The International City of Tangier

The flag of the International City of Tangier

At first glance, Tangier (طنجة) seems like an unremarkable seaside town, a stone throw away from the strategic strait of Gibraltar, connecting the Mediterranean to the Atlantic ocean. But this odd town has a disproportionately rich history. Founded by the Carthaginians in the early 5th century BC, ruled by Romans, Vandals, (Eastern) Roman again, Arab and the Portuguese. In fact, it was part of the dowry of Princess Catherine of Portugal to the recently crowned Charles II of England, transferring the settlement to English control in 1662. The English had planned to convert the town to their main naval base in the region (akin to Gibraltar but of course, the English only controlled Gibraltar in 1713) but abandoned & destroyed the town when it was besieged by the Moroccan Sultan in 1685. In the 19th century, Tangier became a hub of international diplomacy and politics. Amongst the curious notabilities in the town's history include it being the site of the USA's first consulate, being the focus on an international confrontation between the French and the Germans, and infamous for espionage during the Cold War.

A map of the International Zone

The year is 1912; Morocco has been divided between the Spanish and the French. France wants to incorporate Tangier into its Moroccan possessions, the Spanish likewise. The British, on the other hand, wanted nothing of the sort and advocated that the city and its hinterlands be declared an international zone with no prevailing foreign power. Disagreements continued and were interrupted by the outbreak of World War 1 in 1914.

The European dispute was resolved with the signing of the Tangier Protocol in 1923, which declared the city a 373-square-kilometre demilitarised international zone, to be co-administered by an international multi-tiered legislative body representing the UK, France and Spain. The treaty was mediated by the League of Nations and the city's native population was under the 'nominal sovereignty' of the Moroccan Sultan. Portugal, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and the United States later joined to co-administrate the zone.

The full text of the Tangier protocol can be viewed here

For an intimate portrayal of life in the Tangier International Zone, I redirect you to this wonderful essay.

A scene in Tangier

Suffice to say that the native Moroccan population were not favourable to the foreign presence nor to the International Zone itself which they called "a plague zone infested and infected by infidels".

On 14 June 1940, the day Paris fell to the invading Germans during World War 2, the Spanish army occupied Tangier, incorporating it into its Moroccan possessions and assumed policing powers of the zone, calling it a 'wartime measure'. This drew international condemnation, particularly from the British government, worried about the Spanish entering the war on the side of the Nazis. The Spanish guaranteed rights of British subjects in the city and to not fortify the zone. In May 1944, German diplomats from the city were expelled. 
Following the end of World War 2, the Spanish withdrew from the city and the international zone was reinstated. 

The nine Western powers met in 1956 and agreed to abolish the zone and to secede it to the newly-independent Moroccan state (treaty text here). Pre-1956 Tangier had a population of 40,000 Muslims and 31,000 Europeans.

Further reading:

• Susan Gilson Miller (2013). A History of Modern Morocco. ISBN 9781139619110, pages 88-104
• Finlayson, Iain (1992). Tangier: City of the Dream. HarperCollins. ISBN 0-00217857-5.

Does History Repeat Itself?

Not exactly.

First of all, let's get the fine print out of the way; every moment in time itself is unique and forever lost. You never obtain the exact same conditions (unless you happen to own a rather expensive real life Sim game). So technically history cannot literally repeat itself, unless you're a fervent believe in radical physics theories.

And now to the actual discussion. Does history in fact repeat itself? There are common themes throughout the history of human civilisations. Let's take the example of religion. All cultures, from the huts of the Mongolian steppes to the rainforests of Central America have a religion of sorts; Animism, Shamanism, Christianity, Islam and so on. The absence of a so-called 'Atheist civilisation' may be a simple coincidence. It could be a by-product of human curiosity; What is the warm life-giving Sun? Why does the Sun set and so on... It has to be a superior being (which is probably why religions from Germanic paganism to Roman mythology feature it so prominently). But I'll leave you to ponder on that.

But I digress with all this philosophy. Time for actual history. You'd be forgiven if you looked at certain events in the past and thought "huh, this is familiar? Didn't this happen before?", especially as the current media scramble over the Iran deal in the US Congress. Advocating for the invasion of a country which is allegedly constructing a nuclear stockpile without sufficient evidence (and whose aftermath would trigger a power vacuum that would cause the region to spiral into a chaotic darkness of perpetuity) sounds incredibly familiar, you may be thinking. 

History has a habit of striking similarities. Invasions of Russia in the winter (or ever) have never succeeded (see Napoleon's invasion in 1812 and Hitler's invasion in 1941)  unless you discount the Mongols who wisely invaded from the other side. The same could be said to Afghanistan, earning the title of Graveyard of Empires due to the exceptional difficulty of pacifying the region throughout history (Alexander the Great, the Mughal Khans, the British, the Soviets and currently, the American coalition).

A nation under financial turmoil breeds the rise of radical xenophobic nationalists of the far right; the rise of Hitler & the Nazi Party in a 1930s depression-hit Germany is the most noted of examples. Not too long ago in 2012 did the Greek far right party Golden Dawn win 21 seats (its first ever representation in Greek parliament). The good news is that in subsequent elections, that figure is now down to 17 and with even more elections around the corner, we can be hopeful that number slides down.

Allow me to bring the 5th century Byzantine historian Zosimus into the framework. Zosimus highlighted that great empires fell due to internal conflicts and disunity. Citing the fallen empires of the Greeks and Alexander's Macedon, he brought attention to the need for an external enemy. The rapid growth of the Roman Republic in 53 years, he credited, was due to the devastating Punic Wars fought against Rome's bitter rival, Carthage. Roman themes were embraced and thus championed in the the face of Carthaginian foes. The defeat of Carthage (and the Gauls) set the scene for internal quarrels and civil war, culminating in the replacement of Roman aristocracy with monarchy, which eventually decayed into tyranny.

The eventual fall of all empires was a notion brought up earlier by Dionysius of Halicarnassus who had anticipated Rome's eventual collapse after the defeat of her rivals  (Assyria, Macedonia, Persia). The iconic Italian historian Machiavelli commented on the recurrent themes between "order" and "disorder" within contemporary Italian states between 1434-1494:

..when states have arrived at their greatest perfection, they soon begin to decline. In the same manner, having been reduced by disorder and sunk to their utmost state of depression, unable to descend lower, they, of necessity, reascend, and thus from good they gradually decline to evil and from evil mount up to good.

Machiavelli accounts for this oscillation by arguing that virtù (valor and political effectiveness) produces peace, peace brings idleness (ozio), idleness disorder, and disorder rovina (ruin). In turn, from rovina springs order, from order virtù, and from this, glory and good fortune.

This post can go on forever. To paraphrase Mark Twain; history does not repeat itself. Not exactly, anyways. But it does rhyme. I'll conclude by sharing one of my favourite cartoons on the topic. Let me know what you think in the comment section below!

To the Victor Goes the Pen

Ever heard of Carthage ? You know, that little place just to the lower left of Italy's coast. There's a high probability you haven't. For a civilization like the Carthaginians, who were based in Carthage (modern-day Tunis), who were arguably one of the strongest nations during the Roman era. Carthage is the home of Hannibal Barca, one of the greatest military tacticians of his time. 

The Carthaginian Empire in 264 BC (Source:Aldan-2)

Carthage's might was almost alike that of the Romans, so powerful was Carthage that Rome had engaged in a series of wars with Carthage over superiority in the Mediterranean, these wars were called the Punic Wars.
A clear testimony to this might was the fact that Hannibal led an expedition to Rome, bringing with him elephants (and the works). But, in the end, Rome was the victor and Carthage was sacked.

We know very little of Carthage's history aside from those from Roman sources (which were biased). The reason was that the Romans destroyed practically everything pertaining to the Carthaginian nation. Its history was lost as their tablets and scrolls were burned and destroyed. We have no idea of Carthage's religion at the time, aside from Roman sources which claimed they were Pagans and such.

This is a textbook example of a phenomenon that had gripped Man's history , many times did the victor wield the power, both literally and metaphorically speaking.
They wielded the pen of history at the time, they could choose to include or eradicate or demonize whoever they wished. This had worked for many times, in fact, we only know about Carthage via Archaeology and (once again) biased Roman historical tablets.

But, this is being challenged nowadays. In the ever-increasing and technological world, humans are closer than they were before. We can now inform and relate to each other information at the blink of an eye even if we are hundreds of miles apart

This proves critical, it allows the observer to have an opposing view of a particular situation. One that was not available before, for example Romans claimed Carthage had human sacrifices but records do not exist that both endorse this view nor oppose it, hence we often have to accept it.

Twitter and Facebook, seen as the vanguard of this new offensive try to break this phenomenon and give the opposing view, the defeated one's view on how it was. No longer would History simply vanish before our eyes, everything nowadays is recorded and we could safely say that the Pen is no longer with the Victor.