The Sykes-Picot Agreement and the partition of the Ottoman Empire

Middle East

The Sykes-Picot (Asia Minor) Agreement was a covert agreement, relating to the Ottoman Empire's division among the "Allies," negotiated between the governments of France and Britain in the course of the First World War (WWI). The Soviet Union was privy to these discussions as well. The discussions' initial round was conducted in the British capital, with Georges Picot representing France and Sir Arthur Nicolson leading UK's delegation. The next round saw Sir Mark Sykes representing the British government. Agreement terms were outlined in a 5/9/1916 letter addressed by Paul Cambon -- French ambassador to Britain -- to Sir Edward Grey, Britain's foreign secretary. The terms were approved and returned via a letter bearing the date of 16th May. Notes exchange between the allied nations on 26th April and 23rd May 1916 made the agreement official. As per the agreement, direct power over Lebanon, Cilicia, and most of Galilee, up to the "Blue Zone" -- the line that stretches from Acre's north to the Galilee Sea's northwest corner -- would go to France. Towards the East, in Syria's vicinity, a certain Arab state (Area A in the agreement) would be formed under the protection of France. Britain would gain control over the Red Zone (south Mesopotamia) as well as territories around the Mediterranean Haifa Bay with permission to construct a railway line between this place and Baghdad. Also under the protection of Britain was another Arab State (Area B) -- a territory to the Negev Desert's and Jordan River's east, south of a line that stretched between the Dead Sea and Gaza. To the south of the area under the French, covering Jerusalem's Sanjak and extending south towards the approximate line running between the Dead Sea and Gaza was the Brown Zone, under international control (Pre-State Israel: The Sykes-Picot Agreement Para. 1-4).

The key circumstances leading to the aforementioned pact's creation was: The Ottoman Empire's centuries-long refusal, before the war, to cooperate with British and French Alliances. Even prior to WWI's ending, the Allies had already considered how to divide the enormous spoils should they overcome the Turks. France and Britain already showed significant interest in the area, with Russia hungering for a share as well (Lust 5-16). The Sykes-Picot Agreement was not drafted to perfection, it had three unaddressed problems. First, the pact posed to break the existing tribal lines and create new borders which did not consider the culture, ethnic and beliefs of those under the new borders. Before the arrival of the European colonies in the Middle East, the people in the region lived separately but engaged in trading cultures. Also, the state system that came into existence after World War One accelerated the failure by the Arabs to tackle the dilemma of identity struggle that existed between Nationalism and Islamism. Lastly, the pact invalidated its main promise of independence in the region after the fall of Ottoman Empire. This was caused by the absence of Arabic knowledge during the drafting of the pact hence it had to be secret (Osman Para 5-9).

This was not the sole agreement to be made with regard to the vast Middle Eastern region. A number of pacts followed in its wake. The Saint-Jean-de-Maurienne Agreement signed between Italy, France, and Britain in April of 1917, on the Italy-France border, aimed at reconciling the conflict between Italy and France over southwest Anatolia, in case the Ottoman rule disintegrated at WWI's culmination. As part of this agreement, France would receive Adana, whereas Italy would be given the rest of southwest Anatolia (Asia Minor) (Agreement of Saint-Jean-de-Maurienne Para 2). The Husayn-McMohan Agreement signed in October of 1915 was accepted by the people of Palestine as a pledge by the government of Britain that, following WWI, land that was earlier under Turkish control would be given back to the Arabs residing there. This agreement caused damaging complications, in Middle Eastern history and appeared to be in direct conflict with the 1917 Balfour Declaration. In a bid to organize another front against Central Powers (Germany's allies), the Allied nations urged the Ottoman Empire's Arab citizens to rebel against their Turkish rulers, thereby splitting Central Powers' WWI efforts in three directions (Trueman Para 1-2).

This intricate and complicated series of events that transpired during the 1910s led to the Ottomans' collapse. It saw the advent of new Middle Eastern nations having borders that ran across Ottoman territory, segregating Muslims into several nations. Britain has been central to shaping the Middle Eastern region in the form it is today. Three distinct pacts made divergent, conflicting vows that Britain had to keep. However, the outcome of the covenants signed during the 1910s (following WWI) constitutes a political muddle that ended up dividing most of the Islamic world in the Middle East (Lust 18).

Question 2

Theodor Herzl founded the Zionist movement in the year 1896 with the aim of returning Jews to Zion or Eretz Yisrael, (Jews' synonym for Israel and Jerusalem). The classical concept of Zionism dates back to the Biblical era, when Jews in tribulation during their foremost exile in Egypt were saved by Moses, who led them to their real home in Israel; ever since, Jewish history records several instances wherein the Jews faced exile from or persecution in their homeland. Still, the Jews persisted and were obstinate when it came to relinquishing control of their homeland. All generations of Jews have had some groups attempting to return to Israel and revive their life and culture in the holy land. The 18th century Enlightenment revolutionized other nations' perception of Jews, in addition to Jews' perception of themselves. Jews started enjoying equal rights to citizenship in European countries, with many assimilating into different countries and cultures. This helped promote secular Judaism. The traditional Zionist movement had no colonial motives, and refrained from following the course adopted by other European nations. Some elements of this egalitarian movement's national character were unique to the Jews alone. Zionism aimed at emancipating a nation, rather than enslaving others. The influence for early Zionists undoubtedly came from the era's revolutionary leaders. Zionism was an exclusively European movement; the earliest Jewish settlers in Palestine hailed mostly from Europe. The development of nationalism and nation-states, as well as a desire to relate to others based on language, geography, and cultural influenced European Jews the same way it did the rest of the Europeans. The need for self-expression in this fashion proved to be a powerful motivation to unite into a cohesive entity for security, progress, and economics across the globe. Zionism had not emerged full-blown out of some void in its creation in the year 1897. Jews maintained a spiritual as well as actual link to Palestine. This age's upheavals offered an impetus for contemporary Zionism's birth, transforming the originally intellectual movement having limited support into a global network of progressive proportions systematized for the express purpose of establishment of a homeland for Jews in the Palestinian land (Sahliyeh 262-263).

Contemporary political Zionism was derived from a Greek movement for freedom from Ottoman occupation, including national liberation efforts. Liberal nationalism often endeavored to achieve two key goals: freedom from foreign control and national-level unity in nations partitioned into a number of political units. Modern education has contributed significantly to classical Zionism's shift and enlightenment. Zionism effectively synthesized the aforementioned goals by striving to free its people from unfriendly, despotic foreign control and to reinstitute Jewish unity with a clarion call inviting exiled Jews from across the globe back to their homeland.

By the 19th century's ending, Zionism recognized the need to have a national homeland for Jews. This transformed Zionism into a large-scale political movement. The motivation to do so came from Haskala's (Jewish Enlightenment) failure to resolve the Jews' problem. Zionist doctrine claims this failure occurred because equality and personal emancipation were not possible if there was no equality and emancipation on a national level, as national issues needed national solutions. Formation of their own, independent Jewish nation in their historical homeland, with a majority of Jewish citizens was Zionism's national solution; through this, the Jews could realize their self-determination rights. According to the movement, "normalization" of Jews' situation was not in opposition to universal, basic values and aims. It supported the fundamental right of man to have his own home, arguing that a race could only reach equal footing with others in the "family of nations" if it enjoyed a sovereign, autonomous status. By adopting this approach, the Zionist political movement could successfully attain their aim of instituting a Jewish nation (Neuberger 20-22).

Question 3

The Israel-Arab '6-Day War' came to an end on the 10th of June, 1967, after a truce between Israel and Syria. The involved Arab nations suffered a huge defeat, owing to the pre-emptive Israeli attack. They lost fifty percent of their defense equipment, and Jordan's Air Force suffered total destruction at the Israelis' hands. Also, casualties were more on the Arab side than among Israelis. Following this success, Israel took control of West Bank, Sinai Peninsula, and Golan Heights, securing their borders, in addition to control over the city of Jerusalem. This war exacerbated Palestinian Arabs' hardships. Another group of Palestinians fled their country, seeking refuge in Jordan. The citizens who stayed behind were subject to Israeli control. Palestine was home to as many as 1,300,000 Arabs, not counting the refugees who fled (Shlaim and William 264-270). Moreover, the war triggered a surge in the Palestinian nationalist movement. For Israel, the political consequence of this war was that it strengthened the Jews' distrust of international assurances, accompanied by perceptions of changing party interests. Israel would be betrayed -- the promise by Eisenhower's Administration, in 1957, of unrestricted access to Tiran's Straits was not respected. This assurance received the support of other governments, including France. Though a potential disagreement might exist with regard to whether or not the U.S. broke the pledge made by Eisenhower's government, according to Israelis, the outcome was that America had not enforced the free passage idea when Nasser drove the United Nations peacekeeping force -- UNEF (UN Emergency Force) -- out. Preoccupied with the Vietnam issue, America was against forcing open access to Tiran's Straits, which annoyed the Israelis as it meant such assurances were valueless. At this point, one needs to bear in mind Israel's general isolation, since its relationship with the U.S. in those days was quite weak compared to the present day scenario (Result of The Six Day War Para 1-3).

The Middle East has witnessed numerous long-term effects of the Arab-Israel War. Jordan's resolution to wage war aggravated the refugee crisis by persuading some West Bank inhabitants to go across River Jordan to its East Bank. A few displaced individuals did return to the Israel-controlled West Bank. Together with their neighbors, they enjoyed extraordinary economic success during the subsequent twenty years. Israel's infrastructural investments in Gaza Strip and West Bank, in addition to policies that gave Arabs freedom of movement, increased Palestinians' living standards. They could now work in Israel as well as oil-rich Middle Eastern nations. In spite of this relative peace and prosperity enjoyed by them under Israeli rule, several Palestinians were not keen on continued Israeli occupation or on having their own state alongside Israel. Restrictions increased with increasing unrest. Violent uprisings, usually targeted at Israeli civilians, provoked increasing security measures by Israel. These cumulative actions had a cascading effect -- resulting in a progressively burdensome occupation. Ultimately, Israel re-established friendly relations with Egypt, and relinquished control over Sinai. This was followed by Israel's withdrawal, without any peace treaty, from Gaza Strip. However, this move was unsuccessful in ending Gaza's violence against Israelis.

Lastly, the war strained Jewish-Christian relations in America, with some Jewish rabbis faulting Christian organizations for their failure to speak out against the enmity Arabs had towards Israel, during the weeks leading up to the war. Initially, Christian publications accepted Arab nations' responsibility for this war. However, by the year 1968, Christian activists and commentators began voicing different views, of Zionist culpability and Arab innocence, for interpreting the Israel-Arab conflict. The 6-day war was unsuccessful in solving the issues that triggered it; rather, it only ended up greatly worsening the situation for Palestinians, and its after-effects continue to foster unrest even today in the area (Effects of 1967 War Para 1-4).

Question 5

The year 1900 marked 700 years of the Ottoman Empire's existence; however, it also marked the beginning of the Empire's collapse, which came violently and climactically. The forces behind the destruction of this mature and once great kingdom catapulted Europe, the Middle Eastern region, and in fact the whole world, towards a rise in chaos and instability. From the Ottoman Empire's ashes rose the forces that were direct or indirect determinants of some among the longest-lasting and most terrible of conflicts to plague the contemporary world since 1914. All related events and resulting global violence stemmed, to some extent, from the Ottoman Sultanate's death throes. By the year 1900, the Ottomans ruled over an area stretching from Africa's Libyan deserts to Kurdistan and Armenia's snow-covered mountains. The Sultan controlled South Iraq's marshes and oil fields, and Bosnian mountain valleys on the Bosnia-Austria border. Between the above geographic extremes was a huge, diverse empire that comprised of multiple religious and ethnic groups. Of these, many held more resentment towards one another than towards Ottoman Turks' rule. The empire's disintegration accelerated during the 20th century. By the year 1923, it collapsed completely and in its place was established the much-smaller Republic of Turkey. Further, a number of smaller nations arose out of its remaining Middle Eastern lands. Additionally, Arabia started transforming into the al-Saud-led Saudi Arabia (originally an Ottoman region comprising the holy Islamic cities -- Mecca and Medina -- seized by al-Saud) (The Fall of the Ottoman Empire Para 1-3).

Major Arab states shared new experiences to many different degrees, which may be seen in the state-building activities and accompanying conflicts that marked the beginning of the twentieth century. Conflicts surfaced between as well as within the Arab republics. The nationalism era was characterized by a novel kind of conflict that is currently termed as interethnic, ethno-national, or ethno-religious conflict. During the 1920s, fueled by the nationalist ideology, states attempted cultural and ethnic homogenization of their populations. The concepts of individual and group rights and ethnic boundaries were re-interpreted. Several attempts were made in the area of conflict resolution. Turkish nationalism's aim was formation of a solitary ethno-national group from the diverse population inhabiting the world's newly-instituted qu-si-states. The assumption was that unifying under a single Turkish nation would end the many religious and nationalistic conflicts. Created during the 1920s-1930s, Kemal's essentialist and primordial postulates grew to occupy a central position in national thought and ideology. These approaches became rooted deeply- in intellectuals' as well as lay citizens' minds. Even now, these are responsible for effectively resisting critical rethinking efforts. Turkish nationalism effectively generates enemy images, demanding absolute ethno-national allegiance. All deviations from formal standards will be interpreted as a betrayal of. In fact, the state interests will always be considered above citizens' individual and collective rights.

With regard to the nation-building aspect, the past two decades have been highly critical for Turkey in several ways. One key development is the novel dismissal of stringent secularism. The past two decades have witnessed a trend in which religious institutions, practices, and traditions have stepped out of their private spaces and bounds and have gone public, with a simultaneous revaluation of state secularity regimes.

That is, one may argue that no state is stringently secular but lives according to the 'secular neutrality' myth. Currently, Turkey's officially-secular administrations support active propagation of religious discourses, symbols, and moral principles, publicly. State regimes continue to be the main advocates of religious organizations, engaging simultaneously in multiple conflicts with apparently- radical or --illegitimate groups and networks. Typically, religious conflicts and contradictions correspond to tensions between major ethnic groups and communities in all the above nations (Rumyantsev Para 14-17).

Question 6

A study of pre-WWI North African and Middle Eastern history will present incredible findings. In the era before colonialism became widespread, North African and Middle Eastern regimes, in an attempt at catching-up to European nations, established a series of reforms for modernization that particularly concentrated on their economies and militaries. They allotted considerable funds towards armed forces organization, and the recruitment of European weapon makers and military officers, who, in their opinion, could bring about improvements in their armies. However, these plans gave rise to a few unforeseen consequences - the regimes' militaries grew increasingly powerful and independent. This legacy persists, particularly in Turkey and Egypt. North African and Middle Eastern economic reforms also had both favorable and non-favorable consequences. Though their economies became integrated with those of Europe, their reliance on cash-crops that were susceptible to abrupt price fluctuations grew, leading to bust-and-boom cycles and increased indebtedness. In case of North America, several factors including previous democratic experience, social homogeneity, and economic development levels facilitated nation-building. However, the efforts expended, with regard to time, troops, and money, was the most critical controllable determinant (Politics of the Middle East and North Africa Para 1-4). In a few Western European nations, a fairly de-centralized form of feudal monarchy emerged during the 900s to 1100. In theory, kings held absolute power; however, centralized rule could not be imposed practically. Rather, aristocratic dukes and counts built their own castles, ruling over their little fiefdoms. The strongest of aristocrats would rule "in the King's name," but their lands were nearly autonomous states. These trends were simply exacerbated by European colonialism. For instance, the Egyptians were forced by the English to grow cotton -- the raw material for the booming English textile industry.

Academic interactions have proven indispensable to studying Middle Eastern societies and states. In extended periods of Middle Eastern history, many areas weren't dominated by their imperial rulers successfully. While tribes contributed significantly to the institution of these Muslim empires, they dominated and populated huge Middle Eastern land multiple times as well. It was only from the mid-19th century that Middle Eastern tribal populations started being incorporated into contemporary North African and Middle Eastern states, at varying paces and rhythms. However, the formation of states did not necessarily mean cessation of tribes' existence. Even when tribes contributed to state formation, they can just as conveniently become different types of tribal units. In fact, quite often, the state formation process encouraged existing regional tribes to arrive at some understanding with state authorities to maintain their self-rule or establish novel tribes that can be organized around other loyalties that are more dynamic in nature, particularly those linked to ethnicity, thus allowing them to go up against the state or demand independence. Additionally, the 20th century's Middle Eastern state formation process is marked by a breakdown of conventional tribal authority as well as an erosion of erstwhile tribal allegiances. The Ottomans' collapse gave rise to multiple nation-states following an era of colonialism (Khoury and Joseph 25-74).

The implications of the above differences for contemporary politics may be explained using the sources of Middle Eastern state formation. The sources have profoundly impacted subsequent political development patterns. Political development strategies in Middle Eastern states have reflected social structural patterns inherited during independence, international factors' roles deriving from global economy, and interference of external power, in addition to state resources (particularly oil). Though some common political development patterns exist, particularly in the states with larger populations, an analysis of the variations is important. These relate to numerous features, including (notably): the state's relationship with landed classes of society, post-independence states' relationship with the global states-system and market, large oil rents' effects on the political development path, and Islam's social standing within the wider pattern of societal changes (Choueiri 517).