The short answer is "because C++ has moved on". Yes, back in the late 70's, Stroustrup intended to create an upgraded C with OOP capabilities, but that is a long time ago. By the time the language was standardized in 1998, it was no longer an OOP language. It was a multi-paradigm language. It certainly had some support for OOP code, but it also had a turing-complete template language overlaid, it allowed compile-time metaprogramming, and people had discovered generic programming. Suddenly, OOP just didn't seem all that important. Not when we can write simpler, more concise and more efficient code by using techniques available through templates and generic programming.
OOP is not the holy grail. It's a cute idea, and it was quite an improvement over procedural languages back in the 70's when it was invented. But it's honestly not all it's cracked up to be. In many cases it is clumsy and verbose and it doesn't really promote reusable code or modularity.
That is why the C++ community is today far more interested in generic programming, and why everyone are finally starting to realize that functional programming is quite clever as well. OOP on its own just isn't a pretty sight.
Try drawing a dependency graph of a hypothetical "OOP-ified" STL. How many classes would have to know about each others? There would be a lot of dependencies. Would you be able to include just the vector header, without also getting iterator or even iostream pulled in? The STL makes this easy. A vector knows about the iterator type it defines, and that's all. The STL algorithms know nothing. They don't even need to include an iterator header, even though they all accept iterators as parameters. Which is more modular then?
The STL may not follow the rules of OOP as Java defines it, but doesn't it achieve the goals of OOP? Doesn't it achieve reusability, low coupling, modularity and encapsulation?
And doesn't it achieve these goals better than an OOP-ified version would?
As for why the STL was adopted into the language, several things happened that led to the STL.
First, templates were added to C++. They were added for much the same reason that generics were added to .NET. It seemed a good idea to be able to write stuff like "containers of a type T" without throwing away type safety. Of course, the implementation they settled on was quite a lot more complex and powerful.
Then people discovered that the template mechanism they had added was even more powerful than expected. And someone started experimenting with using templates to write a more generic library. One inspired by functional programming, and one which used all the new capabilities of C++.
He presented it to the C++ language committee, who took quite a while to grow used to it because it looked so strange and different, but ultimately realized that it worked better than the traditional OOP equivalents they'd have to include otherwise. So they made a few adjustments to it, and adopted it into the standard library.
It wasn't an ideological choice, it wasn't a political choice of "do we want to be OOP or not", but a very pragmatic one. They evaluated the library, and saw that it worked very well.
In any case, both of the reasons you mention for favoring the STL are absolutely essential.
The C++ standard library has to be efficient. If it is less efficient than, say, the equivalent hand-rolled C code, then people would not use it. That would lower productivity, increase the likelihood of bugs, and overall just be a bad idea.
And the STL has to work with primitive types, because primitive types are all you have in C, and they're a major part of both languages. If the STL did not work with native arrays, it would be useless.
Your question has a strong assumption that OOP is "best". I'm curious to hear why. You ask why they "abandoned classical OOP". I'm wondering why they should have stuck with it. Which advantages would it have had?
Best Answer
This is a difficult to answer question. It can really boil down to a philosophical/subjective argument.
That being said...
I recommend the rule "When in Rome... Do as the Romans Do"
Which means if you are in Qt land, code as the Qt'ians do. This is not just for readability/consistency concerns. Consider what happens if you store everything in a stl container then you have to pass all that data over to a Qt function. Do you really want to manage a bunch of code that copies things into/out-of Qt containers. Your code is already heavily dependent on Qt, so its not like you're making it any more "standard" by using stl containers. And whats the point of a container if everytime you want to use it for anything useful, you have to copy it out into the corresponding Qt container?