2.2 The Sykes-Picot Agreement and colonial mandates
3 min read•july 23, 2024
The , a secret 1916 deal between Britain and France, carved up the Middle East after World War I. This pact ignored local ethnic and religious ties, setting the stage for future conflicts. Its legacy still shapes the region today.
followed, with Britain and France ruling former Ottoman territories. While meant to guide these areas towards independence, the mandates often served as thinly veiled colonial rule, creating that continue to fuel tensions in the modern Middle East.
The Sykes-Picot Agreement
Provisions of Sykes-Picot Agreement
Top images from around the web for Provisions of Sykes-Picot Agreement
Sykes-Picot 1916 | Sykes-Picot agreement map 1916 | Paolo Porsia | Flickr View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 3
Secretly negotiated agreement between Britain and France in 1916 during World War I to divide the Ottoman Empire's territories in the Middle East after the war
France would control Lebanon, coastal Syria, and parts of southeastern Anatolia (modern-day Turkey)
Britain would control Mesopotamia (modern-day Iraq), the Gulf region (Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar), and the Haifa-Acre area (northern Israel)
Palestine would be under international administration due to its religious significance for Christianity, Islam, and Judaism
Disregarded ethnic, religious, and tribal affiliations of the local populations when drawing the new borders
Colonial mandates in Middle East
Established by the League of Nations after World War I to assign control of former Ottoman territories to European powers (Britain and France)
Intended to guide the territories towards self-governance and independence, but in practice, they served as a form of colonial rule
British Mandates:
Mesopotamia (Iraq)
Palestine (modern-day Israel, West Bank, and Gaza Strip)
Transjordan (later became the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan)
French Mandates:
Syria
Lebanon
Created new states with borders that did not always reflect the ethnic, religious, or tribal composition of the local populations
Impact of British and French policies
British colonial policies relied on indirect rule, working with local elites and traditional power structures to govern the mandated territories
Encouraged the development of national identities and self-governance institutions (parliaments, political parties)
Invested in infrastructure projects (railways, ports) and education (establishing schools and universities)
French colonial policies favored direct rule, with a more centralized administration that promoted French language and culture
Favored certain ethnic or religious groups over others (Maronite Christians in Lebanon, Alawites in Syria), exacerbating sectarian tensions
Social impact: introduction of Western education and values, changes in traditional social hierarchies and structures
Economic impact: exploitation of natural resources (oil in Iraq) for the benefit of the colonial powers, uneven economic growth and development
Political impact: introduction of Western-style political institutions, suppression of nationalist and independence movements, creation of political elites that persisted after independence
Legacy of colonial boundaries
Artificial borders created by the Sykes-Picot Agreement and colonial mandates did not reflect the ethnic, religious, or tribal composition of the local populations
Led to internal conflicts and tensions within the newly created states (Kurdish separatism in Iraq, sectarian violence in Lebanon)
Unresolved territorial disputes stemming from the colonial era (Arab-Israeli conflict, Golan Heights, Shebaa Farms)
Sectarian and exacerbated by colonial policies that favored certain groups over others (Sunni-Shia divide in Iraq and Lebanon)
Political instability and authoritarianism, as colonial-era political elites and power structures persisted after independence
Ongoing foreign intervention and influence in the region, with former colonial powers and superpowers (US and USSR during the Cold War) competing for influence