PERSUASIVE ESSAY

How has the Sykes-Picot led to modern conflicts?

The Middle East is enthralled in a globally monitored civil war in Syria, ISIS  is attempting to establish an independent caliphate, and widespread unrest is leading to frequent insurgencies and attempted coups. When searching for the causes behind this perpetual violence, many point fingers at the Sykes-Picot agreement. As a result, Sykes-Picot is one of the most notorious negotiations in history which has led many to debate its impact and relevance to the status of the Middle East today. Sykes-Picot was a secret wartime agreement between Britain and France, splitting the land held by the Ottoman Empire. The borders created by this deal are what many believe have led to the violence we see today. Some argue that the present outcome was unavoidable, and that Sykes-Picot played little role in the escalation of the situation, whereas others believe it is the direct cause of all the current turmoil. While the exact contents of the agreements may not have caused the current violence and conflict, the Sykes-Picot served to antagonize westerners in the region and accentuate the differences between the various ethnicities and tribal groups in the region.
An intense hatred for Western influence was born through the widespread feeling of betrayal experienced as a result of the broken promises in the Sykes-Picot agreement and McMahon-Hussein correspondence. Both of these negotiations promised a homeland for Arabs, leading to strong feelings of nationalism. There were many who had expected the promises made by the colonial powers to come to fruition, “believing that soon the whole Middle East would be independent of foreign domination” (Rossi 70). Consequently, when those expectations were not met, “the British came to be regarded as duplicitous double-dealers” a widespread sentiment of disdain towards Europeans became evident, and the West was seen as something to be wary of. Many people viewed the Sykes-Picot as the figurehead of what western meddling meant. “Thereafter, in the Middle East, ‘Sykes-Picot’ became shorthand not only for the sense of betrayal created by the post-war settlement, but also for the region's vulnerability to foreign interference” (Barr). As a result, the general consensus at the time was that the Middle East would be better off having expelled all western ideas. This ideal is what led to the birth of extremist  groups, who’s hate for Western meddling still fuels their actions today. With the rise of a more violent and volatile populace, the governments were forced to both pursue the expulsion of westerners so as to appeal to the people, and meet the extremists violence in order to maintain control. “This was a key factor behind the rise of the militarist regimes that had come to dominate many Arab countries from the 1950s until the 2011 Arab uprisings” (Osman). Therefore, Sykes-Picot is the cause behind many of the countries embroiled in both civil and international conflicts.
Not only are the damages of the agreement evident in nations’ domestic turmoil, but also the borders between nations has also become a hotbed of conflict. The inability of western governments to adhere to their promises left many seemingly legitimate territorial claims unmet. With the Arabs who had supported the British in WWI wanting the Arab kingdom promised to them in the McMahon-Hussein correspondence, the Zionist movement wanted a homeland as was promised in the Balfour Declaration, and the French were still expecting the British to uphold their territories in the Sykes Picot. When the British finally withdrew from the region, these claims were once again asserted over the area. “The conflicts unfolding in the Middle East today, then, are not really about the legitimacy of borders or the validity of places called Syria, Iraq, or Libya but rather, the origin of the struggles within these countries is over who has the right to rule them” (Cook). The ambiguity caused by the contradicting arrangements made by the British has created an atmosphere in which multiple nations have, what they view to be, legitimate and undeniable claims to assert their sovereignty over certain land. This means that the combatants fervently and passionately believe themselves to be in the right, meaning little to no progress can be made in a diplomatic manner, especially because it was diplomacy which created the mess. While some, such as journalist Harvey Morris, would argue that because “most of the borders the diplomats proposed failed to survive the various negotiations that followed the end of World War I and its aftermath" the Sykes-Picot couldn’t possibly be at fault for the current situation.
However, rather than the physical borders and boundaries being the cause of the violence, it is the obscurity over who has the right to rule the land which is causing issues. Sykes-Picot helped fuel this obscurity, without addressing a permanent solution. After all, “Sykes did not intend the complex compromise that he then negotiated with Picot to become a blueprint for the region - indeed he hoped it wouldn't” (Barr). The Sykes-Picot was never intended to denote borders for new countries, but rather “in accord with the economic and strategic needs of the colonial powers” (Katzenstein). Therefore, it can be concluded that the turmoil over definitive borders is simultaneously over land and wealth which explains the ferocity with which some of the conflicts are fought. These ferocious fights are without a doubt caused by the ambiguity and inherent flaws in the decisions made by Sykes and Picot. These flaws included the separation of similar groups, and the subjugation of any local desires different to their own.
With a seeming inability to even establish where one state ends and the next begins, any attempt to resolve border disputes may prove cataclysmic. Yet, with a multitude of international interests many nations still become embroiled, for example the United States. The apparent mercurial attitude of the area, and the inherent difficulty in analysing the situation “is setting up the United States, once again, for failure in the Middle East” (Cook). However, as foreign interest in the region grows, they cannot participate fully until the domestic unrest in the region is solved, which is why the civil wars in the region are so paramount to foreign policy. This has led many outside powers to try to stabilise the region and reassert national and government influence. These efforts were needed because post-independence nation in the area were weak, and as border disputes erupted, so did civil unrest.
As the floundering regional governments’ demonstrated their incompetence, many citizens turned towards the newfound militant groups that came to dominate the region after “the dissolution of the caliphate triggered the birth of militant Islamism” (Sutherland). The tendency to turn away from one’s government and towards independent ruling parties has further accentuated domestic conflicts and, in some cases, led to full blown civil war. As governments were battling the independent entities within their borders, they sought to reassert their dominance. “This was a key factor behind the rise of the militarist regimes that had come to dominate many Arab countries from the 1950s until the 2011 Arab uprisings” (Osman). However, discontent towards rulers dates back to before the collapse of the Ottoman regime, as “contempt for the Ottoman rulers was universal, even in Istanbul” whilst the empire was still intact (Rossi 75). These deep lying feelings of resent were caused by the rising waves of nationalistic sentiments, “Across the Middle East, one’s ethnicity, language, and religion assumed weightier importance as nationalism and demand for self-rule became the defining issues of the day” (Rossi 79).
With the desire of independence festering since WWI, the final outbreak seen in The Arab Spring was an example of the built up frustration of the people. Those who had previously been content became passionate proponents for independence, and saw the Sykes-Picot as the way to achieve their goals. Therefore, when Sykes-Picot defaulted on its promise, “The only area left for the Arabs to live in without foreign rulers or advisers was the Arabian desert” which served to reinvigorate the Arab desire for a home (Goldschmidt 198). These long running feelings of nationalism come to a front during the Arab Spring, “At the core, the wave of Arab uprisings that commenced in 2011 is this generation's attempt at changing the consequences of the state order that began in the aftermath of World War One” (Osman). Therefore, it can be argued that Sykes-Picot and the role it played in emboldening nationalist movements can still be directly felt, with the Arab Spring of 2011 and the consequences of those revolts being a result of Sykes-Picot.
The Sykes-Picot, while unintentional, laid the groundwork for many of the current conflicts in the Middle East today. The notorious agreement provided ambiguous borders which has caused much debate over who has the right to rule that land and its resources. Furthermore, by brutally backstabbing ethnic groups and failing to meet its promises it wedged deep divides among the various groups in the area by accentuating nationalist movements. Perhaps the most dubious aspect though is the permanent distrust and refusal of any influence and therefore aid from outside powers. Kim Sengupta a writer for The Independent, encapsulates the large picture when she writes “The legacy of Sykes-Picot is not just the turmoil in the Middle East and North Africa; it is in the jihad which has been coming to Paris and London with such devastating effect.”