EDITORIAL

In recent years, the international community has been forced to pay more and more attention to the Middle East. This is because of the widespread coverage and knowledge of the conflicts in the region, for example: The Syrian Civil War, the refugee crisis, and terrorist organisations. The international community aims at ending these phenomena, yet has struggled to do so for many years now. As a result, Middle Eastern foreign policy continues to be a bitterly contested matter across the globe, and each countries policies have far reaching consequences. However, in actively participating in the Middle East, foreign entities, in particular western nations, are actually perpetuating the chisms and exacerbating the conflicts they seek to end. This is a long lasting result of the Sykes-Picot agreement. Therefore, understanding the Sykes-Picot and its relevance to the political and social climates of today is an important factor in deciding foreign policy towards the Middle East.
The Sykes-Picot Agreement continues to cause issues and turmoil in the Middle East. For example, the lasting presence of ISIS can be directly attributed to the notorious agreement through the groups own mission statements and their operating goals (Sutherland). Not surprisingly, a militant extremist group claiming territory of its own grew a massive reaction from the international community. However, while combating ISIS is a necessary procedure, the very intervention of western powers deteriorates the situation. Following the Sykes-Picot, the Western powers were viewed as “duplicitous double-dealers” and many of the groups in the region found themselves disgruntled with their new rulers (Matthew). After finding themselves rid of the western occupation, they view any exertion of power from outside players as a form of belated imperialism which entrenches their disdain towards outsiders even further. Thus, a self perpetuating effect develops as anti-western extremists emerge, and the west intervenes to subdue them.  Consequently, the Sykes-Picot bears incredible relevance on foreign policy because the attitudes of the regions populace are still driven by the agreement.
The Arab Spring, a period in late 2010, saw a flurry of civil revolts and uprisings. These too can find their roots in the Sykes-Picot agreement. With the disregard shown in drawing the new borders, domestic instability was almost guaranteed. The Sykes-Picot divided different rival groups between different countries, creating dangerous power dynamics and subsequent episodes of oppression. The origins of these violent regimes can be found in the hatred sewn by the Sykes-Picot, a burning nationalist desire led the people to establish extremist governments. The people found these governments troublesome and staged revolts, but reinstated equally problematic regimes in their place. This revolving doors of regimes causes great domestic upheaval and is a result of the inherent instability caused by the reckless borders contained in the Sykes-Picot (Osman). The agreement once again brings bearing on the international community of today, as dealing with unstable states and constantly shifting governments makes diplomacy difficult to say the least. As a result, relations between Middle Eastern and foreign states remain strained.
However, there are those that believe the Sykes-Picot has little to no significance on the modern world. They argue that the exact borders contained in the Sykes-Picot do not exist and therefore hold no influence (Garfinkle). Furthermore, they argue that the issues seen in the Middle east only materialized after the European occupiers had left, meaning that the agreement itself was no issue, but the problems originated when the nations gained their independence (Barr).
Nevertheless, even without current borders, the Sykes-Picot established deep distrust and resentment towards western influence and increased tensions between domestic groups. Both of these serve to create conflicts we see today such as the Syrian Civil war and militant extremist groups. The reason problems materialised after the departure of the Europeans was because every new nation had a power vacuum, and in order to secure power the majorities in each nation violently oppressed the minorities, and as the minorities responded so did the majorities leading to further divide the members of the same nation.
Given years of conflict, violence and upheaval, it appears as though a solution may never be reached. Already the nations of Iraq and Syria are viewed by some as failed states bordering on collapse regardless of whether their current issues are solved. The only apparent way of making peace would be to bestow upon each individual group self-determination, however that would require a great deal of diplomacy and map drawing, and even then theres no guarantee peace would be achieved. There is one thing for sure, a solution must be met by the involved parties only, and not as a result of western interests, otherwise we run the risk of living the last century of turmoil over again.