The Sykes–Picot Agreement and Its Lasting Middle East Impact

Introduction: The Middle East in Crisis

As Iraq lurches deeper into turmoil, Kurdish leaders threaten to break away and declare outright independence, and the militants of the self-styled Islamic State (IS) are reshaping the border between Iraq and Syria. To understand these conflicts in full perspective, one must look to the history of the region (Muir, 2016). The Sykes–Picot Agreement was officially signed on May 16, 1916; however, the agreement had been in the works for quite some time before it was formally concluded. The deal was also known as the Asia Minor Agreement, a name reflecting the geography the accord sought to affect. The Middle East has been a major strategic goal for policy planners and strategists for centuries. One author, writing in the Smithsonian, summarized the agreement as follows:

"Even before the final outcome of the Great War had been determined, Great Britain, France, and Russia secretly discussed how they would carve up the Middle East into 'spheres of influence' once World War I had ended" (Christianson, 2015).

At the time the agreement was being negotiated, the Ottoman Empire had been in decline for decades, and many representatives in the West saw their opportunity to exert control over the region in order to secure access to its concentrated resources.

Origins and Background of the Agreement

From November 1915 to March 1916, representatives of Britain and France were engaged in negotiating an agreement; Russia was also kept informed of the substance of the discussions. The treaty was, however, being negotiated in secret — shielded from public view, with only key officials privy to its contents. The negotiations eventually became known as the Sykes–Picot Agreement, named after its lead negotiators: the aristocrats Sir Mark Sykes of England and François Georges-Picot of France (Christianson, 2015).

The terms these two leaders constructed shaped the course of the future far beyond anything that could have been realized at the time. The geopolitical consequences of their claims to the Middle East have lingered into the present era. Britain and France were already well established in the region in terms of their economic and cultural influence, and this standing gave both men the confidence to presume they could direct the region's future.

Key Negotiators and the Negotiation Process

Sir Mark Sykes and François Georges-Picot were the principal architects of the accord, each representing their respective government's imperial interests. Sykes captured the blunt simplicity of the proposed territorial division when he stated, "I should like to draw a line from the 'e' in Acre (on the Mediterranean coast) to the last 'k' in Kirkuk (in modern-day Iraq)" (AFP, 2016). This single remark illustrates how casually vast and diverse populations were divided between foreign powers.

Imperial Russia and Italy also rallied to the accord. It was ultimately the revolutionary Russian government, however, that leaked news of the secret deal in 1917, exposing its existence to the wider world and triggering significant political fallout across the region.

Territorial Divisions and Major Terms

The specific territorial arrangements included in the agreement covered much of the modern Middle East and were organized as follows (AFP, 2016):

Territory north of Sykes's proposed line would come under French protection, directly or indirectly, while territory to the south would be controlled — directly or indirectly — by the British.

France would take control of a designated "Blue Zone" that included Lebanon, the Syrian coast, and parts of what is now Turkey. Within a corresponding "Red Zone," Britain would receive southern Mesopotamia — or Iraq, including Baghdad — along with the Mediterranean ports of Haifa and Acre.

Between these two zones, an Arab state or a confederation of Arab states was to be created under joint French and British protection. Palestine, including Jerusalem, was designated by the color brown and was to be placed under an international administration rather than under the sole control of either power.

These color-coded divisions reveal the transactional nature of the negotiations, in which centuries of local culture, ethnicity, religion, and tribal affiliation were subordinated to the strategic calculations of distant imperial capitals.

Conclusion

Despite whatever significance this deal added to the causal chain of events that led to the current situation in the Middle East, it is undeniable that the agreement contributed in some fashion — regardless of the precise degree of its actual influence — because it marked the beginning of a process in which vast numbers of people were thrown together collectively without regard for ethnic, tribal, religious, or linguistic considerations (Muir, 2016). The borders drawn by Sykes and Georges-Picot in 1916 continue to shape the lives of millions and remain a contested symbol of the enduring consequences of imperial diplomacy.

Works Cited

AFP. (2016, May 14). 100 years since Sykes-Picot: The deal that changed the Mideast forever. Retrieved from The Times of Israel: http://www.timesofisrael.com/100-years-since-sykes-picot-the-deal-that-changed-the-mideast-forever/

Christianson, S. (2015, November 16). The origins of the World War I agreement that carved up the Middle East. Retrieved from Smithsonian: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/sykes-picot-agreement-180957217/

Muir, J. (2016, May 16). Sykes-Picot: The map that spawned a century of resentment. Retrieved from BBC News: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-36300224