There has been something pathological about the history of this Near Eastern World. It has had an undue share of political misfortunes, and had lain for centuries in a kind of spiritual paralysis between East and West—belonging to neither, partaking paradoxically of both, and wholly unable to rally itself decidedly to one or the other.Having supposed that it was sick, he kills it off: "The Near East has never been more true to itself than in its lurid dissolution; past and present are fused together in the flare." To Toynbee the Near East was a spiritual being of a "[[Janus]]-character", connected to both east and west:
The limits of the Near East are not easy to define. On the north-west, Vienna is the most conspicuous boundary-mark, but one might almost equally well single out Trieste or Lvov or even Prag. Towards the southeast, the boundaries are even more shadowy. It is perhaps best to equate them with the frontiers of the Arabic language, yet the genius of the Near East overrides linguistic barriers, and encroaches on the Arabicspeaking world on the one side as well as on the German-speaking world on the other. Syria is essentially a Near Eastern country, and a physical geographer would undoubtedly carry the Near Eastern frontiers up to the desert belt of the Sahara, Nefud and Kevir.From the death of the Near East, new nations were able to rise from the ashes, notably the Republic of Turkey. Paradoxically it now aligned itself with the west rather than with the east. [[Mustafa Kemal Atatürk|Mustafa Kemal]], its founder, a former Ottoman high-ranking officer, was insistent on this social revolution, which, among other changes, liberated women from the strait rules still in effect in most Arabic-speaking countries. The demise of the political Near East now left a gap where it had been, into which stepped the Middle East. ===Rise of the ''Middle East''=== ====Origin of the concept of Middle East==== The term ''Middle East'' as a noun and adjective was common in the 19th century in nearly every context except diplomacy and archaeology. An uncountable number of places appear to have had their middle easts from gardens to regions, including the United States. The innovation of the term ''Near East'' to mean the holdings of the Ottoman Empire as early as the Crimean War had left a geographical gap. The East Indies, or "Far East", derived ultimately from [[Ptolemy]]'s "India Beyond the Ganges." The Ottoman Empire ended at the eastern border of Iraq. "India This Side of the Ganges" and Iran had been omitted. The archaeologists counted Iran as the ''Near East'' because Old Persian cuneiform had been found there. This usage did not sit well with the diplomats; India was left in an equivocal state. They needed a regional term. The use of the term ''Middle East'' as a region of international affairs apparently began in British and American diplomatic circles quite independently of each other over concern for the security of the same country: Iran, then known to the west as Persia. In 1900 [[Thomas Edward Gordon]] published an article, ''The Problem of the Middle East'', which began:{{cite journal |first=Thomas Edward |last=Gordon |editor-first=James |editor-last=Knowles |title=The Problem of the Middle East |journal=The Nineteenth Century |date=January–June 1900 |location=London |publisher=Lowe, Marston & Company |page=413}} {{Blockquote|It may be assumed that the most sensitive part of our external policy in the Middle East is the preservation of the independence and integrity of Persia and Afghanistan. Our active interest in Persia began with the present century, and was due to the belief that the invasion of India by a European Power was a probable event.}} The threat that caused Gordon, diplomat and military officer, to publish the article was resumption of work on a railway from Russia to the Persian Gulf. Gordon, a published author, had not used the term previously, but he was to use it from then on. A second strategic personality from American diplomatic and military circles, [[Alfred Thayer Mahan]], concerned about the naval vulnerability of the trade routes in the [[Persian Gulf]] and [[Indian Ocean]], commented in 1902:{{cite book |first=Alfred Thayer |last=Mahan |title=Retrospect and Prospect: Studies in International Relations Naval and Political |url= https://archive.org/details/retrospectprosp00maha |date=1902 |location=Boston |publisher=Little, Brown, and Company |page=[https://archive.org/details/retrospectprosp00maha/page/237 237]}} {{Blockquote|The middle East, if I may adopt a term which I have not seen, will some day need its Malta, as well as its Gibraltar; it does not follow that either will be in the Gulf. Naval force has the quality of mobility which carries with it the privilege of temporary absences; but it needs to find on every scene of operation established bases of refit, of supply, and, in case of disaster, of security. The British Navy should have the facility to concentrate in force, if occasion arise, about Aden, India, and the Gulf.}} Apparently the sailor did not connect with the soldier, as Mahan believed he was innovating the term ''Middle East''. It was, however, already there to be seen. ====Single region concept==== Until the [[interwar period]] following the [[World War I|First World War]], the terms ''Near East'' and ''Middle East'' co-existed, but they were not always seen as distinct in the eyes of Western commentators.{{fact|date=January 2022}} [[Bertram Lenox Simpson]], a journalist who served for a period as an officer for the [[Chinese Maritime Customs Service]], combined both terms in his 1910 work ''[[Bertram Lenox Simpson#Works|The Conflict of Colour: The Threatened Upheaval Throughout the World]]'' as "the Near and Middle East." According to Simpson, the combined region consisted of "[[India]], [[Afghanistan]], [[Persia]], [[Arabian Peninsula|Arabistan]], [[Asia Minor]], and last, but not least, [[Egypt]]", explaining that the aforementioned regions were in actuality "politically one region – in spite of the divisions into which it is academically divided."{{cite book |first=Bertram Lenox |last=Simpson |authorlink=Bertram Lenox Simpson |title=The Conflict of Colour: The Threatened Upheaval Throughout the World |url= https://archive.org/details/conflictcolourt00wealgoog |date=1910 |location=[[New York City]] |publisher=[[Macmillan Publishers]] |pages=[https://archive.org/details/conflictcolourt00wealgoog/page/n197 184]–187}} In ''The Conflict of Colour'', Simpson argued that what united these regions was their [[Human skin color|skin color]] and the fact that they were all under [[History of colonialism|European colonial rule]]. The work included a "color chart" of the world, dividing it into a spectrum of '[[Black people|black]]', 'brown', '[[Mongoloid|yellow]]' and '[[White people|white]]' races. Simpson also modified the [[Eastern Question]] (a diplomatic issue concerning the waning of the [[Ottoman Empire]] in the 19th century) to the "Problem of the Nearer East", which he rephrased around the issue of the future of European colonialism in the Near East, writing that in regards to "the white man": {{Blockquote|... in India, in Central Asia, and in all the regions adjacent to the Near East, he still boldly remains a conqueror in possession of vast stretches of valuable territory; a conqueror who has no intention of lightly surrendering his conquests, and who indeed sees in every attempt to modify the old order of things a most hateful and unjustifiable revolt which must at all costs be repressed. This is so absolutely true that no candid person will be inclined to dispute it.
The spirit of the Crusaders may thus be said still to linger in those latitudes which, to give geographical and political cohesion, are here broadly named the Middle and Near East; and, to use a somewhat dangerous but illuminating figure of speech, it may be even be maintained that to-day, as of old, the white man and the Cross remain as blindly opposed to the brown man and Islamism, Hinduism and what these creeds postulate, as the most uncompromising bigot could desire.
}} According to Simpson, the reason why the "Problem of the Nearer East" remained so misunderstood in the [[Western world]] (compared to diplomatic and political issues in the Near East) was due to the fact that "there is no good work dealing with these problems as one whole, and much misunderstanding consequently exists." ====One presumed region, one name==== The term ''Near and Middle East'', held the stage for a few years before World War I. It proved to be less acceptable to a colonial point of view that saw the entire region as one. In 1916 Captain T. C. Fowle, 40th Pathans (troops of British India), wrote of a trip he had taken from [[Karachi]] to [[Syria]] just before the war. The book does not contain a single instance of ''Near East''. Instead, the entire region is considered the ''Middle East''.{{cite book |first=Trenchard Craven William |last=Fowle |title=Travels in the Middle East: Being Impressions by the Way In Turkish Arabia, Syria, and Persia |date=1916 |location=New York |publisher=E.P. Dutton & Company |chapter=Preface}} The formerly Near Eastern sections of his trip are now "Turkish" and not Ottoman. Subsequently, with the disgrace of ''Near East'' in diplomatic and military circles, ''Middle East'' prevailed. However, ''Near East'' continues in some circles at the discretion of the defining agency or academic department. They are not generally considered distinct regions as they were at their original definition. Although racial and colonial definitions of the Middle East are no longer considered ideologically sound, the sentiment of unity persists. For much, but by no means all, of the Middle East, the predominance of Islam lends some unity, as does the accident of geographical continuity. Otherwise there is but little basis except for history and convention to lump together peoples of multiple, often unrelated languages, governments, loyalties and customs. ==Current meaning== [[File:Maunsell's map, Pre-World War I British Ethnographical Map of eastern Turkey in Asia, Syria and western Persia 01.jpg|thumb|Maunsell's map, a Pre-World War I British Ethnographical Map of the Near East]] ===Diplomatic=== In the 20th century, subsequent to major warfare and decades of intense political turmoil, the terms such as ''Near East'', ''Far East'', and ''Middle East'' continued to be used, but evolved in their meaning and scope. This increased confusion, the resolution of which became the study of experts in the new field of [[political science]]. The new wave of diplomats often came from those programmes. Archaeology on the international scene, though very much of intellectual interest to major universities, was overshadowed by international relations. The archaeologists' domain became the [[ancient Near East]], which could no longer be relied upon to be the actual Near East. The Ottoman Empire was gone, along with all the other empires of the 19th century, replaced in the region with a number of republics with various affinities, regional and global. The many and varied specialized agencies that were formed to handle specific aspects of complex international relations, evolved with the terms. Definitions from the present came to be not in concert with those of the past. Reconciling these terms and their definitions remains difficult due to ongoing territorial disputes and non-free nuclear powers' territorial ambitions, putting any reconciliation of definitions out of scope of diplomatic corps in the classical sense. The ancient Near East is frozen in time. The living Near East is primarily what the agencies each define as a matter of practice; often guided by their political leadership. In most cases, this single term is inadequate to describe the geographical range in practical applications. This has resulted is multiple definitions used differently by each major region, power, or institution.{{cite book |first=Abbas |last=Amanat |chapter=Conceptual Origins of the Near East |title=Is There a Middle East?: The Evolution of a Geopolitical Concept |publisher=Stanford University Press |date=2012 |pages=[https://books.google.com/books?id=j3tcwnJHlRgC&pg=PA18 18–28] |isbn=9780804775274}} ====Influential agencies represented in the table==== [[File:Bureau_of_Near_Eastern_Affairs.png|thumb|Logotype of the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs]] The United States is the chief remaining nation to assign official responsibilities to a region called the ''Near East''. Within the government the State Department has been most influential in promulgating the Near Eastern regional system. The countries of the former empires of the 19th century have in general abandoned the term and the subdivision in favor of Middle East, North Africa, and various forms of Asia. In many cases, such as France, no distinct regional substructures have been employed. Each country has its own French diplomatic apparatus, although regional terms, including Proche-Orient and Moyen-Orient, can be used in a descriptive sense.{{citation needed|date=March 2018}} Some of the most influential agencies in the United States still use ''Near East'' as a working concept. For example, the [[Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs]], a division of the [[United States Department of State]], is perhaps the most influential agency to still use the term ''Near East''. Under the [[United States Secretary of State|Secretary of State]], it implements the official [[diplomacy]] of the United States, called also statecraft by Secretary [[Hillary Clinton]]. The name of the bureau is traditional and historic. There is, however, no distinct Middle East. All official Middle Eastern affairs are referred to this bureau.{{cite web |title=Near Eastern Affairs: Countries and Other Areas |work=Diplomacy in Action |publisher=US Department of State |url= https://2009-2017.state.gov/p/nea/ci |access-date=19 June 2011}} Working closely in conjunction with the definition of the Near East provided by the State Department is the [[Near East South Asia Center for Strategic Studies]] (NESA), an educational institution of the [[United States Department of Defense]]. It teaches courses and holds seminars and workshops for government officials and military officers who will work or are working within its region. As the name indicates, that region is a combination of State Department regions; however, NESA is careful to identify the State Department region.{{cite web |title=NESA Region |url= http://nesa-center.org/en/nesaregion |publisher=NESA |access-date=30 June 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20110930005356/http://nesa-center.org/en/nesaregion |archive-date=30 September 2011}} As its Near East is not different from the State Department's it does not appear in the table. Its name, however, is not entirely accurate. For example, its region includes Mauritania, a member of the State Department's Africa (Sub-Sahara).{{citation needed|date=March 2018}} The [[Washington Institute for Near East Policy]] (WINEP) is a non-profit organization for research and advice on Middle Eastern policy. It regards its target countries as the Middle East but adopts the convention of calling them the ''Near East'' to be in conformance with the practices of the State Department. Its views are independent.{{cite web |title=Research Areas |publisher=The Washington Institute for Near East Policy |url= http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateI01.php |access-date=19 June 2011}} The WINEP bundles the countries of Northwest Africa together under "North Africa". Details can be found in ''Policy Focus #65''.{{cite book |first=Emily |last=Hunt |title=Islamist Terrorism in Northwestern Africa: A 'Thorn in the neck' of the United States? |series=Policy Focus #65 |date=February 2007 |location=Washington, DC |publisher=The Washington Institute for Near East Policy |url= http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/pubPDFs/PolicyFocus65.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20080827212849/http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/pubPDFs/PolicyFocus65.pdf |archive-date=27 August 2008}} ====Table of Near Eastern countries recognized by various agencies==== {{unreferenced section|date=January 2021}} {| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center; width:80%" |- !Country or region!!UN Food and