Aaron Ventresca

Mr. Palcsey
Honors English 10
1 May 2018
A Matter of Eurocentric Egoists: The Sykes-Picot Accord
Throughout all world history, the Fertile Crescent has acted as the most important factor

in the development of human civilization. Dating back to the origins of specialization and the

Neolithic Revolution, Middle Eastern territory has continued to play an integral role in society.

Toward the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, new philosophical ideals spurred an age

of imperialism. European imperialists, attempting to access vital resources, essential trade

passages, and international spheres of influence, immediately looked to the Middle East.

Through European conquest fueled by Social Darwinism, the White Man’s Burden, and inherent

human greed, the Middle East subsisted as a well-known locale while remaining a lucrative

mystery. A matter of Eurocentric egoists, Middle Eastern conflict arose as a pervasive force,

stemming from a particular European document: The Sykes-Picot Accord. Founded by Mark

Sykes (1879-1919) and François George Picot (1870-1951), Europeans split the Middle East into

geographic domains for British and French imperialism. (Tell 1) Self-interested Europeans

treated the Middle East like a preschooler would treat a building toy: ignorantly, violently, and

savagely. The audacious economic and imperial ambitions of egotistical Eurocentrists led to the

omnipresent religious and ethnic discord that continues to plague the Middle East.

Various historical developments contributed to the European assertion of influence over

the Middle East, including the decline of the Ottoman Empire following World War I. At the

conclusion of World War I, the Ottomans controlled Syria and Mesopotamia. Adopting a

“Levantine Imperial Sphere,” the British and French supported Ottoman interests while vying for
 Ventresca 2

regional spheres of influence. (Tell 1-4) This Anglo-French interest would morph into a betrayal

that would decimate the Middle East. On the brink of collapse, the Ottomans welcomed Anglo-

French support. Nationalist movements including the Young Turks threatened the stability of the

Ottoman domain (Rogan 108). Rallying younger Ottomans, the Young Turks dominated as a

largely disruptive faction that would soon stimulate a great rebellion. Various agreements and

alliances were instituted in order to supposedly “preserve” the Ottoman domain from imminent

catastrophe. The British and Hashemite ruler Sharif Hussein forged the Anglo-Hashemite

alliance. This agreement vowed British support of the Hashemite majority in the Ottoman

Empire (Rogan 100). This ingenious Anglo-French cooperation with naïve Middle Eastern

powers like the Hashemites began the creation of a power vacuum in place of the Ottoman

Empire.

The Ottoman Empire continually drifted toward collapse, triggering great rebellion and

strife in the process. Hussein’s empire neared political and social entropy. As a last effort, Hussein

sought to create an “Arab Kingdom” out of remaining Ottoman territory (Rogan 108). Hussein

relied on Anglo-French support to achieve this goal, failing to predict an imminent Eurocentric

conquest of the Middle East. Eventually, Hussein pushed his negotiations and Arabic policies too

far. In 1916, Hussein initiated the first of many Arab Revolts that would begin the decline of the

Ottoman Empire. “So began the fateful link between the Hashemite revolt in Arabia and the British

campaign in Palestine that, between them, would ultimately spell the downfall of the Ottoman

Empire” (Rogan 100). The British support of the Ottomans through the rebellion gave Hussein and

the Hashemites an immediate sense of security that would later dissipate. The British did their best

to aid the Hashemites by using their foothold in Egypt. Lieutenant General Sir Archibald Murray

conquered Palestine which promoted Arabs to live in Syria, suppressing the Young Turks and the
 Ventresca 3

Hijaz, the opposition to the Hashemites. (Rogan 100) Thus, Hussein succeeded in defeating the

Young Turks with the help of the British.

Using the Hashemites to suppress the Arab Revolt that knowingly would occur, the

Europeans keenly took advantage of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. The British essentially

“played” Sharif Hussein. The British used Hussein to defeat the Turks, but then soon broke the

alliance to gain dominion over the Middle East. By suppressing the Hijaz and the Young Turks

through the Arab Revolt and the quest for Palestine, the British secured their dominance in the

Middle East (Mirak-Weissbach 8). As rebellions continued, British officials negotiated with

Hussein to acquire vital territory and influence in the Middle East. The 1915 correspondence

between Sharif Hussein and British official Sir Henry McMahon quickly assumed the title of “The

McMahon Letters” (Mirak-Weissbach 9). In these exchanges, Hussein petitioned the British for

self-governance in addition to remnant lands of the Ottoman Empire while McMahon expertly

asserted a British sphere of influence in the Middle East. Reflecting back on the McMahon-

Hussein correspondence, historians regard the negotiation of McMahon as the driving force behind

the Sykes-Picot Accord and the treaties ratified at San Remo in 1920 and at Lausanne a few years

later. (Bilgin 3) “Sir Henry McMahon could not have done better. He succeeded in concluding an

agreement with the Sharif of Mecca excluding Syrian territory claimed by the French and the Iraqi

provinces the British wished to retain” (Rogan 100). McMahon intentionally left Anglo-Arab

borders loose and vague to aid in further war. The British, hoping to maintain beneficial relations

with the French, would eventually institute Sykes-Picot.

The San Remo Conference of 1920 - the official venue for the signing of Sykes-Picot -

served as the means of imposing Eurocentric interests on the Middle East. In short, the borders

ratified at San Remo presented the egotistical, selfish nature of European imperialists (Rogan 103).
 Ventresca 4

France received northern Syria including parts of Damascus, Homs, Hama, Aleppo, and Mosul

(Loevy 5). Britain received eastern Iraqi-Iranian territories along with the cosmopolitan city of

Baghdad. An area of major dispute, the French, British, and Russians declared Palestine an

“international mandate,” meaning that various groups would share the area due to its controversial

nature (Tell 3). To give Hussein some say in the future of the Middle East, Hussein received a

minor influence over the political affairs of Palestine. Hussein’s somewhat uninfluential privileges

proved as the only mention of a Middle Eastern leader in the original Sykes-Picot document.

Consequently, it proves important to note that the Eurocentric principles implemented through

Sykes-Picot represent how Europeans forged and broke alliances, reaffirming their selfish,

egotistical ideals. The Europeans had only their own motives at heart; they sought the extension

and creation of ports, intensification of interregional and intraregional trade, and a foothold for

business negotiation. Further, Eurocentric interests stemmed from the desire for access to

waterways (Gulf of Alexandretta, Suez Canal) and control of regional tariffs. (Rogan 102)

Imperialists had accomplished what they set out to do: reform the Middle East through the

promotion of Eurocentric interests.

Following Sykes-Picot, turmoil quickly escalated, leading to the pervasive disunity present

in the Middle East today. The British, seeking as much gain as possible, issued the Balfour

Declaration. This decree pledged British support for Zionist movements and the creation of a

purely Israeli homeland. Doing this, the British betrayed Sharif Hussein and his goal of creating a

unified “Arab Kingdom.” (Rogan 106-108) The Balfour Declaration gained a reputation as a

hugely contradictory proposal that represented the two-faced sliminess of Eurocentric egoists.

“The contradictions raised by the Balfour Declaration - in its declaration of intent to create a

national home for the Jews that would not adversely affect the rights and interests of the indigenous
 Ventresca 5

non-Jewish population - were already apparent” (Rogan 102). The Balfour Declaration promised

Jews a home while betraying previously cooperative Arab and Muslim peoples. The Balfour

Declaration began an era of Israeli-Arab war that resulted in several revolts. In early 1920, just

after the issue of the Declaration, an uprising left over 105 people dead and over 200 severely

injured (Rogan 102). Since the initial conflict, four major wars have occurred between the Israelis

and their Arab neighbors. The egotistical, Eurocentric nature of European imperialists served as

the inciting incident to a brutal ethnic conflict that would continue to plague the Middle East.

The terrors originally caused by British ignorance and imperial gains continue today,

fueling ethnic conflict. Numerous historians regard the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as having “[…]

defined the Middle East as a warzone” (Rogan 108). Israeli-Palestinian violence perpetuates as a

constant retaliation effort, a vain display of unnecessary force. The rivalries created by British and

French alliances and betrayals still exist today, fueling regional conflicts between the Israelis and

Palestinians. In particular, these rivalries engulf daily life, pitting civilian against civilian and

family against family. On September 18th, 1981, Israelis encircled two Palestinian refugee camps

in Lebanon and murdered thousands of people (Gottfried 43). In retaliation, the 1987 Palestinian

intifada left over 500 innocent civilians and children dead (Gottfried 45). This continual Israeli-

Palestinian brutality usurps the life of innocent people. Essentially, deceased Europeans cause the

denial of life to innocent people in the modern day. Citizens of today must not suffer murder

because of the imposition of Eurocentric reforms in past history. Therefore, unjust violence

continues to plague the Middle East.

In addition to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the contemporary mass displacement of

minorities and refugees through terrorism connects back to Sykes-Picot. In 2014, a rising faction

known as the “Islamic State” (ISIS) claimed to “smash Sykes-Picot” and fulfill decades of efforts
 Ventresca 6

to implement Pan-Arab and Pan-Islamic reforms (Rogan 108). This renewal of ethnocentric, Pan-

Arab ideals first professed by Sharif Hussein led to the rise of terrorism. Groups like al-Qaeda,

Hezbollah, and Hamas use extremist Pan-Arab and Pan-Islamic views as a justification for

terrorism efforts. (Bilgin 6) The destruction caused by terrorism and Pan-Arab reforms has

contributed to the modern refugee crisis. (Avraham 9) In Syria, civilians question whether Lebanon

should merge with Syria; lingering tensions from the French occupation of Syria thus still resonate

with numerous people, causing the modern Syrian refugee crisis. (Rogan 108) Once again, the

prior Eurocentric interests imposed on the Middle East still wreak havoc today. In addition to mass

Syrian displacement, smaller ethnic and religious groups find themselves caught in the middle of

war and political division. The Kurds - a blend of Christians and mostly Sunni Muslims - act as

one of the most controversial minorities in the modern Middle East (Stansfield 38). Over the course

of the past century, the Kurds have conflicted with their host governments over the pursuit of

religious rights, as they remain dispersed among Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, and Syria. The omnipresent

displacement and terrorism that numerous people face thus originates from the lingering effects of

Sykes-Picot.

In summary, the Eurocentric principles instituted through the Sykes-Picot Accord have led

to the current tumultuous state of affairs present in the Middle East. The selfish, ignorant imperial

ambitions of nineteenth and twentieth century Anglo-French peoples served as the foundation for

the modern Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Syrian refugee crisis, and Kurdish displacement. Society

must learn a crucial lesson from Sykes-Picot: meddling in foreign affairs proves selfish,

irresponsible, and egotistical if not done to aid others.

 Ventresca 7

Works Cited

Avraham, Sela. The Decline of the Arab-Israeli Conflict: Middle East Politics and the Quest for

Regional Order. PDF ed., Albany, State U of NYP, 1998.

Bilgin, Pinar. "What is the Point About Sykes-Picot?" Mellomoststudier, PDF ed., Feb. 2016.

Gottfried, Tedd. Headliners. PDF ed., Brookfield, Lerner Publishing Group, 2000.

Loevy, Karin. "The Sykes-Picot Agreement’s Regional Moment: Drawing Lines of Development

in a New and Open Space." New York University Law, PDF ed., 19 Oct. 2016, pp. 1-34.

Mirak-Weissbach, Muriel. "Shades of Sykes-Picot Accord are Cast Over Southwest Asia."

Executive Intelligence Review, digital ed., 10 Feb. 2006, pp. 6-15.

Rogan, Eugene. "A Century after Sykes-Picot." Cairo Review, PDF ed., no. 19, 2015, pp. 99-

109.

Stansfield, Gareth R.V. Iraqi Kurdistan: Political Development and Emergent Democracy. PDF

ed., London, Routledge, 2003.

Tell, Tariq. "Sykes-Picot Agreement." International Encyclopedia of the First World War,

digital ed., 17 Feb. 2017, pp. 1-4.