Don’t Blame Sykes-Picot for the Middle East’s Mess
Don’t Blame Sykes-Picot for the Middle East’s Mess
Steven A. Cook, Amr T. Leheta
Sometime in the 100 years since the Sykes-Picot agreement was signed, invoking its “end” became a thing among commentators, journalists, and analysts of the Middle East. Responsibility for the cliché might belong to the Independent’s Patrick Cockburn, who in June 2013 wrote an essay in the London Review of Books arguing that the agreement, which was one of the first attempts to reorder the Middle East after the Ottoman Empire’s demise, was itself in the process of dying. Since then, the meme has spread far and wide: A quick Google search reveals more than 8,600 mentions of the phrase “the end of Sykes-Picot” over the last three years.
The failure of the Sykes-Picot agreement is now part of the received wisdom about the contemporary Middle East. And it is not hard to understand why. Four states in the Middle East are failing — Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Libya. If there is a historic shift in the region, the logic goes, then clearly the diplomatic settlements that produced the boundaries of the Levant must be crumbling. History seems to have taken its revenge on Mark Sykes and his French counterpart, François Georges-Picot, who hammered out the agreement that bears their name.
The “end of Sykes-Picot” argument is almost always followed with an exposition of the artificial nature of the countries in the region. Their borders do not make sense, according to this argument, because there are people of different religions, sects, and ethnicities within them. The current fragmentation of the Middle East is thus the result of hatreds and conflicts — struggles that “date back millennia,” as U.S. President Barack Obama said — that Sykes and Picot unwittingly released by creating these unnatural states. The answer is new borders, which will resolve all the unnecessary damage the two diplomats wrought over the previous century.
Yet this focus on Sykes-Picot is a combination of bad history and shoddy social science. And it is setting up the United States, once again, for failure in the Middle East.
For starters, it is not possible to pronounce that the maelstrom of the present Middle East killed the Sykes-Picot agreement, because the deal itself was stillborn. Sykes and Picot never negotiated state borders per se, but rather zones of influence. And while the idea of these zones lived on in the postwar agreements, the framework the two diplomats hammered out never came into existence.
Global Preventive Diplomacy Initiative Launched in New York Ahead of UNGA 80
New York, NY — The Global Preventive Diplomacy Initiative (GPDI) was launched at an exclusive event organized by the Center for International Relations and Sustainable Development (CIRSD) on the top floor of New York’s iconic MetLife Building, bringing together diplomats, philanthropists, business leaders, academics, and thought leaders for a conversation on the future of conflict prevention and international cooperation. The launch came just days before the opening of the 80th Session of the United Nations General Assembly, which annually brings together heads of state and government for the High-Level General Debate — making New York the world’s diplomatic capital.
Read more
Eighty years after its founding, the UN finds itself at a critical juncture. Its purpose is on trial, and its mission urgently requires recalibration. The world it inherited from the scorches of the Second World War no longer exists, yet many of the organisation’s practices remain rooted in a bygone era – out of sync with today’s realities and detached from those it was created to serve.
Read more
CIRSD President Vuk Jeremić to SINA Finance: Multilateralism Will Evolve, Not Disappear
Below is the full text of the interview:
Read more