Written by Jasmine Khelil
24/09/2023
The Sykes-Picot agreement is a memorandum written in May 1916 by Mark Sykes and François Georges-Picot, representing the division of Anglo-French influence over the Middle East after the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire. These policies were established from the two capitals of the colonist nations, inevitably impacted by domestic driving forces such as the emergence of Victorian imperialism and the Industrial Revolution. The function of the treaty was primarily focused on representing the succession of the Entente powers over the MENA (Middle East and North Africa) region rather than implementing a strict spherical system in which independent, administrative bodies were operating. However, the management of borders required international diplomacy in which it was crucial to contextualize the former administrative organization of the Ottoman Empire in order to effectively govern state succession in the region.
Following the spearheading of an Arab nationalist movement against the oppression by the Ottoman Empire, Britain was receptive to the recognition of an independent Arab state as it would facilitate the exercise of influential power over the region. Therefore, the British government agreed with Arab leaders, such as Husayn Ibn Ali, to recognize an independent Arab state on the condition that the Hashemite Kingdom would ally with the British against the Ottomans. Great Britain and France maintained the ability to give economic assistance and regulate administration in the area that was supposed to be an independent Arab state, which Sharif Husayn was unaware of. The Comité de l’Asie Française and Kitchener’s Egyptian Party were putting pressure on the Quai d’Orsay and the British Foreign Office to make concrete plans with regards to the division of the Middle East in order to expand their imperial horizons. In the midst of the First World War, a secret agreement was written by two diplomats that led to the redrawing of the Middle East, which lastingly transformed social dynamics in the region. The authors’ motives behind the agreement were spearheaded by Disraeli’s Toryism, a political theory catalysed by the establishment of industrial and military structures in nineteenth century England. Disraeli’s strategy presented the British government as a military power striving to expand its industrial society through militancy, which soon became denounced as imperialism. The latter is intertwined with the authors’ motives in the Sykes-Picot agreement, as the main focus in the document is industrializing the Middle East through ‘facilitating the connexion of Baghdad with Haifa by rail’, ‘establishing an international administration in Palestine’, and ‘transporting troops.’ The Sykes-Picot Agreement reflects upon this ideology, as it represents an agreement formed out of the authors’ desire to extend European commitments further, whilst being shaped by the dynamics of their socio-political background.
Furthermore, the negotiations between the British government and the Arab leaders led many national parties to take matters into their own hands and implement railway plans, administrative authorities, and diplomatic correspondences in the MENA region. During the first discussions between Nicolson and Sykes-Picot, the negotiations seemed to be between the Kitchener’s Egyptian Party and the Comité de l’Aisie Française, rather than two state governments. This analysis is further supported by the political background of the two diplomats, as Picot had close connections with the Comité de l’Afrique and was a member of the Comité de l’Asie Française. He was known to be a diplomat striving to expand his imperialist ideologies, which is clearly portrayed through his policymaking as the French Delegate of the MENA region. As a previous French Consul in Beirut, he was a contemporary witness of the social dynamics in the Ottoman Empire, making him seemingly a perfect fit for negotiating the opportunities of an imperial French domain in the region. Sykes was particularly interested in the industrialization of the Middle East through a railway system between Basra and the Suez Canal, following Disraeli’s purchase of the Khedive’s Suez Canal shares. This is reflected upon in the agreement, as it states that Britain ‘has the right to administer a railway connecting Haifa with area (b).’
Picot’s motive behind the agreement was based upon his desire to form a French mandate of present-day Lebanon and Syria. The strengthening of an Ottoman imperial structure against foreign dominance resulted in many Maronites and Arabs associated with the French government persecuted during the rule of the Ottoman Empire. This was the incentive for France to establish regional dominance and present the Middle East as a region that is unable to govern independently. The Sykes-Picot agreement should represent the foreign politics of two nations but seems to be driven by the ideological perspective of two imperialist figures that have many political standpoints in common, which ultimately resulted in the formation of the agreement. It is essential to distinguish whether the Sykes-Picot agreement was formed due to a governmental interest in subordinating the former Ottoman Empire or driven by the authors’ incentive to establish an influential sphere in the Middle East supported by domestic imperialist parties. The latter seems to be more evident; the authors of the agreement presented the document as a solution to the social upheaval in the region that required the governing support of European powers, whilst stating that ‘the natives had replied in large numbers to our appeal … and had demonstrated their loyalty by their heroic defence of our territory.’ This turbulent portrayal of the MENA region would help gain domestic support in favour of the territorial occupation, especially from governmental bodies. This would suggest that the audience this treaty targeted are Anglo-French governing bodies, as these political entities could foster imperial expansion overseas.
The Sykes-Picot agreement was founded upon the self-interest of the authors in support of domestic imperialist parties, rather than the ‘virtual’ representation of two governments through coherent diplomacy. The agreement represents the inauthenticity of an imperialist system instigated by the needs of the Allied Powers, whilst paying scant regard to the former existence of an Arab-Ottoman state and government. The impact of the document’s publication by Russian extremists was perfectly captured by Mansfield, stating that ‘the British were embarrassed, the Arabs dismayed, and the Turks delighted.’
Bibliography
Berdine, Michael D. Redrawing the Middle East: Sir Mark Sykes, Imperialism and the Sykes-Picot Agreement. London: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2018.
Cain, Peter. ‘Radicalism, Gladstone, and the Liberal Critique of Disraelian ‘Imperialism.’’ in Victorian Visions of Global Order, edited by Duncan Bell, 215-239. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Cleveland, William L. & Bunton, Martin. A History of the Middle East. Boulder: Westview Press, 2009.
Mansfield, Peter. The British Empire Magazine 75. Time-Life International, 1973.
Matikkala, Mira. Empire and Imperial Ambition: Liberty, Englishness and Anti-Imperialism in Late Victorian Britain. London: I.B.Tauris & Co Ltd, 2011.
Okan, Orcun C. ‘Borders of State Succession and Regime Change in the Post-Ottoman Middle East.’ in Regimes of Mobility: Borders and State Formation in the Middle East, 1918-1946, edited by Jordi Tejel & Ramazan Hakki Oztan, 59-80. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2022.
Owen, Roger. State, Power and Politics in the Making of the Modern Middle East. London: Routledge, 2004.
Sykes, Mark & Georges-Picot, François. “Sykes-Picot Agreement.’’ October 10, 2022. <https://resources.saylor.org/wwwresources/archived/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/HIST351-9.2.4-Sykes-Picot-Agreement.pdf>.
Image credit: Image extracted from page 846 of volume 1 of La Turquie d’Asie. Geographie administrative, statistique, descriptive et raisonné e de chaque province de l’Asie-Mineure., by CUINET, Vital. – File:CUINET(1890) 1.846 Vilayet of Konya.jpg, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=78433601
Retrospect Journal 