The Sykes-Picot Agreement, signed in 1916 during the most critical period of World War I, was one of the pivotal moments that shaped the modern political and geopolitical destiny of the Middle East. This secret agreement between Britain and France determined how they would divide the crumbling lands of the Ottoman Empire after the war, largely shaping the future of the region according to Western imperial interests. However, the impact of Sykes-Picot went beyond being merely a post-war partition plan; it became one of the fundamental pillars of the Middle East’s century-long cycle of instability and ongoing crises.
The most noticeable legacy of Sykes-Picot in the region is the fragile state structures created through artificial borders. The agreement completely ignored the region’s historical, ethnic, and sectarian realities, creating new states along borders drawn with a ruler and confining the region’s peoples within these borders. Communities such as Kurds, Arabs, Turkmens, Druze, Shiites, Sunnis, and Christians were either separated from their natural geographical and cultural unity or forced into a structure prone to conflict with each other. For instance, in northern Iraq, Kurds, Sunni Arabs in the center, and Shiite Arabs in the south were forced to coexist, while Syria emerged as an artificial whole composed of various ethnic and sectarian groups. These borders not only undermined the internal integrity of the states but also created the foundation for regional conflicts and civil wars.
The agreement also represented a blow to the hopes of independence and nationalist ideals within the Arab World. At that time, Arabs who were encouraged to revolt against the Ottoman Empire believed in the promises of independence made by Britain and its allies and hoped to establish a new nation-state system. However, when the existence of Sykes-Picot was revealed after the war, it became clear that these promises were a deception aimed at serving Western interests, marking a turning point in the development of Arab nationalism and anti-Western ideologies. The agreement became a symbol of “betrayal” in the Arab World, deeply eroding the legitimacy of Western policies in the region.
The fragmented and fragile structure left by Sykes-Picot has made the Middle East vulnerable to external interventions and proxy wars. Throughout the Cold War, the region became a battleground for the rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union, and in the 21st century, it continues to serve as an arena for global and regional powers’ conflicts due to the legacy of this agreement. The Syrian Civil War, sectarian fragmentation in Iraq, systemic political crises in Lebanon, and the Palestinian issue have all carried the direct or indirect legacies of Sykes-Picot into the present day. Proxy wars and regional conflicts have provided fertile ground for Western powers to manipulate the region in line with their strategic interests, as a result of the fragile order created by Sykes-Picot.
Furthermore, Sykes-Picot has also provided fertile ground for the rise of anti-Western ideological currents and radical movements. The agreement has become a symbol of Western hypocrisy and colonial intentions in the collective memory of the region’s people, serving as a source of legitimacy for both nationalist and fundamentalist movements. Terrorist organizations and radical groups have used this historical process as evidence of Western domination and colonial intervention in the Middle East, grounding their existence in this historical context.
From the perspective of international law and principles of justice, Sykes-Picot also raises serious questions of legitimacy. The agreement stands as a striking example of how the principles of self-determination and the sovereignty of peoples can be easily violated. Western powers, in order to protect their own interests, redesigned the region artificially, disregarding international law and universal norms, and governed this new order in their own interests. This situation remains one of the historical examples that continue to undermine the credibility of Western powers in promoting values such as justice and the rule of law in international affairs.
The legacy left by Sykes-Picot continues to be a key factor in determining the dynamics of regional politics and remains an obstacle to peace and stability in the Middle East. The challenges posed by Sykes-Picot are not merely historical but continue to shape the region’s politics and its quest for peace and stability today.
So, what can be done in response to the Sykes-Picot order?
First, to overcome the barriers to peace and stability arising from the artificial borders and fragile state structures inherited from Sykes-Picot, a political vision that prioritizes regional ownership should be developed. Strengthening dialogue and cooperation mechanisms among the states and societies of the Middle East could allow for the development of a regional security architecture independent of external interventions. In this context, making existing platforms such as the Arab League, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, and the Gulf Cooperation Council more effective could be crucial for conflict resolution and crisis management.
Second, a governance approach should be adopted that views ethnic and sectarian diversity as an asset, rejecting exclusionary politics based on identity. While the legacy of Sykes-Picot has deepened societal divisions, new constitutional and institutional arrangements could create an inclusive political order based on citizenship and equal rights. In this regard, the role of the international community should be balancing and facilitating, with Western powers learning from their historical mistakes and respecting the right of the region’s people to self-determination.
Third, economic development and regional integration projects are vital in breaking the cycle of fragmentation and dependence left by Sykes-Picot. Cross-border energy, water, and trade cooperation in the Middle East could enhance inter-state trust and reduce the causes of conflict. The historical experience of the European Union provides an example of how economic integration can create a foundation for peace and stability.
Finally, to alleviate the symbolic burden of Sykes-Picot embedded in the collective memory of the region’s peoples, historical reconciliation and dialogue processes must be initiated. These processes could strengthen mutual understanding and reconciliation not only in state-to-state relations but also at the societal level. Educational and cultural exchange programs could contribute to building a shared historical consciousness and a culture of peace.
In summary, overcoming the historical and structural challenges created by Sykes-Picot requires a multi-dimensional strategy based on regional ownership, inclusive governance, economic integration, and historical reconciliation. Otherwise, the Middle East will continue to bear the burden of this historical legacy and remain trapped in the crisis cycle it has created.
