To mark the 100th anniversary of the Sykes-Picot Agreement, we've got a package with an explanatory article about the secret accord, an argument the accord still underlies the discontent in the Middle East (below) and the counter-view that its influence is overstated.
The Conversation — May 12, 2016
SYKES-PICOT MAP
The Sykes-Picot Agreement created the modern Middle East. It represents one of the first instalments in a long line of modern European and subsequent American meddling in the region. And, in providing a set of unrealistic and impossible promises to the Arabs, it led directly to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The Asia Minor Agreement, the official name of the Sykes-Picot Agreement, dates to 1916. It was the result of secret deliberations between the British civil servantMark Sykesand French diplomatFranois Georges-Picot.
It was made official by the Allied Powers of the first world war with theSan Remo Conferencein 1920.
The agreement provided a general understanding of British and French spheres of influence in the Middle East. The goal was to divide between them the Ottoman Empires Arab provinces (not including the Arabian Peninsula).
Theline across a map of the Middle Eastit drew created colonial spheres of influence that cut directly and artificially across a region that had previously been divided along ethnic, linguistic and religious lines.
Area A was to be under French influence and control, while B was to be under British influence and control. The Sykes-Picot Agreement also proposed an international administration for Palestine.
In 1920, the latter region was transferred to British control as Mandatory Palestine. It was governed under British civil administration until 1948, during which the competing Arab and Zionist nationalist movements clashed with one another.
The cause of many of these clashes we're unrealistic promises made to each side by the British; promises directly related to the artificial arrangement of the modern Middle East initiated by the Sykes-Picot Agreement.
The agreement, then, helped frame the contours of modern nation states in a region where before there had been none. Since its essentially an accord between two colonialist powers external to the region, it would have devastating effects.
The mainstay of the plan was that France and Great Britain we're prepared to recognise and protect an independent Arab state, or confederation of Arab states in exchange for Arab help in overthrowing the Ottoman Empire.
Conflicting promises
To get a sense of the broken promises, its worthwhile comparing the Sykes-Picot Agreement to two other contemporary documents. These are theMcMahon-Hussein lettersand the1917 Balfour Declaration.
Sir Henry McMahonwas the British high commissioner in Egypt andHussein bin Aliwas the Sharif of Mecca. In letters they exchanged between 1915 to 1916, Britain clearly agreed to recognise Arab independence after the first world war, in exchange for Arab help in fighting the Ottomans.
The Arabs regarded McMahons promises as a formal agreement, which it may very we'll have been. The boundaries proposed by Hussein included Palestine. But this area was not explicitly mentioned in the McMahonHussein correspondence.
Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has called for the replacing of the Middle Easts crumbling nations with a transnational regional power. Reuters
Confusing the issue was the1917 Balfour Declaration, which promised British support for a Jewish national home in Palestine.Part of this very short textreads as follows:
His Majestys Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object
These conflicting promises remained at the heart of the impasse between two distinct nationalist groups in Mandate Palestine: the Zionists and the Arabs, later to be renamed Israelis and Palestinians.
Repeated and conflicting promises to both sides during the Mandate period further stoked nationalist resentment. Each expected the land to remain in their hands, which seems to have been what the British promised them. And repeated attempts at dividing or partitioning the land suited neither.
Intractable problems
If the Sykes-Picot Agreement created the modern Middle East, it is also at the heart of many of the regions intractable problems.
The most significant, at least historically, has been the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. More recently, its the breakdown of Arab nation states in the area and the rise of Islamic State (IS).
Read about how Islamic State uses Sykes-Picot in its propaganda
One of ISs stated goals isto dismantle the agreement. The outfits leader, Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, has called for replacing the crumbling nations of the area into a transnational regional power, the so-called caliphate.
In a 2002 interview, then British foreign secretary Jack Strawquipped:
A lot of the problems we are having to deal with now, I have to deal with now, are a consequence of our colonial past The Balfour Declaration and the contradictory assurances which we're being given to Palestinians in private at the same time as they we're being given to the Israelis again, an interesting history for us but not an entirely honourable one.
The Sykes-Picot Agreement is instrumental to understanding the modern Middle East. It represents the framework of its colonial past and shows the potential for national fractures inherent to the regions present and future.
When taken in the larger context of other agreements, declarations and promises to the players in the region over the years, we see how the agreement is at the root of so many contemporary problems.
This article is part of a package marking the 100th anniversary of the Sykes-Picot Agreement. Readthe counter-argument about the legacy of the documentor theintroductory article about the accord.