For many in the Arab world, the Sykes-Picot Agreement is what the Yalta conference was for many conservatives in the United States during the Cold War. It is a betrayal of a people seeking freedom, a damning indictment of Great Power politics, and the source of all the problems in the Middle East. As with Yalta, all kinds of things are attributed to the Agreement that came much later: the veteran Lebanese politician Walid Jumblatt said today that the Syria crisis is “unravelling” a deal that created the countries of the region. This lazy understanding was reinforced by The Guardian’s Martin Chulov writing that the Agreement was adopted in 1919, not 1916…
The Sykes-Picot Agreement gave to both Britain and France large areas of the Middle East; it did not create the nation-states we know today. France was supposed to receive not only Lebanon and Syria, but also northern Iraq and a sizeable chunk of Turkey. Although the eventual post-war carve-up resembled the deal, it actually started to unravel just as soon as Sir Mark Sykes had negotiated it. British officials in Cairo hated the Agreement and hoped to undermine it: they wanted Syria to be part of a Greater Egyptian viceroyalty that would rival the Raj. ‘I am afraid that swine Monsieur P[icot] has let M. S. badly down’, wrote the politician and diplomat Aubrey Herbert, who was serving in Cairo at the time. ‘This is what comes of disregarding the ABC of Diplomacy and letting Amateurs have a shy at delicate and important negotiations.’
In 1917, the deal unravelled further when the Bolsheviks leaked the details in order to embarrass the Allies and there was a fierce reaction to what was viewed as outdated imperialist thinking. Sykes wrote that the sooner the Agreement was scrapped the better, as the world had ‘marched so far’ since it had been negotiated and it could ‘now only be considered as a reactionary measure’. His change-of-view coincided with one higher up in the British government after David Lloyd-George became Prime Minister. He wanted to increase Britain’s sphere-of-influence way beyond that which Sykes had negotiated just a few years before. In his book A Line in the Sand, James Baar reports a conversation between Lloyd-George and French premiere Georges Clemenceau in which the latter conceded to British demands. “Tell me what you want,” Clemenceau is supposed to have asked him.
“I want Mosul.”
“You shall have it. Anything else?”
“Yes, I want Jerusalem too.”
“You shall have it,” said Clemenceau. These concessions were recognised in the many peace conferences after the First World War, thus by 1922 the Sykes-Picot Agreement had completely unravelled.
The Middle Eastern order that Mr. Jumblatt worries about disintegrating was created long after this much-maligned deal was a dead letter, and centuries-old problems in the region cannot be reduced to what was even then considered to be old-fashioned thinking about Great Power politics.
Mike Robbins
August 16, 2012
This is an interesting perspective but I am not 100% certain I buy it. To be sure, Sykes-Picot was unenforceable by 1919, when all bets are off. However, the basic thrust of the agreement survived the Paris conference, with the division of the Middle East into British and French mandates, with the British taking the regions adjacent to the Suez Canal to protect their sea routes, and the French occupying partially-Christian areas of the Levant with which they had cultural links.
I always thought it ironic that poor Sir Mark died during the conference (and was recently exhumed by researchers into the Spanish ‘flu). But so far as I know he did not conform to the profile of a cynical imperialist, and it’s odd that his name is now attached to this wretched agreement.
Graham Shepherd
August 22, 2012
Hi Mike, Sorry but I’m not sure how this works. Got what looks like a response to my post but found nothing relating specifically to it. So if you did reply, I didn’t get it. In case you did I’ll move things along. Fancy creating a state that obviously could only survive by continual warfare with its neighbours! They must be mad. Graham.
graham
August 19, 2012
Whatever the failings of Sykes-Picot it was nothing compared to the monumental stupidity of establishing the state of Israel.
ekim
August 22, 2012
So you set about trying to show how reality differs from the terms of the Sykes-Picot Agreement, fine- no bone to pick there, but you perpetuate your own patently false claim that these problems are centuries old- unless you’re referring to the middle of the 19th century. I suggest reading Ussama Makdisi- his work “The Culture of Sectarianism” is the best one of its kind, showing how sectarianism largely emerges in the mid 19th century and is certainly not centuries old. The Sykes Picot Agreement was in the middle of a string of actions taken by colonial powers (mostly Ottoman and French) that stimulated different processes of sectarianization for different sects- yes they became sectarianized for different reasons at different points in history- though all post-1840.
Ed
August 29, 2012
Blaming the British, or French or Americans or Israelis is the standard refrain in much of the Arab world in an attempt to avoid responsibility for their own problems. I’m not really concerned with what the Arabs think, but the real mistake is that of the British and other Western governments in rushing to support the Sunni-sectarian, Islamist-terrorist uprising in Syria.
Yet again they seem to naively believe that if they support some revolt that the natives will be grateful and love us for it. A more likely outcome is that the whole thing will backfire on us if Asad is toppled in an Iraq-style bloodbath of sectarian killings of Alawites, Shias, Christians etc and the whole country will become an Al-Qaida breeding ground. One does not win love or respect by “helping” the Arabs or Afghans etc – it’s a naive western notion that doesn’t work with these Asiatic peoples.
A much better option I believe would be to use Asad’s crisis to our advantage by offering him a way out in exchange for breaking with Iran. Then he could be given a green light to crush the rebellion by any means necessary even if he has to Groznify Aleppo or use his chemical weapons. Send him advisors or even weaponry to cleanse the country.
Ed
September 13, 2012
The Libyans have just shown their gratitude for America’s ill-considered intervention by murdering the ambassador while mobs of primitives attack embassies in Egypt and Yemen.