Journal of Geography, Politics and Society 2016, 6(3), 50–58 DOI 10.4467/24512249JG.16.019.5806 IS THE SYKES – PICOT AGREEMENT OF 1916 WAS THE BASIS FOR THE POLITICAL DIVISION OF THE MIDDLE EAST? Gideon Biger Department of Geography and the Human Environment, Tel-Aviv University, P.O.B 39040, Ramat Aviv, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel, e-mail: [email protected] Citation Biger G., 2016, Is the Sykes – Picot Agreement of 1916 was the basis for the political division of the Middle East?, Journal of Geography, Politics and Society, 6(3), 50–58. Abstract In 1916, Britain and France signed an agreement deals with the future division of the Ottoman Empire. This agreement, known as the Sykes – Picot Agreement, after its two designers, the British Sir Mark Sykes and the French François George Picot, is seen up today as the main act which created the modern Middle East and responsible for some of its problems. The article present here point to another act, the decision of the newly established League of Nation to create the Mandate System and , following it, the San Remo decision of April 1920 giving the Mandates concerning the Arab Middle East to France and Britain, as the main designer of the division of the Middle East to its present form. Key words First World War, Ottoman Empire, League of Nations, Britain, France, Mandate System. 1. Preface Lately, especially in light of the events of the past five the creation of the political map of the Middle East years in Syria and Iraq, popular as well as scientific divided for several independence states which ex- publications, as well as political groups and leaders, ists today in that area. More new information to this wrote and mentioned the agreement signed a hun- ‘known’ agreement was supplied in a book called dred years ago, in May 1916, between the repre- “A Line in the Sand” (Baar, 2012) written by the jour- sentative of the British Empire, Sir Mark Sykes, and nalist and political analyst, James Barr, published the French representative, Francois Georges –Picot in 2011 (American Edition 2012). According to the concerning the future of the Middle East1. All consid- overall public opinion, this agreement between the ered the “Sykes – Picot Agreement” as the base for governments of Britain and France created the exist- ing political structures of the Middle East – a struc- 1 See for example – The Sykes – Picot Agreement at 100, ture that the Muslim State (ISIS) tries to abolish. ISIS YouTube discussion of 2 hours, 26:24 minutes. Also see – Re- declared that the boundaries of the Sykes – Picot thinking the map of the Sykes – Picot Agreement Legacy, BBC World YouTube. Is the Sykes – Picot Agreement of 1916 was the basis for the political division of the Middle East? 51 Agreement are void and null2, tried to abolish the (especially in Palestine – the Terra Sancta) and to separate Arab states units, and bring back the Mid- secure control all over the area from the Egyptian dle East to the situation in which there were no bor- border – a line set in 1906 – as far north as Aleppo ders separating and disintegrate the Arab world – in Syria and the Gulf of Alexandretta (Iskenderun, to- the Muslim Middle East. James Barr’s book reinforces day in Turkey) and in the area of Mosul in northern this argument and tries to show that the “Line drawn Mesopotamia (now Iraq). In contrast, Britain sought in the Sand” drowned on the map attached to the to strengthen its Persian Gulf positions and extend agreement, put the Middle East as a conflict area its control to the north of Mesopotamia, where she between France and Britain struggled for control hoped to find oil3. In Western Middle East Britain of the territory after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, look for Palestine, due to activities which took place hence the root of the ongoing conflicts in the Middle in the course of the war itself. Attempts to attack the East. Moreover, from this stems the notion that Mid- Suez Canal “The life line of the British Empire”, by the dle Eastern countries, with the possible exception of Ottoman army (with German encouragement and Turkey and Israel, are being artificial and unnatural, planning), although twice failed, made it clear to never been established according the frame of the Britain that the Sinai desert is no longer a buffer in “nation-state idea”. the age of modern war, aided by railroad and motor Is that right? It seems that a historical research, traffic by land and airplanes. Crossing the desert bar- which is based on original documents and previous rier became more easily. It became clear to Britain studies, which try to examine what happened dur- that a modern military force located in Palestine is ing the years 1914–1920, without preliminary views, a constant threat to the Suez Canal, a waterway vital present a slightly different picture. to the British Empire. Britain sought therefore to ex- pand the actual power and control to all the territory between Palestine and Mesopotamia from Egypt in 2. Background the west, up to the Ottoman – Persia boundary, de- marcated in 1914, in the east. Britain wanted to get In the Eve of World War I the Ottoman Empire con- this area in order to ensure direct contact between trolled the entire area currently defined as the Mid- the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean by continen- dle East (but not independent Persia – now Iran), tal railroad, roads and oil pipelines (Frieschwasser- with the exception of Egypt, which was officially Raanan, 1955). Tsarist Russia had no territorial ambi- still under the sovereignty of the Ottoman sultan tions in Palestine and focused its ambitions in other but actually was, since 1882, control by the British parts of the Ottoman Empire – the area of Istanbul, empire. The accession of the Ottoman Empire in the the Bosporus and Dardanelles Straits, and parts Great War (WWI) alongside with the Central Powers of eastern Anatolia and Armenia. The Italians, who (Germany, Austria-Hungary and Bulgaria) against had occupied the territory of the Ottoman Empire the Allied (Entente Cordial) Powers (Britain, France, in Libya and some islands in the Aegean Sea, (The Russia and Serbia later joined by Italy, Greece, Portu- Dodecanese Islands) just before the War, asked for gal, Rumania and the USA), which took place mainly international approval of their control in these areas, in Europe but also in the Middle East (and even in as well as controlling some areas in central Anato- central Africa) brought about discussions between lia. Russia and Italy as well as Britain, refused to ac- these powers concerning the future of the Middle cept that only one European power (France) and East. An Ottoman – Germany victory would leave the one Christian faith (The Catholic Church) will rule the situation as it is, under the authority of one empire holy places in Palestine. Those conflicting ambitions – the Ottoman, but a victory of the Allied Powers of the Allied countries, formed the basis for discus- could bring into the creation of a new Middle East. sions on a possible partition of the Ottoman Empire, Pre-war Great Britain held diplomatic outposts in if the War will end in the collapse of it. Thus, imme- the Middle East, in Egypt, Cyprus and Aden, and held diately upon the outbreak of war, after the Ottoman a series of agreements with Arab sheikhs along the Empire joined the Central Power in 31 October 1914, Persian Gulf. France had religious, trade and politi- France demanded for herself Syria, including Leba- cal interests on the east coast of the Mediterranean, non and Palestine. Russia, the closest ally of France, particularly in Syria, Lebanon and Palestine. Thus tended at the beginning to agree to this request but France sought to achieve influence and control over later Russia withdrew its support for this demand the Christian holy places in the Ottoman Empire because of the reluctance to see a Catholic control 2 Melisa Ruthven, The Map ISIS Hates, The New York Reviews 3 On the rival between Britain and France in the Middle East of Books, 25 June 2014. see Y. Nevakivi (1969) and E. Monroe (1963). 52 Gideon Biger of the holy places in Palestine, where the Russian Or- Ottoman Empire after the war. In accordance with thodox Church had also interests and properties. the terms of the agreement, which was later joined In March 1915 the French government asked of- by Russia and Italy, France was due to have direct ficially Russia to accept French future control of Syria control over most of the eastern shore of the Medi- and Palestine at the end of the war, but the Rus- terranean Sea, from Rosh Hanikra in the south to sians rejected the French demand for the control Alexandretta golf in the north and the great Syrian – of the holy places in Palestine, and to do so, Russia African rift in the east. In addition, she was supposed enlisted the help of Britain. The British government to directly control Cilicia, the south Asian region of was not prepared to formally discuss the future of Anatolia. The French control area was painted by the Ottoman Empire before the latter defeated, but blue color on the map that accompanied the origi- the British Cabinet set up, in April 1915, a committee nal agreement. As concerning Palestine France was of experts headed by Maurice De – Bunsen, to dis- supposed to have complete control of the area from cuss the British interests in the Middle East4. France, Rosh Hanikra to the Sea of Galilee, including the Up- which faced Russian opposition and non coopera- per Galilee region, with the city of Safed, Hula Lake tion from Britain concerning its ambitious demands, and the northern part of the Jordan River (fig.