Are the Sykes-Picot borders that bad?

[Canadian_95_RTS]

I was pondering this the other day, and someone can correct me if I'm wrong. I've seen this discussed, but with little pushback on it. The general consensus is that the Sykes-Picot agreement created terrible middle-eastern borders that are the center of today's conflicts.

For convenience, they are posted here:

Here are the political and physical maps of the middle east, for reference:

Now, to be clear, I'm not defending the agreement itself, as it had several problems, not the least of which completely cheating their Arab allies. It was also a blatant land grab by Europeans in yet another part of the world, which I am not okay with. However, I don't see as much issue with the boundaries as people seem to expect me to. The general regions of Iraq, Syria, and the greater Israel-Palestine-Jordan region are pretty well defined. Iraq, throughout history, has been generally treated as its own entity, and I don't see how else it could have been split that wouldn't have made it both harder to manage and more likely to make people unhappy. I understand that Syria's nationalist movement was still pretty nascent at this stage, but I'm to believe that it did exist, and the region that France decided to take encapsulates it pretty well. France also took Lebanon, which honestly would have a hard time drawing its borders in a way which didn't cause ethnic conflict. As for Israel/Palestine, the region was pretty lumped together in the original agreement (the '55 borders were pretty bad, but that wasn't the agreement's fault). This is pretty much also in keeping with how the region was defined historically. Jordan is the only one I think an argument could be made for, as it was fairly artificial, all things considered.

To end off, let's consider how things would have been different if an Arab state was made that contained all that land. Those borders would have been difficult for such a country to defend, especially with its low military strength. Iraq would be closer to Iran than to most Arab population centers, and I wouldn't be surprised if Iran took control of it post-war. Syria, as I mentioned, was in the middle of something of a national awakening, which means they would likely not desire to be part of such a state. Lebanon was full of minorities that would likely chafe under Sunni Arab rule. Turkey, for what it's worth, may have given reconquest a try after Ataturk took over. The Levant was historically in Egypt's sphere, I wouldn't be surprised if Britain supported a bid by Egypt to take it. Whoever owned Israel at the time would be under significant pressure to let in Jews once Hitler was defeated, and demands for a free Israeli state would be likely more than said state could resist.

Overall, I really don't see how Sykes-Picot created borders that demanded war. Once again, I still do not support the agreement itself, I just don't see how the borders are so bad as people say. If I'm wrong, please correct me. I'm certainly not an expert in any of the things I mentioned, and I'm pretty sure I got a few things wrong. In any case, I'm curious to hear your thoughts.

 

[Anatur]

Well the borders in questions have proven to be an endless source of failed states so i gues we can consider them failures.

Best way to divide it would have been along the closest common characteristic.

Basically scramble together nations based on:

Sunni Arabs

Shia Arabs

Non-of-the-above Arabs

Kurds

This way everyone gets to do their own thing in their own nations without having the excuse of the others somehow oppressing them.

As for Israel,if there had been a proper nation in control of it instead of some apathetic empire its likely Jewish migration wouldnt have ever gotten to a point where it could have caused conflict,simply because the nation wouldnt let them in,and its likely many Jews wouldnt even want to go there if it hadnt been under British rule.

 

[Canadian_95_RTS]

Well the borders in questions have proven to be an endless source of failed states so i gues we can consider them failures.

Best way to divide it would have been along the closest common characteristic.

Basically scramble together nations based on:

Sunni Arabs

Shia Arabs

Non-of-the-above Arabs

Kurds

This way everyone gets to do their own thing in their own nations without having the excuse of the others somehow oppressing them.

As for Israel,if there had been a proper nation in control of it instead of some apathetic empire its likely Jewish migration wouldnt have ever gotten to a point where it could have caused conflict,simply because the nation wouldnt let them in,and its likely many Jews wouldnt even want to go there if it hadnt been under British rule.

The thing is, there really are no easy answers for those. Especially the Kurds, who had nearly indefensible borders and a half-dozen different minorities living within their de jure territory.

The fact that they failed shows that such things are fairly difficult to do correctly.

 

[Anatur]

The thing is, there really are no easy answers for those. Especially the Kurds, who had nearly indefensible borders and a half-dozen different minorities living within their de jure territory.

The fact that they failed shows that such things are fairly difficult to do correctly.

Kurdish lands are mostly mountains,they seem fairly defensible.

Not to mention a nation of 30 million people can defend itself well enough give the means.

And i dont see some small numbers of minorities as a serious issue,perfect borders are impossible,but less terrible borders are easily achievable.

 

[bz249]

The key problem is that you have a peripherical region with bad infrastructure, distant population centers, and no intraregional trade. Basically like South America after the independence. Since there is no cohesive force (I have to be in good terms of the neighbors in Bagdad because they are my clients for my business) and there is no way to coerce an independence seeking region by superior force (see the measle armies the Arabic nation able bring to the frontline agains Israel) small states will prevail and these small states will going to fight for wharever resources present in the region*.

*again following the model of Latin-America, that is how it turned out there too

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

Overall, I really don't see how Sykes-Picot created borders that demanded war.

Has there been war over the borders?

 

[DoomBunny]

What was the alternative?

If the British and French had not come up with an agreement, then the traditional explanation is that 'the Arabs' would have done it themselves. But would that really have been very different to what ended up happening? Sykes-Picot ultimately resulted in a bunch of petty Arab kingdoms, under British and French oversight for a (relatively) short time, surely allowing the Arabs to sort it out themselves would have resulted in much the same; a bunch of petty kingdoms (or one big kingdom), probably vying for foreign power aid.

As far as ethnic separation goes, would this actually have worked? Such matters are always rather muddled, attempts to do so in the Balkans (and elsewhere) after the First World War were utterly disastrous (and indeed, nigh impossible with the information available), and it is dubious whether this would have really helped anyway. Even if one separates out the Kurds, what's to stop a war breaking out between them and the Arabs as soon as someone realizes their 'ancestral homeland' has been 'confiscated by imperialist meddling'?

Really, I think the main reason Sykes-Picot is critiqued so much lies in the context of it being brought up; almost every time I've seen popular reference to it, it has been in the context of the Balfour declaration and the rise of Israel.

 

[Anatur]

Has there been war over the borders?

Who needs war over the borders when everyone is busy fighting wars inside them.

What was the alternative?

A fair division based on the demographics of the region giving everyone their own homelands and avoiding feelings of oppression and subjugation.

If the British and French had not come up with an agreement, then the traditional explanation is that 'the Arabs' would have done it themselves. But would that really have been very different to what ended up happening? Sykes-Picot ultimately resulted in a bunch of petty Arab kingdoms, under British and French oversight for a (relatively) short time, surely allowing the Arabs to sort it out themselves would have resulted in much the same; a bunch of petty kingdoms (or one big kingdom), probably vying for foreign power aid.

Nations tend to be surprisingly capable when they have a coherent population and have hostile rivals close by.

As far as ethnic separation goes, would this actually have worked? Such matters are always rather muddled, attempts to do so in the Balkans (and elsewhere) after the First World War were utterly disastrous (and indeed, nigh impossible with the information available), and it is dubious whether this would have really helped anyway. Even if one separates out the Kurds, what's to stop a war breaking out between them and the Arabs as soon as someone realizes their 'ancestral homeland' has been 'confiscated by imperialist meddling'?

It worked fine in the Balkans besides the little issue of Serbia trying to turn Yugoslavia into a Serb dominated empire,had one side not blatantly been oppressing the other it could have worked fine.

Or better yet,had Italy not been trying to eat half the Balkans there would have been no need for Yugoslavia and hence no point of conflict later on.

If we look at the Middle East today we see they are dividing themselves along Sunni-Shia-Kurd lines anyways,its just far bloodies and messier since the job is being done by mostly irregular forces.

If they were all given coherent nation states they might fight occasionally,but they would have the tools at their disposal to make sure neither side could actually hope to win such a conflict or get much tangible benefit from it.

What business do some Shia Arabs from Baghdad have going hiking in Kurdish mountains?

Same as Kurds going to Damascus,its neither plausible nor sustainable,and such efforts would fail,leaving peace the only option.

 

[DoomBunny]

A fair division based on the demographics of the region giving everyone their own homelands and avoiding feelings of oppression and subjugation.

Ok. How?

How does one establish this fair divide, without any reliable information as to ethnicity, with loyalties intensely localized, and with a local political power dominated by just a few men?

Except those Arab states would have been forced to establish themselves as sustainable entities or would have fallen to others who did manage it.

As the last few years proved most of these Arab states are made of glass,ready to be shattered at the slightest opportunity.

So we would have had a series of wars throughout the Middle East as the locals tried to fill a power vacuum. As far as Arab states shattering like glass goes, this doesn't really apply as far as Sykes-Picot goes. Take Libya for example; nothing to do with Sykes-Picot, and yet today she is as fragmented as any state.

It worked fine in the Balkans besides the little issue of Serbia trying to turn Yugoslavia into a Serb dominated empire,had one side not blatantly been oppressing the other it could have worked fine.

Or better yet,had Italy not been trying to eat half the Balkans there would have been no need for Yugoslavia and hence no point of conflict later on.

If we look at the Middle East today we see they are dividing themselves along Sunni-Shia-Kurd lines anyways,its just far bloodies and messier since the job is being done by mostly irregular forces.

If they were all given coherent nation states they might find occasionally,but they would have the tools at their disposal to make sure neither side could actually hope to win such a conflict or get much tangible benefit from it.

What business do some Shia Arabs from Baghdad have going hiking in Kurdish mountains?

As as Kurds going to Damascus,its neither plausible nor sustainable,and such efforts would fail,leaving peace the only option.

No, it really didn't work fine in the Balkans. The Paris Peace Conference was in an utter mess over both the Balkans and the former Ottoman territories, and in both places managed to stuff square pegs into round holes, without knowing what shape either were in the first place. Pretty much every decision made during the conference was at some point torn up and redrawn, precisely because they were mostly the creation of people who (often through little fault of their own) didn't create a sustainable situation owing to a lack of knowledge and the muddled nature of the area. Even today the Balkans are still unstable, as the recent breakup of Yugoslavia demonstrated.

 

[bz249]

Who needs war over the borders when everyone is busy fighting wars inside them.

If they were all given coherent nation states they might fight occasionally,but they would have the tools at their disposal to make sure neither side could actually hope to win such a conflict or get much tangible benefit from it.

What business do some Shia Arabs from Baghdad have going hiking in Kurdish mountains?

Same as Kurds going to Damascus,its neither plausible nor sustainable,and such efforts would fail,leaving peace the only option.

Yet it is possible that a Kurd/Sunni Arab/Shia Arab/Shia Iranian decides that location of an oil well overrides ethnic borders and they still go for it (happens right now in live).

 

[Anatur]

Ok. How?

How does one establish this fair divide, without any reliable information as to ethnicity, with loyalties intensely localized, and with a local political power dominated by just a few men?

It has already happened before our eyes during the rise of ISIL.

ISIL overran all the Sunni areas in Iraq and Syria(minus the Western Sunni part under the rebels) with relative ease.

That only left the Shia and Kurdish areas,both of which grew fairly independent of each other.

So we would have had a series of wars throughout the Middle East as the locals tried to fill a power vacuum. As far as Arab states shattering like glass goes, this doesn't really apply as far as Sykes-Picot goes. Take Libya for example; nothing to do with Sykes-Picot, and yet today she is as fragmented as any state.

I did edit that for more context but editing has its flaws.

Basic idea is that the factions within the Arab states would sort themselves out one way or the other when the pressure of regional rivals forced them to get themselves in order.

As for Libya,its a product of Western imperialist just as Sykes-Picot was,just because Italy did it doesnt mean the end result was any different.

No, it really didn't work fine in the Balkans. The Paris Peace Conference was in an utter mess over both the Balkans and the former Ottoman territories, and in both places managed to stuff square pegs into round holes, without knowing what shape either were in the first place. Pretty much every decision made during the conference was at some point torn up and redrawn, precisely because they were mostly the creation of people who (often through little fault of their own) didn't create a sustainable situation owing to a lack of knowledge and the muddled nature of the area. Even today the Balkans are still unstable, as the recent breakup of Yugoslavia demonstrated.

The reason it became such a mess was due to the meddling of Great Powers.

After the First Balkan War the members of the Balkan League were well on their way to draw their mutual borders peacefully and settle their differences.

Then the Great Powers intervened and drew it for them,causing the Second Balkan War and later WW1.

Only reason the modern Balkans are unstable is because foreign powers keep insisting on keeping failed ideas on life support instead of just letting everyone go their own way.

The wars are done,the ethnic boundaries were more or less solved during said wars,all that is left today is to just let everyone join their respective homelands and bury the issue once and for all.

But such efforts keep being sabotaged by various Great Powers who "know better".

Yet it is possible that a Kurd/Sunni Arab/Shia Arab/Shia Iranian decides that location of an oil well overrides ethnic borders and they still go for it (happens right now in live).

That alone wont really matter if each state is perfectly capable of fending for itself.

And as recent conflicts proved they are.

ISIL couldnt take Baghdad,the only reason "Iraq" took Mosul was due to massive foreign support,and the Kurds seem unassailable.

The regional balance exists,ignoring it is what caused the recent horror show.

 

[bz249]

That alone wont really matter if each state is perfectly capable of fending for itself.
And as recent conflicts proved they are.
ISIL couldnt take Baghdad,the only reason "Iraq" took Mosul was due to massive foreign support,and the Kurds seem unassailable.
The regional balance exists,ignoring it is what caused the recent horror show.

Look at the geography and the population density map (especially as they were back in 1920)... if the people of Mosul decides they don't like Bagdad that much than it is nigh impossible to bring in a strong enough force to subdue them. That is one of the reasons why it is damn so hard to end the Syrian or the Lybian wars.

 

[Anatur]

Look at the geography and the population density map (especially as they were back in 1920)... if the people of Mosul decides they don't like Bagdad that much than it is nigh impossible to bring in a strong enough force to subdue them. That is one of the reasons why it is damn so hard to end the Syrian or the Lybian wars.

That is precisely my point.

All things being equal it wouldnt be viable for either Sunni Arabs in Mosul or Shia Arabs in Baghdad to subjugate each other,thus forcing peace.

This is only an issue if you are hellbent on having a unified Iraq,which i find pointless.

 

[bz249]

That is precisely my point.

All things being equal it wouldnt be viable for either Sunni Arabs in Mosul or Shia Arabs in Baghdad to subjugate each other,thus forcing peace.

This is only an issue if you are hellbent on having a unified Iraq,which i find pointless.

This a what essentially a border skirmish between two states there
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Iraq_War

Neither side was able to bring in decisive force (again logistics is a bitch), yet it does not mean that large scale destruction and 6-7 digit casualities was avoided.

 

[Anatur]

This a what essentially a border skirmish between two states there
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Iraq_War

Neither side was able to bring in decisive force (again logistics is a bitch), yet it does not mean that large scale destruction and 6-7 digit casualities was avoided.

That was partially a proxy war too.

The point remains,neither the people of Iraq nor the people of Iran were subjugated by the other side,which is what matters.

No nation on earth can sustain fighting constant futile wars with no clearly beneficial outcome.

 

[DoomBunny]

How much information do you think was available at the time regarding population/ethnicity?

There wasn't reliable information available about most of the areas in Germany that were disputed, the Middle East was another question entirely.

As for the idea of letting them slaughter each other, that seems somewhat unwise.

 

[Anatur]

How much information do you think was available at the time regarding population/ethnicity?

Clearly enough for them to bribe local strongmen and keep them in line,so they must have had some idea where everyone was and what their preferences were.

There wasn't reliable information available about most of the areas in Germany that were disputed, the Middle East was another question entirely.

Which is why you can simply ask people when you are already wasting decades treating them as non-official colonies.

As for the idea of letting them slaughter each other, that seems somewhat unwise.

Stopping them has proven even worse,to the point where what would simply be a local affair has turned into a global problem.

To assume the Western Powers have some moral responsibility to stop people shooting each other is pure hypocrisy.

Nobody stopped Britain and France when they were killing each other,nobody stopped the Catholics and Protestants when they turned Germany into a bloodbath.

People need to figure out their own problems by themselves,if a solution is forced upon them then they will detest it all the more.

The only fair thing is to arrange them into nation-states that reflect realities on the ground and then they can work out their problems either through diplomacy or war,the moment those nations are set up the responsibility of the WW1 victors should ends.

 

[bz249]

That was partially a proxy war too.

The point remains,neither the people of Iraq nor the people of Iran were subjugated by the other side,which is what matters.

No nation on earth can sustain fighting constant futile wars with no clearly beneficial outcome.

Whose proxy was Iran and whose proxy was Iraq? The Iranian wanted to encroach the Shia population of Iraq, while Saddam wanted to
- prevent it
- take over some oil fields on the border (long standing issue)
- gain unrestricted access to the sea (long standing issue)

And yes none of the sides were subjugated because it was not a wargoal from the beginning. The war nonetheless brought death and destruction.

 

[Anatur]

Whose proxy was Iran and whose proxy was Iraq? The Iranian wanted to encroach the Shia population of Iraq, while Saddam wanted to
- prevent it
- take over some oil fields on the border (long standing issue)
- gain unrestricted access to the sea (long standing issue)

And yes none of the sides were subjugated because it was not a wargoal from the beginning. The war nonetheless brought death and destruction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran–Iraq_war

 

[bz249]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran–Iraq_war

Have you read that article? To US came to aid Iraq in 1982 after the tide of war has turned