To be sure, the two powers, the British and the French, stood for their own imperial interests and not for the interests of the inhabitants of the region.

As the secret arrangement gradually became operational with the eventual defeat of the Central Powers, including Germany and the Ottoman Empire, the seeds of hate and mistrust began to be sown in the region. This very fragmentation led to the frustration of the Arab aspirations for a united Arab state and led to the never-ending internecine bickering and even conflict among the much truncated Arab “sub-nation-states”. The Sykes-Picot thus symbolizes the extension of British and French case of colonialism into the former Arab territories of the Ottoman Empire. This instance of colonialism was “legalized” under the rubric of the Mandates System as sanctified by the League of Nations which was founded in 1919.

Whatever the designation, this carve-up was a full-blown attack against the aspirations of the Arab peoples for collective self-determination in the Middle East. The final nail in the coffin of the failure to achieve “Arab unity” was the case of the UN General Assembly Resolution No. 181 which partitioned Palestine between Jews and Arabs, while Jerusalem was designated as an “international city” under the administration of the UN. The great chunk of territory (56 percent) was literally “donated” to the Jews that constituted less than one third of the population in Palestine.

The Cold War was indeed the scene of Israel’s neo-colonial uprooting of the Palestinians to the extent that most of the indigenous inhabitants of the area were forced to flee their homeland; thus, most became refugees. The creation of the state of Israel in historic Palestine was surely a painful legacy of the Sykes-Picot arrangement. More of this legacy can be traced in the ceaseless internecine conflicts, chaos and instability in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria and Jordan after the Second World War. Inter-state wars likewise exploded among a number of Arab states as in the case of Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988) and the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait (1990). Furthermore, Israeli armed aggression against Egypt in 1956 and against Syria, Jordan, and Egypt in 1967 which led to Israel occupying land four times as big as its territory.

It is no exaggeration to claim that the fraudulent order of the Sykes-Picot has brought untold tragedies to the Arabs (and to the minority communities like Kurds) living in the Levant and Iraq.

It is no exaggeration to claim that the fraudulent order of the Sykes-Picot has brought untold tragedies to the Arabs (and to the minority communities like Kurds) living in the Levant and Iraq. The two old colonial powers that were “architects” of the current rancorous territorial boundaries and the dismal states system in the Middle East have since incessantly sought to maintain the status quo in the region at whatever cost. The USA later joined in the scramble for imperial supremacy in the region principally on account of its rich reserves of oil, but also because of geopolitical vitality and the presence of Israel which had by then become a “very special” US ally. That is why the US and its European allies mobilized the whole gamut of the UN system, particularly the Security Council, to “liberate” the tiny Kuwaiti state after it was occupied by Iraq in August 1990, although it was known that the Security Council had almost always chosen to close its eyes to similar direct and indirect armed aggressions elsewhere during the Cold War. Iraq had to be punished heavily as a deterrent to other potential “Saddams” who would dare to tear up the Sykes-Picot straitjacket in the Middle East.

This, then, suggests that the Sykes-Picot order also signifies the refusal of the West-sponsored Westphalian system to allow the Arab inhabitants of the Middle East to unite under one flag, thus becoming like other “nation-states”.  Arabs were, in the early 1920s, and still are a single “nation” on account of the unity of their language (Arabic), ethnicity (predominantly Arab), and (a prevalent) religion (Islam). It isn’t an exaggeration to claim that, since the end of the I. World War, Arabs have come to represent an arrested nation which has been forced to be partitioned among a list of artificially carved-up sub-states. So long as the Arab world remains fragmented as “sub-nation-states”, the regional order established by the spirit, if not by the substance, of Sykes-Picot will continue to sap the energy of the Arab body politics in the Middle East.

The ghost of the colonial yoke of the Sykes Picot is still around us.

The recent attacks launched in Western cities by international terrorist movements such as Al Qaida and ISIS, inter alia, are a testimony that Western neo-colonial and imperialistic interventions at the heart of the Muslim world, combined with the Western support for authoritarian regimes in Muslim countries, have backfired and thus have come to hit the Western “security community”. Today, ISIS is challenging this artificial fragmentation by refusing to recognize any separation between Iraq and Syria.

Strangely, the still hegemonic and imperialistic West is not averse to such eventuality so long as both states are carved up further. This is where the risk lies. If the Sykes-Picot arrangement is to be overwhelmed by new territorial reshuffle, this should not come in the form of further partition; instead, it should take the form of territorial enlargement if the inhabitants so wish. This, we call, “self-determination”.

As for today, that we have not been able to change the term, a colonial-leftover, “the Middle East” into the more respectful “Western Asia”, because less tainted with colonial intrusion,”; testifies that the ghost of the colonial yoke of the Sykes Picot is still around us.

Western countries must cease treating the Middle Eastern peoples as juvenile and not mature enough to determine their own fates.

Western countries must cease treating the Middle Eastern peoples as juvenile and not mature enough to determine their own fates. Aware of the global and regional developments, Middle Eastern peoples are nowadays struggling against external intervention as well as domestic tutelage. Maybe the current picture of the Middle East does not leave space for much optimism, but one thing is for certain: the Middle Eastern peoples know what it means to be free and to have a government that will represent them and no solution is possible unless these conditions are met. Both regional regimes and global powers have to be aware of the increasing awareness in the region and behave accordingly. Otherwise, continuous political instability, regional chaos and economic backwardness will continue to detrimentally influence the future of European countries. In today’s increasingly interdependent and interconnected world, it is not the flame but the smoke of the blazing fire that will vitally damage the health of Europe.

Dividing the region into smaller political units will not bring political stability to the Middle East. The smaller the political units, the more dependent they will be on the global powers; the more interference from foreign powers in regional affairs, the longer the crises will continue. The West must stop preferring authoritarian or personalistic regimes to democratic movements. If global powers want to contribute to the stabilization of the region, they must support the mainstream groups, rather than manipulating the fault lines between different groups and abetting violent non-state actors. The future of the region relies on the support of mainstream, democratic and non-violent groups.

The legacy of Sykes-Picot for the people of the Middle East has proved to be painful. One-hundred years after the agreement, the Middle East is not a more peaceful or prosperous place.

A century after Sykes-Picot, we are still puzzled by the same questions: Is it possible to institute sustainable and peaceful political order in the region? Will the peoples of the region and the regional political actors be the agents in such transformations? Looking at the ongoing developments in Syria or Iraq, we can reason that the answers to both questions seem to be negative. It is frustrating to recognize that the model and the spirit that reshaped the Middle East are still alive and deciding the fate of Syria, and Iraq and Lebanon may soon fall into the same trap. The declining significance of the Middle East’s oil is the only promising development for the people of the region who have suffered the political consequences of the competition for this resource. The same development seems to be the curse of dictators and the families that have enjoyed prosperity and power over the last few decades.

Sustainable order in the Middle East seems possible only with the institutionalization of pluralistic political entities that would incorporate popular participation and the contribution of local populations in the region. Contributions, or at least the consent of the regional actors such as Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia, are crucial for the sustainability of order in the region. Unfortunately, there is no secret formula that brings all of these actors together in a shared agenda. In particular, the recent developments in the progression of the Syrian Civil War make such a possibility even more difficult. Although the regional powers are more influential today in the politics of the region in comparison to 100 years ago, their relentless competition over power and influence makes the region vulnerable to external great powers. The agreement that would determine the boundaries of new political entities in the Levant is most likely to be sealed by Russia, the US and other members of the UN Security Council. People of the region and the regional powers may play some role in the process, but the final outcome will be determined by the great powers.

The Asad regime, which devastated the country that it was supposed to rule, lost its social base and legitimacy. However, Russia’s involvement in the Syrian Civil War on the side of the Asad regime gave the regime the kiss of life, and it was the indifference of the Obama administration to Syria that facilitated the Russian involvement there. Russia’s intervention and coordination with Israel and the US constrained Iran’s direct involvement in Syria, and Turkey was sidelined in Syria after a Turkish Airforce F-16 shot down a Russian fighter jet that violated Turkey’s airspace. Another important actor, Saudi Arabia, was overwhelmed in the ongoing proxy war in Yemen against Iran. The European powers that bargained over the Middle East a century ago were stuck with the economic problems of the region and the refugee issue. German Chancellor Angela Merkel took the responsibility of dealing with the refugee crisis, but EU policy with regard to the Middle East was completely defensive and lacked a consistent vision. Once seen as an opportunity to control more land and access to oil and other resources, the Middle East turned into a severe risk for the European political actors. A broader instability and refugee flow from the Middle East may be the death sentence for the common EU policies.

A century after Sykes-Picot, the Middle East agenda is again at the table of the great powers.

A century after Sykes-Picot, the Middle East agenda is again at the table of the great powers. The glooming political situation in the Middle East has given Russia a new opportunity to remember its nostalgic superpower status, and Russia has gained some leverage over the US and the EU in Syria, though at the cost of risking its relations with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and, even more so, with Iran. The Geneva parades seemingly included the Syrian opposition at the negotiation table, but, so far, the opposition has gained nothing other than short ceasefire breaks. Keeping the opposition busy at the table and manipulating the ceasefire with periodic ruptures have only helped to increase the legitimacy of Kerry and Lavrov. The Geneva Process failed to deliver even the basic humanitarian necessities of the Syrian people. Hopes for a political settlement seem to be far from realizable.

The conditions of the Sykes-Picot agreement are no longer valid, but the spirit of the agreement is still alive. The future of Syria, Iraq and probably Lebanon will be decided by the ‘international community’, meaning with the tacit agreement of Lavrov and Kerry. The regional actors’ fatigue with Syria, Iraq, ISIS and terrorism will be a catalyst of such a development. The ISIS and Asad regimes will either be contained or completely sidelined; but, for the moment, they are useful tools for the multiplicity of the actors. Peoples of the region and the regional actors who have suffered from these instabilities will be the missing agents of this complicated picture. The world and the region have changed drastically within the last century, but the region is being reshaped with a similar logic. It may be too late for the competing regional actors to change the course of affairs in Syria and Iraq after this point, even if they decide to cooperate for the future of the Middle East.