What was the Sykes-Picot Agreement, and how does it continue to shape Middle Eastern politics today? Why do some groups view this century-old agreement as a symbol of Western imperialism?
The 1916 secret agreement between Britain and France carved up the Ottoman Empire’s territories, creating new nations and spheres of influence that would transform the Middle East. This deal continues to influence regional conflicts and debates about borders, independence, and Western intervention.
Read on to discover how this controversial agreement’s legacy extends far beyond its original scope.
The Sykes-Picot Agreement (1916)
What was the Sykes-Picot Agreement? According to David Fromkin, it marks a pivotal point in Middle Eastern history. Signed in 1916 and named after Mark Sykes and François Georges-Picot (the negotiators for Britain and France), this secret agreement between Britain and France attempted to resolve their tensions by outlining their plans for the Ottoman Empire after the war.
(Shortform note: The agreement temporarily eased tensions between Britain and France, but they restarted soon after and continued until after World War II. For example, Britain supported the independence of Syria and Lebanon, and France responded by inciting violence within Britain-mandated Palestine. France’s actions diminished Britain’s political leadership in the region.)
The Sykes-Picot Agreement tried to balance France’s goal to control some Middle Eastern territories and Britain’s goals to maintain influence over the region and give some independence to Middle Eastern leaders. Fromkin explains that Britain and France agreed on the following arrangement:
- The British Empire would have control of modern-day Iraq and the Haifa and Acre districts in modern-day Israel, providing Britain with access to the Mediterranean Sea.
- The British Empire would have political influence over modern-day Jordan and southern Iraq. This influence would include choosing rulers and shaping their international policies.
- France would have direct control over Cilicia in southeastern Türkiye, the coastal region of modern Syria, Lebanon, and parts of Iraq.
- Both the British Empire and France would have administrative power over Palestine.
Key Outcome: Setting the Stage for the Modern Middle East
Fromkin argues that the Sykes-Picot Agreement laid the groundwork for many of the tensions and conflicts we see in the Middle East today. The agreement carved out new nations without much regard for ethnic or sectarian divisions. The arbitrary division of territories fueled resentment in the region toward Western powers. The agreement also overlooked Arab leaders’ ambition for full independence, and its secrecy heightened their feelings of betrayal.
| The Legacy of Sykes-Picot Some scholars argue that the legacy of the Sykes-Picot Agreement isn’t just geographical borders but the perception that these borders are illegitimate because Europeans created them without local input. Experts suggest the agreement’s geographical impact was limited, as much of what it outlined didn’t happen. For example, France never gained control over Cilicia. However, the agreement became a shorthand for talking about and rejecting European influence. For example, ISIS—widely recognized as a terrorist group—referenced Sykes-Picot in a 2014 propaganda video. In the video, ISIS fighters cross the Syria-Iraq border created by the agreement, vowing to dismantle artificial divisions in the Arab world. The legacy of Sykes-Picot also lives on in discussions about peace in the Middle East. Scholars outline two main visions for a post-Sykes-Picot future: 1. Smaller, ethnically homogenous countries: Many Western analysts suggest dividing the region into smaller ethnostates, such as splitting Iraq into Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish states. This vision might rectify Sykes-Picot’s betrayal by giving independence to more nations. 2. Federations of diverse regions with a shared Arab identity: Some Middle Eastern scholars propose uniting diverse regions into federations. They argue that dividing the region further would be a continuation of Sykes-Picot. It would fuel division and ensure that small countries rely on Western powers for protection, reinforcing Western influence on the region. |
