100 years after the Sykes–Picot Agreement

On May 16th, 2016, a hundred years ago, the signing of the Sykes-Picot Agreement took place, which created the partition of the Middle East. According to the participants, the appearance of new states and the alteration of boundaries of the existing regional powers should take place in favor of the imperial forces at the expense of the Ottoman Empire. The new lines almost had to coincide with the Ottoman Empire provinces, which had been situated close to the major historical centers: Damascus, Jerusalem, Baghdad, and Beirut.

The secret agreement between France and the UK provided some preference for Russia. Later, Italy joined this project.

However, during the First World War, the situation changed: the Russian Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and Germany left the Great Game, in fact, giving preference to the UK and France. The new political power of Turkey, being a secular state, announced its diplomatic claims even by force. New Russian authorities that were establishing the Bolshevik regime faced it in the Caucasus, as well as a group of new nation-states with no experience in state building – in the Balkans.

In theory, the main loss is that the agreement was not implemented: Russia received some territories in the Caucasus, but could not establish a big enough buffer zone in Armenia (Armenia also lost its territories during the war); Constantinople and the Straits remained Turkish.

From this moment, the intensive English-French influence in the region began: both countries contested for domination and tried to impose their political order on the territories under their control.

The UK’s success was more obvious. Skillful manipulation of local Arab tribes, which Lawrence’s (of Arabia) ingenuity and experience contributed to, and the possibility of lobbying its own projects in the League of Nations created Transjordan, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia.

As we can see, the boundaries of these states are artificial, which was noticed by Bernard Lewis and his American adherents, such as Ralph Peters, who offered to redraw the map of the Middle East in accordance with ethnical principles.

In 1946, when Britain lost its influence on the world stage, the United States began to gradually interfere in Middle Eastern affairs.

The creation of an independent State of Israel made another change to the Sykes-Picot plans. Soon France and Britain were forced to leave not only their colonies in the Middle East and North Africa, but also in  Indo-China.

Today's geopolitical perturbation is some kind of consequence of the insufficiently considered Sykes-Picot project, especially on the Kurdish issue. This nation lived on the borders of Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran. Moreover, there is a threat of a multi-confessional system in both Syria and Lebanon. The political crisis in Lebanon related the specific character of the electoral system, which is connected with the religious identity of the political groups, not the civil law. This system is unique in its own way, in fact, but the crisis began almost immediately after the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon, and the US intervention in the political process of this country.

Various cities’ statuses are an important factor. The UN A/RES/181 resolution of November 29th, 1947 stated that Jerusalem must be a city of international importance, but, in fact, it is under Israeli occupation. This role was given due to the religious significance of Jerusalem, where three Abrahamic world religions unite. However, there was the issue of social synergy, not only of Jerusalem. It is enough to remember the Constitution of Medina of 622, according to which local customs persisted, and Muslims and people of the Book (Christians and Jews) were one Ummah, despite religious differences.

Constantinople’s status also remains unsolved. Although the city has long been a part of the Russian Empire’s ambitions, a number of Muslim scholars also comprehend the need to restore the church of St. Sophia.

If the leaders of many Western powers called for a truly international solution to the current conflicts and problematic issues, the Sykes-Picot Agreement rudiments should become the beginning of the process. The status of Jerusalem should be changed first of all, since there is legitimacy provided by the UN’s decisions. To make this model real, it will be necessary to ensure the presence of peacekeeping forces in the city, at least for a transitional period. Even if it is done under the UN auspices, it is necessary to take into account the role and interests of the countries that are directly related to the values of religious Jerusalem. The position of the Orthodoxy can and should be provided by Russian military presence.