This year marks the first century of the Sykes-Picot accord. It was created during the fall of the Ottoman Empire when the future of the Middle East was unknown and chaos reigned. For those of us who are unfamiliar with this document, its purpose was to divide up parts of the middle east into countries and then place those countries under the governance of Britain, France and Russia. Named after the two main negotiators, Mark Sykes from Britain, and Francois Georges-Picot from France, this document came about without seeking any advice from Middle Eastern leaders.
[caption id=”” align=”alignnone” width=”361”]
Copyright: The global education project[/caption]
The whole accord was in fact created in secrecy, but its disastrous effects are no secret. It has exacerbated the Arab-Israeli conflict, set the stage for rogue states, created the conditions for oppressive ruling classes and caused Middle Eastern people to feel controlled by Foreign Powers. Even ISIS has stated that one of its’ objectives is to reverse the Sykes-Picot accord. It seems like everyone in the West may have forgotten about this document, but nobody in the Middle East has.
Arrogance on Display
It is truly the height of arrogance to believe that any good would come out of artificial carving up a territory without a care for its tribes, customs and religion. But Western Powers are in the habit of believing that only through their guidance and imposition of order, an anarchic region will become stable and safe. We still see this same story play out today. The West enjoys in a leisurely manner both interfering in the Middle East and withdrawing from the Middle East. It cannot be depended upon for constancy nor for an understanding nature.
Never Learning
And yet it believes it has the answers. When a crisis occurs in the Middle East, the West immediately resolves that it is their duty to do something about it. The Arab Spring is a perfect illustration of this. While the U.S was arming the pro-democracy movement in Egypt, it was completely nonchalant to the fact that the revolution was taking a decidedly sectarian and theocratic turn. Another example is this whole notion of democracy building. This should go without saying but a country cannot become democratic through the forceful imposition of a foreign power. Especially when that foreign power is widely perceived to be self-seeking and hidden in shadows.
I am always amused when a politician wants to take on the troubles of the Middle East. They phrase their concern in such a caring way, but all I hear is an arrogance and a disdain for the Middle East in creating their own history.