Why do some Arabs now see the Sykes-Picot Agreement as a solution?

For decades after the First World War, the Sykes-Picot Agreement symbolized the division and fragmentation of the Arab world by Western colonial powers. Signed in secret in 1916 by Britain and France, this agreement divided Ottoman Arab lands into areas of influence, establishing the borders of modern Middle Eastern states. Many Arab and Islamic thinkers of the 20th century saw it as the foundation of Arab weakness and disunity.

However, as time passed and circumstances shifted, some began to see the borders created by Sykes-Picot as a necessary evil. Rather than seeking new borders, which might further divide the Arab world into even smaller, weaker states, some now believe that these colonial-era borders might offer a form of stability.

For much of the 20th century, the Sykes-Picot Agreement was met with intense Arab opposition. It was viewed as a colonial imposition by France and Britain, powers that had oppressed and exploited Arab nations. Endorsed by Russia and Italy, the agreement effectively divided the Middle East as spoils of war among the colonial powers, replacing the waning Ottoman Empire, often referred to as the “sick man of Europe.”

The agreement was based on the assumption that the European powers would defeat the Ottomans during the First World War. Initial negotiations occurred between November 1915 and January 1916, with French diplomat Francois Georges-Picot and British diplomat Mark Sykes drawing up the terms. By May 1916, the governments of France, Britain and Russia had officially ratified the agreement.

These artificial borders, drawn without regard for the region’s complex ethnic and sectarian makeup, have been a source of long-standing tension

Dr. Abdellatif El-Menawy

Under the plan, France gained control over what is now Lebanon and Syria, while Britain took over Iraq, Palestine and Jordan. These artificial borders, drawn without regard for the region’s complex ethnic and sectarian makeup, have been a source of long-standing tension.

Despite these flaws, the countries created under Sykes-Picot managed to maintain some level of stability through much of the 20th century. This stability, though often enforced by authoritarian regimes, at least preserved national unity and sovereignty.

For years, opposing the Sykes-Picot Agreement was a core principle of Arab nationalism. But today, the situation has shifted. In the face of recent turmoil, some have come to see the agreement, once so fiercely rejected, as a way to preserve the current borders and avoid further fragmentation.

Several factors have contributed to this dramatic change in perspective.

The potential disintegration of the Arab world is a key reason for this shift. Since 2011, the region has experienced a wave of revolutions and protests, misleadingly called the “Arab Spring.” While some hoped these uprisings would lead to democratic reforms, the results were disastrous. Countries like Syria, Libya and Yemen descended into brutal civil wars and discussions about breaking them into smaller states based on ethnic or sectarian lines became more common.

For example, proposals to divide Syria into sectarian states or to split Libya into eastern and western regions emerged as “realistic” solutions to ongoing conflicts. Sudan, too, after falling into a violent conflict between the army and the Rapid Support Forces, now faces the threat of further division.

The rise of sectarian identities and the weakening of central governments due to civil wars also play a role. In Iraq, for example, the growing influence of Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish identities has eroded national unity and weakened the state. This increase in sectarianism has led to fears that a redrawing of the borders could lead to the creation of smaller, weaker and more divided states that are incapable of defending their sovereignty or addressing regional challenges.

Another significant factor is the fear of a power vacuum, which has reshaped how many people view the once-detested Sykes-Picot Agreement. The fall or weakening of strong regimes in Iraq, Libya and Syria showed that, when central government authority collapses, a dangerous void often forms. This vacuum is frequently filled by armed groups or extremist organizations like Daesh and Al-Qaeda. Faced with these threats, some now see the borders established by Sykes-Picot — despite their flaws — as a means of preserving the unity of Arab states. Given the deepening internal divisions, maintaining the status quo, even if it stems from a colonial agreement, is considered a lesser evil than the potential collapse of entire states.

One significant factor is the fear of a power vacuum, which has reshaped how many people view the once-detested agreement

Dr. Abdellatif El-Menawy

It is true that many of the borders drawn by the Sykes-Picot Agreement were based on European deals rather than local realities. But the Middle East is not unique in this regard; most borders around the world emerged from a mixture of violence, ambition, geography and chance, rather than careful planning or popular will.

The uncomfortable reality is that the Middle East’s struggles are not solely the fault of Sykes and Picot. The region’s problems are also a result of poor governance and leadership in shaping its future. Sykes and Picot cannot be blamed for the region’s lack of tolerance and political freedom or its failing education systems.

Many of the challenges the Middle East faces today stem from internal failures. But what is particularly urgent now is the ongoing struggle for sovereignty in several countries. Across much of the region, violent power struggles have become the norm, with militias, terrorist groups, foreign fighters and other armed factions controlling large parts of these countries.

It is a sad irony that an agreement once seen as a tool of division is now viewed by some as a way to maintain a minimum level of unity and stability.

In the end, the issue may not be about whether Arabs “like” the Sykes-Picot Agreement. It is more about the fear of a worse alternative — endless fragmentation and disintegration.

• Dr. Abdellatif El-Menawy has covered conflicts worldwide. X: @ALMenawy