“It’s not just me that’s saying it, the fact is that Sykes-Picot has failed, it’s over,” declared Massoud Barzani in a 2016 BBC interview. As president of Iraq’s Kurdistan Region and a leader of the world’s largest stateless nation, Barzani’s condemnation reflects more than Kurdish grievance. Signed in 1916 by Britain and France, the Sykes-Picot Agreement symbolises the imperial imposition of borders that divided previously fluid populations and produced states with weak national identity and legitimacy. While only one of several wartime agreements, it has come to represent a broader dissatisfaction with externally imposed statehood in the Middle East and the enduring instability those borders helped create.
At a 1915 meeting, when asked what boundaries he wanted with France, Sykes reportedly said he wished to draw “a line from the ‘e’ in Acre to the last ‘k’ in Kirkuk.” This arbitrary remark encapsulates the disregard for ethnic, religious, and legal realities that defined the process. Britain’s imperial superiority was evident in its dismissal of wartime promises to Arab leaders in favour of maintaining French support. The lack of local consultation fractured ethnic and religious unity, fostering instability and conflict. The resulting weak national identities necessitated external involvement and reflected a colonial strategy of “divide and rule,” whereby multi-ethnic states were created to manipulate internal divisions. In Jordan, for example, Britain installed the Hashemite monarchy, originating from Mecca, to rule over a predominantly Bedouin population, leaving the state reliant on continued Western support to maintain stability.
This ignorance had especially devastating consequences for the Kurds. Allied efforts to appease Turkey denied the Middle East’s fourth-largest ethnic group a state, leaving Kurds divided across Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran. Despite decades of resistance, Kurds have faced sustained marginalisation and persecution. Turkey’s human rights abuses against Kurds have drawn EU criticism, complicating its membership aspirations. Yet without sovereignty, international support for Kurds is constrained by respect for existing state borders and the lack of economic incentive tied to Kurdish resources. Barzani’s words therefore resonate deeply with a stateless nation lacking representation, a legacy of borders drawn for imperial gain rather than ethnic reality.
The Westphalian system, developed in Europe, defined sovereignty through fixed territorial boundaries and enabled the organic formation of national identities shaped by geography and history. European borders evolved along rivers and natural features, whereas Middle Eastern borders were superimposed, often as straight lines drawn with little regard for local conditions. Sovereignty over fixed territory was thus a foreign concept imposed on a region historically characterised by fluid movement under Ottoman rule.
After independence, Middle Eastern states attempted to legitimise themselves by adopting this Westphalian model, promoting national identities that conflicted with entrenched ethnic and religious loyalties. As a result, borders function largely as shells for international relations while alternative forms of identity persist within them. Following the Cold War, the Middle East’s failure to democratise alongside Eastern Europe and Latin America led to theories of “Middle Eastern Exceptionalism.” Ongoing tensions between nationalism and pan-Islamism prompted regimes to prioritise militarisation and security over political reform, compensating for weak popular legitimacy. International support for these regimes, in the name of stability, has entrenched corruption and expanded military power at the expense of civilian development.
This prioritisation of “stability” has made the Middle East the most militarised region since the 1990s, even as poverty and unemployment rose. Weak state institutions enabled power to shift to militias and extremist groups such as Al-Qaeda and Islamic State, which capitalised on colonial humiliation and disillusionment with the Arab nation-state. Western involvement has frequently “started, lengthened, and ended wars” for external benefit. The Syrian Civil War exemplifies this, as foreign powers backed rival proxies instead of pursuing diplomacy, enriching militias and corrupt regimes while imposing immense civilian costs. Geopolitical interests ultimately outweighed efforts to prevent war crimes and humanitarian catastrophe.
This raises the question of whether Sykes-Picot serves as a convenient historical scapegoat, obscuring responsibility for contemporary Western foreign policy failures. While the agreement laid flawed foundations, many conflicts could have been mitigated through better diplomacy and cooperation. As US reliance on Middle Eastern oil declines and focus shifts to the Indo-Pacific, regional powers such as Saudi Arabia and Iran have gained influence, with Iran’s support for Shia militias raising international concern. China’s growing role offers alternatives but avoids holding regimes accountable for human rights abuses, undermining long-term legitimacy. Western governments must therefore support genuine democratisation and civilian-focused conflict resolution to prevent further instability and inequality.
Imperial legacies have shaped Middle Eastern geopolitics for over a century through imposed borders that restricted a historically fluid region. The Ottoman Empire governed without rigid administrative boundaries, enabling movement across vast deserts and fostering diverse ethnic interaction. Conflicts driven by border disputes highlight the importance of boundaries that reflect geography, history, and demographics. The Israel–Palestine conflict illustrates the consequences of imposed territorial identities, creating rigid “us versus them” dynamics between Arab and Jewish populations. British racial justifications for dismissing Arab opposition to a Jewish state intensified these divisions. Over time, the conflict has become increasingly ethno-religious, with sectarianism politicised to serve strategic goals rooted in statehood and borders.
Sykes-Picot has thus become a symbol Western powers invoke to explain Middle Eastern instability while deflecting attention from ongoing policy failures. Although it exemplifies colonial disregard for local realities, its significance is often overstated in ways that hinder discussion about how the region can move forward. Britain, France, and other Western powers continue to prioritise self-interest over meaningful mediation and development.
Borders are far more complex than lines on a map; at their core are people suffering corruption and conflict shaped by both past and present decisions. If Middle Eastern nation-states are to endure, external involvement must prioritise diplomacy, accountability, and long-term civilian prosperity over short-term strategic gain.
