The borders established in the interests of the world powers of the past seem fated to disappear in the wake of many swift and predictable upheavals .
A century ago, in the midst of the devastation of the First World War, France and Britain secretly signed the Asia Minor Agreement. The document later became more widely known as the Sykes-Picot Agreement, named after the two diplomats who negotiated the treaty. It stipulated how the major winning powers, with the tacit approval of pre-revolutionary imperial Russia, would partition the Middle East after the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the war.
The borders drawn up by the two diplomats in May 1916 were to have a profound influence on the history of the Middle East throughout the century that followed.
“Today we are seeing the dissolution of that pact”, explained Anya Hamedeye, a researcher at the Lebanese University. “Those artificially drawn borders are dissolving in blood. The responsibility for what is happening in the Middle East lies in many quarters, from the incapacity of our leaders to the interweaving interests of world powers; it’s complicated. But I think the root of all our evils lies in that territorial partition done around a table without considering the populations’ religious, ethnic and cultural affiliations”.
Britain’s Sir Mark Sykes and French diplomat François Georges-Picot had been given the task of defining the new areas of influence from the perspective of their respective colonial empires, certain of victory at the end of WWI. “Their map of the partition, which was slightly modified at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919”, continued Hamedeye, “was drawn up with carelessness and superficiality, to be euphemistic about it. It gave absolutely no consideration to the complexity of the territories and the tribal culture. It ignored the ethnic identity of the Kurds and the Arabs and overlooked the theological split between Sunnis and Shiites”.
The partition of the Ottoman Empire, drawn up 100 years ago, survived through the Second World War, the Cold War and the end of that struggle. Up until now, the borders traced by Sykes and Picot have remained essentially the same, apart from the creation of Israel. The two former colonial powers have defended this status quo, continuing to influence events in the region in an attempt to safeguard their own interests.
One hundred years on, we are seeing the failure of the nation states created at that time, which have never become an expression of united peoples. They are now being pressurised by transnational jihadi groups who want to promote a new political order.
There were two key moments in the collapse of the equilibrium, with the leading role being played, once again, by countries outside of the region. The first was in 2003 with the United States’ intervention in Iraq. The second was in 2011 when Western countries supported what was defined, too superficially, as the Arab Spring, particularly in Syria and Libya. Governments and regimes that had long relied on the backing of world powers suddenly collapsed, leaving behind plenty of space for those able to rekindle unappeased ethnic and religious conflicts.
Today it seems to be Islamic State (IS) with its desire to establish a Sunni caliphate between Syria and Iraq is actually drawing up the new geography of the Middle East.
As Anya Hamedeye said, “Islamic State’s proclamation of the caliphate has definitively buried the Sykes-Picot Agreement”. She continued, “Even if IS has accelerated this process, the borders did not fall just because it appeared on the scene. I think more responsibility lies with the authorities of the states in the region. In Syria, Iraq and also in Lebanon and Yemen, the central authorities’ lack of control left plenty of room for local forces. Then of course there are the interconnected interests of the world’s superpowers and, almost in the background, the clash over regional dominance between Iran and Saudi Arabia. The current upheaval appears to be directly leading to the rise of states created on the basis of religious faith”.
In 2014, the spectacular advance of IS shattered the regional geopolitical architecture, and ideologies collapsed along with the old post-colonial borders, as did networks of alliances and the state structures sustaining them. The situation in Iraq and Syria and their probable futures are emblematic of what is happening.
Even as IS has suffered heavy defeats and lost large swathes of territory in Iraq, it will be hard for the country to return to being a national state. Iraq’s most probable future configuration will be a federation of three religious provinces, Sunni, Shiite and Kurd.
As for Syria, leaving aside the fragile hopes for peace, keeping the territory intact now seems like a pipe dream. The country is torn between Bashar al-Assad’s government, IS, the al-Nusra Front and the Kurds. Unless the panorama in the Middle East radically changes, we will witness the emergence of three states created on a religious basis: a Sunnistan, Shiitestan and a Kurdistan. This new political geography is viewed positively by the regional powers as well as by Russia and China.
In the end, Saudi Arabia and Iran may find a way of stabilising their relations thanks to the delimitation of their respective areas of influence. Israel would feel much more secure with the disappearance of historic enemies like Syria, and Iran is committed to defending itself from an established Sunni presence. Turkey would see the new Sunnistan as an ally in opposing Iran’s expansionism. Russian and China would see Shiitestan as a strong, transnational partner, one that is also able to control important oil routes.
For the moment, Europe seems to be absent from these manoeuvres. Meanwhile the United States is having difficulties with its historic ally Israel and must take Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s troublesome policies into account.
The local and religious identities completely ignored at the time of the French and British diplomats, who merely concentrated on their own geopolitical and economic interests, have now violently re-emerged, and it will not be easy to re-establish an equilibrium. In the meantime, development, social justice and democracy are being driven further and further away from these lands.
The borders established in the interests of the world powers of the past seem fated to disappear in the wake of many swift and predictable upheavals .
