Does the Sykes-Picot arrangement continue in the Middle East? What is the Impact on Turkey?

The victorious powers of the First World War divided the Middle East in accordance with their strategic interests. In 1923, diplomatic manoeuvres ended and new political cartography emerged in the Middle East. The political map of the Middle East, drawn with a ruler, has remained more or less the same since then. Later, various regions ceased to be the sphere of influence of one power and passed into the hands of another. Britain, the dominant power that shaped the Middle East, in order to increase its influence in Africa, removed the Sudan region from its dependence on Egypt and turned it into an independent state, a country subordinate to Britain. 

Undoubtedly, the Middle East, especially the Mesopotamia region, with its fertile lands, underground and above-ground riches, has always been an area of interest for the colonial powers. Entering the age of imperialism as "the country on which the sun does not set", Britain, the largest colonialist state, pioneered the redrawing of the map of the Middle East and the Sykes-Picot arrangements in this context in order to maintain its hegemony over the Middle East. 

Sykes-Picot Arrangements

After the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire, the Middle East has turned into a geography of constant wars and the western states have implemented the divide-and-rule plan here by pursuing their own interests. The first seeds of this plan were sown with the Sykes-Picot agreement. 

This agreement was signed between the United Kingdom and France in 1916 during the First World War and was an agreement by which the great powers in the Middle East determined their zones of influence for themselves before the end of the war. The borders of today's Middle East were largely determined within the framework of this agreement. Nowadays, when the redistribution of the Middle East is on the agenda, the name of the Sykes-Picot agreement has started to be pronounced more frequently. The spirit of the Sykes-Picot agreement, which favoured the interests of the parties rather than regional dynamics, was also reflected in the agreements made in the following periods, which led to the emergence of new countries. The border lines drawn by this agreement, which forced the Middle Eastern countries, elements of different identities and beliefs to live together and separated the societies from each other with artificial borders, were seen as social fault lines ready to break at any moment. It was also shown as the main source of the wars and tensions in the region.

According to this treaty signed with the approval of the Russian Tsardom, Russia was to receive Trabzon, Erzurum, Van, Bitlis and a part of Southeastern Anatolia; France was to receive the Eastern Mediterranean region, Adana, Antep, Urfa, Mardin, Diyarbakır, Mosul and the Syrian coast; Britain was to receive the ports of Haifa and Acre, Baghdad, Basra and Southern Mesopotamia.

How did the Middle East reach its present borders?

The 1917 Soviet Revolution not only revealed this secret division agreement to the masses, but also played a role that changed the course of the war with the impact it had on the oppressed peoples. The Soviet Union declared that it did not recognise the agreement and called on the peoples of the region to struggle against the imperialists. The division in the Sykes-Picot agreement was reintroduced to the Ottoman Empire in 1920 under the name of Sevres with some minor changes. However, the Ankara Government declared that it did not recognise Sevres and succeeded in reaching its present borders with Lausanne.

In this geography, which is the cradle of the oldest civilisations in the history of mankind, namely in the Middle East, while the borders were redrawn and new states were formed after the First World War, the peoples of the region were never asked a question like "what kind of future do you want?" and their will was not consulted. However, in the independence struggles that started against the imperialists at that time, it was concretely seen that not everything could be realised in line with the plans of the imperialists. As a result of their struggle for independence against the British, French and their stooges, the Greeks, the Turks demonstrated their will to establish the Republic of Turkey. In this respect, Turkey was the first country to win the struggle. As a matter of fact, during and after the Second World War, revolutions broke out in many oppressed societies following the example of Turkey, and not only fascism, but also the capitalist-imperialist system was dealt a great blow. 

Arab societies, on the other hand, did not yet seem to have the consciousness of being a 'nation' and the understanding of fighting for independence against the imperialists. The Arab peninsula, inhabited by Arab societies waiting like sacrificial lambs for what would happen to them, was given its final shape in 1923.

The ideas of the founder of Wahhabism, Muhammad b. Abdul Wahhab, had spread among the Arabs for decades as a common culture, well known to the societies living in the Arabian peninsula. Wahhabism led to the formation of a new society and a new state, and prepared the ground for the emergence of what is now known as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in terms of beliefs and ideas. Thus, Saudi Arabia was able to emerge as a new geopolitical structure and soon swallowed Sharif Hussein's Hashemite Kingdom in Hejaz. The British gave Iraq to Hussein's sons Faisal and Jordan to Abdullah for their services in the First World War. 

Most of the present borders of the Arab world were drawn by Britain and France. Kings, emirs or sheikhs, chosen by these countries, were placed as semi-autonomous rulers in the newly created nation states, some of them because they drew the new borders, others because they served Britain and France. For example, Sharif Hussein of Mecca was such a man.

As a result of developments over time, after the British physically left the region, the Palestine Mandate was divided into three separate entities (Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip). The Gaza Strip joined Egypt and the West Bank joined Jordan. The Balfour Declaration was the initiative of Arthur Balfour, Foreign Secretary in the British war cabinet under Lloyd George, which resulted in the establishment of a Jewish state (Israel) in Palestine. This 1917 declaration complemented the Sykes-Picot arrangement.

On the other hand, the Syrian territories could not maintain their integrity due to France's divide and rule policy on the one hand and the local aspirations of different ethnic and religious groups on the other. In the meantime, while the Arab lands were fragmented and divided around the new structures that emerged, regional countries such as Turkey and Iran were able to maintain their independence and integrity. In the period between the two world wars, some Arab countries emerged partially victorious from their struggle against the colonialists by becoming semi-independent colonies. Britain and France granted semi-independence to Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq with special agreements granting them important privileges. Although these agreements were revised after the Second World War, the essence of the agreements was always preserved, and there was no significant change. It was not possible for the colonised European countries to suddenly withdraw from North Africa, which is also a part of the Middle East. In this context, the territories of Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco continued to be regarded as an integral part of France until the end of the Second World War.

The Middle East's Only Value and Source of Conflict: Its Natural Wealth

The main factor shaping the Middle East policies of the imperialists is the underground and aboveground riches. Energy and life resources such as oil and water are at the top of this list. This situation is still valid today. Again, borders are tried to be drawn against the will of nations and again everything centres on who will seize these resources and who will control them.

Before the oil age, states in the Middle East made little effort to define their territories/borders. Most Bedouin Arabs were loyal to their tribes or sheikhs and tended to roam the Arabian Desert according to the needs of their herds. For them, formal borders had little meaning and there was no concept of belonging to a particular political unit. Organised authority was confined to ports and oases. However, the transfer of oil rights and the signing of concessions gave a new impetus to the process. This led to disputes, especially in the areas where the most valuable oil deposits were located.

Who was in charge of the ruler drawing the borders?

Efraim Halevy, former head of the Israeli intelligence, Mossad, said in a speech: "If you look at the maps of the Middle East, you can see that the borders of the countries are straight lines that can only be drawn with a ruler by the British and French draftsmen sitting at the map at that time. If the ruler slipped for any reason, for example, because of a shaking hand of a draftsman, the borders would also slip". In another speech, Efraim Halevy said: "There is a famous story about Gertrude Bell, the British consul who drew the map between Iraq and Jordan using transparent paper. Bell turned round to speak to someone, and as she was turning round, the paper moved and the ruler moved, so that Bell added an important area to Jordan". 

Jim Crow, a historian from Newcastle University, said: "Without that imperial division, Iraq would not be what it is today. Gertrude Bell was one of the two or three British who were instrumental in the creation of the Arab states in the Middle East in favour of Britain."

What was tried to be done within the scope of the Greater Middle East Project?

At the beginning of the 20th century, Britain had shaped the Middle East region for itself with projects such as Sykes-Picot and Sevres. Nowadays, we see that America is trying to shape the region for itself within the framework of the Greater Middle East Project.

The Middle East geography, which was divided into dozens of countries with the initiative of Western states after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, is today trying to be fragmented and divided again through maps. Today, a perception operation is being carried out again through maps for the Middle East. The political, cultural and ideological plan that is tried to be constructed with maps is being implemented and its known name is the Greater Middle East Project.

It is noteworthy that ethnic and religious elements are emphasised in the possible maps reflecting the fragmented shape the region will take in the future. For example, in the map published in the "Armed Forces Journal" magazine in the USA in 2006, the borders of almost all the countries in the Middle East were changed.

In September 2013, an article published in the New York Times under the signature of Robin Wright argued that 14 new countries could emerge from the 5 countries whose borders were drawn by colonial powers 100 years ago and ruled by Arab autocrats. In the map published together with the article, which argues that opposing beliefs, tribes and ethnic identities have divided the region with the unpredictable results of the Arab Spring, the ethnic and sectarian differences in Syria, Iraq, Libya and Yemen are reflected on the borders, and it is stated that countries may start to dissolve with federation, soft division or autonomy and new countries may emerge with geographical separations. In addition, the map envisages the establishment of an "Alawite State" in the lands along the coastal part of Syria, while the north of the country is left to the "Kurds" and the rest to the "Sunni State", which will include a large part of Iraq. Iraq was divided into three parts: "Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish regions". In the map in question, Yemen was shown in two parts in the east-west direction and Libya was shown as three separate states, namely Tripoli, Cyrenaica and Fezzan.

In the article titled "The New Map of the Middle East" by Jeffrey Goldenberg, published in the US magazine "The Atlantic", the map published in 2006 on how the Middle East will look like in the future is re-presented and the expression "Why should we go to war when division in Iraq is inevitable?" is used. In the article, it is pointed out that the map drawn in the pre-Arab Spring period is still valid, and it is argued that "stability in the Middle East has come to an end and no glue can hold Iraq together".

An assessment in the "Wall Street Journal", one of the leading US publications, drew attention to the activity of ISIS on the Iraq-Syria border and expressed the view that the borders, which are likened to "lines in the sand", are disappearing. In the article written by Ben Winkley, while the map was not included, it was evaluated that "the possibility of Iraq being divided into three parts after ISIS is a certain outcome rather than a probable one".

It has become clear that the Greater Middle East Project will not bring democracy, human rights, education, etc. to the region; on the contrary, it has been clearly seen that the borders and political structures of the countries in the region have been/will be intervened within the framework of this project. Depending on the way this project is perceived by the countries in the region, especially by Turkey, the new shapes that Iraq, Syria and other countries in the region will take will become clearer in the near future. There will always be the possibility that stability will not be achieved in Iraq (intentionally or unintentionally), that the turmoil will continue, especially in the south compared to the north, that it may be completely divided according to the new balances that will emerge in the region, and that new political formations centred on Mosul, Baghdad and Basra may emerge. Likewise, there will always be the possibility that Syria may be divided into three and new political formations may emerge.

Conclusion 

For hundreds of years, the Western world has tended to see the Middle East region as a raw material depot and a market. We know that during and after the First World War, Britain settled in the region under the pretext of liberating the countries of the region from Ottoman "oppression" by promising them freedom and seizing the resources of the region. In the Second World War and its aftermath, the United States tried to protect its own national interests by portraying the Soviet Union and Communism, with which it had an absolute ideological divergence, as a great danger and itself as the protector of freedoms. In the post-Cold War period, we see that America, which replaced Britain in the region this time, exploited the countries of the region in every sense, citing the terrorism it created and nurtured. This exploitation is known as the Greater Middle East Project, just like Sykes-Picot and Sevres. But what is painful here is that while in the first one there was a Turkey that put a stop to this exploitation, unfortunately we cannot see this in the second one.

In the First World War, the great powers only looked at oil and their own spheres of influence when drawing the borders in the Middle East. Look at the borders of Iraq, Syria, Jordan, the Gulf and Saudi Arabia, it is obvious that they were drawn with a ruler. Syria was a mandate of France, Iraq was a mandate of Britain, and their borders were drawn accordingly, and so were the others. In the post-World War II period, Israel was established, and in the post-Cold War period (i.e. today), it is understood that the establishment of the so-called Kurdistan state is prioritised.

Therefore, Turkey is at a crossroads today. It needs to return to Atatürk's national foreign policy and put a stop to what is happening around it. Those who call it the 'Century of Turkey' are expected to act with the strategy of preventing the projects of 'dismembering Turkey and establishing Kurdistan'. Turkey, which has been destabilised since 2015 with the migration movement originating from Syria, should be removed from being a target country. The issue is whether Turkey can maintain its current structure or not. If we remain a spectator to the game being played around us, there will be neither an Arab, Persian, Turkish nor Kurdish spring in the Middle East. In my opinion, it will be only and only the spring of America and its extensions in the region.

References

Ewam W. Anderson, International Boundaries: A Geopolitical Atlas, Routledge, London 2003.

Ilan Pappé, Understanding the Middle East, NTV Publications, Istanbul 2011.

Richard N. Schofield (ed.), Arabian Boundary Disputes, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1992.

Taha Akyol, Hürriyet Newspaper, 20 July 2012