UK United Kingdom

Explainer: why a century-old deal between Britain and France got ISIS jihadis excited

The sweeping advance of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has given rise to a lively debate about who should bear ultimate responsibility for the disintegration of Iraq and Syria. On one hand…

Prince Faisal and his party (including T E Lawrence) at Versailles, 1919. Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

The sweeping advance of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has given rise to a lively debate about who should bear ultimate responsibility for the disintegration of Iraq and Syria. On one hand, many commentators have pointed the finger at George W Bush and Tony Blair who, they argue, as the architects of the 2003 invasion, fundamentally destabilised Iraq and ultimately led to the current crisis.

The ISIS jihadis themselves have made political capital out of their professed overthrow of the 1916 agreement between Britain and France that carved up the Ottoman Empire and created the somewhat artificial borders which now appear to have been transcended.

This is a false debate. It is not an “either-or” situation. Actors in both 1916 and 2003 have contributed – in very different ways – to today’s Middle East chaos.

Imperial gambit

The “Sykes-Picot Agreement” (and it was only an agreement) was negotiated between the French diplomat François Georges-Picot and his British counterpart Sir Mark Sykes between 1915 and 1916. Its objective was to ensure that, after the final defeat of the Ottoman Empire, the vast expanse of territory stretching from the Gulf to the Mediterranean and from the Red Sea to the Caspian should neither fall into hostile hands nor dissolve into chaos. British interests in the overland route to India, and French interests in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Levant required that “Arabia” be run from London and Paris.

The Sykes-Picot agreement, 1916. Paolo Porsia, CC BY-SA

This agreement was reached in great secrecy because – in parallel – the British were offering much of the same territory to Arab leaders, in particular the Sheriff of Mecca, Husayn bin-Ali, in exchange for Arab participation in the war against the Turks – the story of Lawrence of Arabia. This duplicity was completed by further British promises to Lord Rothschild of a homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine – also partly driven by a quest for Jewish support for the war.

Should have listened to Lawrence.

Sykes-Picot is significant in the current context more in the symbolism than in the substance. What it amounted to was the two colonial empires remaining intact after World War I arrogating to themselves additional colonial possessions against all the principles of self-determination which had been so passionately pursued by Woodrow Wilson both as a condition for US entry into the war and at the Treaty of Versailles. Imperialism and self-determination are strange bedfellows.

In the case of the territories formerly known as Mesopotamia, which were granted to Britain under a League of Nations mandate, the situation was further complicated by the state of effective bankruptcy in which the UK emerged from the war. Winston Churchill, as the colonial secretary in Lloyd George’s government, had to find a way of running these territories on the cheap. It was therefore decided, at a meeting in Cairo in March 1921, to create a new country – Iraq – out of three of the pre-existing vilayets (provinces) of the Ottoman Empire, to bestow upon it a king, and to try to make it work in Britain’s interests.

Not a viable state

This was always going to be a tall order. The three provinces chosen were the Shia Arab lands around Basra in the South; the largely Sunni Arab districts north and west of Baghdad in the Centre; and – eventually (Churchill went back and forth over the wisdom of this particular move) the Sunni Kurdish areas in the North. Under the Ottomans, these three provinces had had virtually nothing to do with one another.

They embraced cross-cutting sectarian divides (Sunni and Shia, Arab and Kurd). The actual borders drawn, both in the West (abutting Syria and Jordan) and in the North (abutting Turkey and Iran), made very little sense either geographically or socio-culturally. The king placed on the throne (Faisal, son of Husayn) was not only imported from Mecca, but was a Sunni in a country with a large Shia majority. “Iraq” was off to a very bad start.

Nobody ever succeeded in gluing Iraq together or in forging a national (as opposed to a sectarian or provincial) identity. A succession of regimes – monarchical, republican, Ba’athist – tried to make it make sense. Military coup followed military coup during the 1950s and 1960s. Eventually Saddam Hussein took over control in 1979 and ruled the country with a fist of iron. The question of where Iraq might be today if Saddam were still in power is, unfortunately, an imponderable counter-factual.

That Bush and Blair burst, with overwhelming military might, into a volatile and scarcely viable polity – with a war-plan (regime change) but no plan whatsoever for what happened next – is obviously also a major factor in the current chaos. For Blair to deny this is disingenuous at best, scandalous at worst. But for commentators to deny that Sykes-Picot must also be held responsible is to refuse to see the deep original fissures in the edifice.

Large swathes of the former Ottoman Empire (Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine, but also, under Italian control, Libya) were dealt with in a manner quite similar to that which Churchill adopted for Iraq.

Those chickens also are suddenly coming home to roost.

Sign in to Favourite

Join the conversation

7 Comments sorted by

  1. Nick Hart

    logged in via email

    It's fair to say that Blair and Bush ticked many—most—of the 'functional psychopath' boxes, but is it simpler than that? Were they were both mentally and emotionally retarded to the point that they were incapable if rational thought?

  2. Keith Thomas


    Unfortunately, Professor Howorth's long view of the region's history begins at a Western-centric milestone - the carve-up of Mesopotamia after WW1. The region had a much longer history under the Ottomans and surely this would have been embedded in the people of the villages, towns and tribes for whom the comings and goings of nation state players were largely irrelevant. These people were shaped in their outlook by Islam (of their inherited variety), tribal loyalties and enmities, and the traditional business of daily living.

    I cannot claim to have any special insight into the minds of the people who live in this region, but I can say that I would have preferred to see more of it in Professor Howorth's article.

  3. jilli roberts


    Or we could say that it's the fault of the Ottoman Empire for invading Europe in the first place. What Europe did after that is a reaction to aggression and an attempt to weaken the power sources that caused it.

  4. Peter Johnston

    logged in via Twitter

    The question is how far back do you go.

    The Ottoman Empire was an opportunistic land grab following the retreat of the Mongols, who used to own the entire region in the middle ages.

    But Churchill has to take most of the blame. Lines drawn on a map with no thought to the different cultures, lines of communication or allegiances were never going to work.

    It is time that Iraq was allowed to redraw itself back into two or three states which have coherence and a sense of identity. If that includes parts of Turkey, Syria, Iran or Jordan and the local people accept it, why not?

  5. Wandee Thaweetham

    Company Director

    A very simplified view that ensures that roots for the conflicts that we face today are never discovered. As much as the decisions taken in 1916 and the decisions taken in 2002/03 bear responsibility for the situation, so do the clandestine operations over decades that ensured those governments in Iraq and other Middle East countries were in line with western political desires.
    Every time people tried to change their governments via uprisings or military coups it were western intelligence agencies…

    Read more
    1. Phil Johnson

      Criminal defense lawyer

      In reply to Wandee Thaweetham

      as an American, why is this knowledge not published by media here and incorporated into whatever dark decisions have to be made in Foggy Bottom at this critical juncture?

      I would dearly love to hear more reaction on this.

    2. Wandee Thaweetham

      Company Director

      In reply to Phil Johnson

      It isn’t only America one should be worried about but Europe and the rest of the world too.
      Just recently there was a report about the North Korean leader and to what extend he is going, fixing present photos of him that have been altered to remove people which have been executed under his rule. Stalin was another leader that would re-write history by altering photos and other historical records.
      History has become a market product that only sells if the author doesn’t bite the hand that feeds him/her…

      Read more