, the British promised to protect the emirates from all attacks by sea or land, enabling them to conduct local commerce in relative security.
Biggar stresses that the British Empire established itself primarily through agreements and treaties with local rulers, and not by brute conquest. However, we can see that in the case of the coastal emirates of the Arabian Peninsula, such a claim isolates the treaties from their historical and political context. The British had established domination of the region through military conquest, and it was in the context of established British military domination that the treaties were signed. It was clearly the best option for the emirates, given the established fact of British military domination. In addition, military threats to the emirates included not only rival local powers and local thugs, but also Western powers competing with the British for world domination, including in this case the French and the Portuguese. So an important factor that made the treaties desirable to the emirates was the unfolding worldwide dynamic of European conquest and colonial domination of the world, characterized by competing imperialist powers. In addition, it should be kept in mind that the leading role of the British in the imperialist dynamic of the nineteenth century was made possible by sixteenth century Spanish and Portuguese conquest of the Americas, in that the gold and silver obtained through said conquest was central to the expansion and modernization of British industry and thus its capacity for world conquest.
§
After the conquest: Toward a more just world order
In the aftermath of the conquest, what should the conquered do? The Arab Gulf states have responded to the question in a responsible manner. First, they negotiated some rights for their sheikdoms in the treaties. Secondly, once the petroleum was discovered, they negotiated significant income for the Arab states from the oil revenues. Next, they used the income to modernize and diversify their economies, effectively utilizing the petroleum to increase their economic and political power in the context of the neocolonial situation. At the present time, as an alternative post-colonial world order is being constructed, in a process led by China and the Third World, the Arab Gulf states, particularly the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, are cooperating in the alternative construction, seeking a world in which the sovereignty of all states, large or small, is respected, not merely as a concept proclaimed, but in real political practice.
In the process, the Arab Gulf states have developed modern societies with laws and customs that are in accordance with the principles of Islam. They have disdained Western political practices of representative democracies, preserving small monarchies that can act effectively to develop the economy of the nations and advance the protection of the needs of the people, nullifying the capacity of powerful international actors to interfere in their political affairs in defense of their own particular economic interests. And they have developed strong militaries, which function to deter any future effort at reconquest.
The Arab Gulf states have emerged from the British conquest to become sovereign dignified nations, cooperating with other formerly colonized nations that have found dignity through a different road, seeking to construct a just world order characterized by peace and prosperity.
§
Previous relevant posts:
“Western moral reckoning for colonialism: The need to respond to the call for North-South cooperation,” February 9, 2024
“Cuba and the United Arab Emirates: A recent and important friendship,” February 20, 2024
“Cuba and the World Governments Summit 2024: The sharing of insights and tech gains across cultures and ideologies,” February 16, 2024
“Qatar and Cuba: Deepening relations rooted in mutual respect,” December 8, 2023
§
Final considerations
I share with Biggar his disdain for the superficial anti-colonial discourse, which indignantly denounces particular individuals directly associated with European colonial domination, without appreciation for the central role of conquest in the development of human societies throughout history, for the empirical diversity of the European colonial process, for the noble motives of many colonialists, for the many forms of participation by the colonized in the colonial process, and for the long-term benefits to humanity in the form of advancing scientific and technological knowledge and establishing worldwide economic, transportation, and communication connections.
But neither the superficial anti-colonial denouncers nor the more historically informed defenders of colonialism like Biggar adequately understand the emergence of worldwide neocolonial structures, which preserve a geographical division of labor between colonizer and colonized, expecting the colonized to confine themselves to low-waged productive, distribution, and service activities. Nor do they see that the neo-colonized are constructing a worldwide anti-imperialist movement of Third World states, seeking to cooperate with one another in the development of a mutually beneficial commerce that would enable a more equitable distribution of production, science, and technology.
Neither the anti-colonial denouncers nor the defenders of colonialism are prepared to advocate a policy of worldwide cooperation and mutually beneficial trade, necessary for the creation of the structural foundations for world peace and prosperity. Nevertheless, in spite of the myopia and decadence of the West, the Third World and China continue on their road of alternative construction.
A free subscription option is available, with capacity to read, send, and share all posts. A paid subscription ($5 per month or $40 per year) enables you to make comments and to support the costs of the column; paid subscribers also receive a free PDF copy of my book on Cuba and the world-system. Ten percent of income generated through subscriptions to the column is donated to the Cuban Society for Philosophical Investigations.
Elía, Ricardo H.S. 2012. La Civilización de Islam, Segunda edición. Qom, República Islámica de Irán: Editorial Elhame Shargh, Fundación Cultural Oriente.
Biggar, Nigel. 2023. Colonialism: A Moral Reckoning. London: William Collins. Biggar is Regius Professor Emeritus of Moral and Pastoral Theology at the University of Oxford, and the Director of its McDonald Centre for Theology, Ethics, and Public Life. He earned a BA in Modern History from Oxford and an MA and Ph.D. in Christian Theology and Ethics from the University of Chicago.