The Sykes-Picot Agreement, signed in 1916, has been perceived as a significant factor in shaping the Middle East. However, this historical document may not have been as influential as previously thought. The agreement, initially a secret pact between Britain and France, aimed to divide the Ottoman Empire’s Arab provinces, excluding the Arabian Peninsula, into areas of future British and French control or influence.
Yet, the actual impact of the agreement may have been overstated. Its influence on the borders of the modern Middle East is questionable, with many of the borders drawn up after World War I not matching the Sykes-Picot division. The agreement also didn’t account for the creation of an independent Kurdish state, which is a significant issue in the region today.
Moreover, the agreement was not a unilateral imposition by Western powers, but rather a negotiation with the Sharif of Mecca, who sought an independent Arab state. The Sharif’s influence on the agreement suggests that local actors played a more significant role in shaping the Middle East than the Sykes-Picot Agreement alone.
Finally, the Sykes-Picot Agreement didn’t create the sectarian divisions in the region. These divisions have deeper roots and are more complex than any single agreement could influence. Therefore, the Sykes-Picot Agreement might not be as pivotal in shaping the Middle East as often assumed.
Go to source article: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/11/how-important-was-the-sykes-picot-agreement-anyway.html?trashed=1&ids=158785301