Ghost Of Sykes-Picot Fuelling Terrorism In Middle East: Political Solutions Preface Ideological Battle Against Terrorism

By Grace Mubashir, New Age Islam 28 September 2024 To Address The Rise Of Islamic Terrorism In The Middle East, We Must Understand The Historical And Geopolitical Forces That Have Shaped The Region, Particularly The 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement Major Points: 1. This secret pact, signed between Britain and France during World War I, divided much of the Arab world into spheres of influence. 2. The boundaries created by Sykes-Picot, which ignored ethnic, religious, and cultural distinctions, have had lasting repercussions, contributing to instability and, in some ways, facilitating the rise of extremism and terrorism. 3. To address the problem of terrorism, it is essential to confront the underlying causes of instability in the Middle East, including the legacy of colonialism, the failures of authoritarian regimes, and the destructive role of foreign intervention. ------ (From Files) ----- To address the rise of Islamic terrorism in the Middle East, we must understand the historical and geopolitical forces that have shaped the region, particularly the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement. This secret pact, signed between Britain and France during World War I, divided much of the Arab world into spheres of influence. The boundaries created by Sykes-Picot, which ignored ethnic, religious, and cultural distinctions, have had lasting repercussions, contributing to instability and, in some ways, facilitating the rise of extremism and terrorism. The Sykes-Picot Agreement: A Historical Overview The Sykes-Picot Agreement was a clandestine understanding between Britain and France, with assent from Tsarist Russia, to carve up the remnants of the Ottoman Empire following its anticipated defeat in World War I. Mark Sykes and François Georges-Picot, the British and French diplomats behind the agreement, delineated zones of control in the Middle East, with little regard for the populations living there. The agreement divided the region into artificial states and imposed Western interests, fuelling tensions that have persisted for over a century. The central problem with the Sykes-Picot Agreement was its blatant disregard for the complex mosaic of ethnicities, religions, and sects in the Middle East. The arbitrary borders drawn by foreign powers lumped together disparate groups who had little historical, cultural, or political commonality. The region's Sunni and Shia Muslims, Kurds, Christians, and other minority groups found themselves either forced into cohabitation under new national entities or divided across multiple countries. The agreement sowed the seeds of discord, laying the groundwork for future conflicts. When Western powers imposed these boundaries, they undermined the organic political and social evolution of the region. The consequences of this colonial manipulation have been catastrophic, with much of the violence and instability in the modern Middle East rooted in the forced unification or division of ethnic and religious groups. The Impact of Sykes-Picot on Political and Social Structures The imposition of arbitrary borders created fragile states, many of which lacked cohesion. For example, Iraq, cobbled together from three Ottoman provinces—Basra, Baghdad, and Mosul—became a hotbed of sectarian tension. The Sunni-dominated government in Baghdad oppressed the Shia majority and the Kurdish minority, leading to deep-rooted grievances. These simmering tensions erupted into violence after the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003, when the power vacuum allowed sectarian violence to spiral out of control. Syria, another creation of the Sykes-Picot Agreement, faced similar issues. The country’s diverse population, including Sunni Arabs, Alawites, Kurds, and Christians, has struggled with sectarian tensions. The Syrian Civil War, which began in 2011, is a brutal manifestation of these divisions. The war has provided fertile ground for terrorist organizations like ISIS, which have exploited the chaos to establish control over vast territories. The artificial nature of these states and their susceptibility to authoritarianism or instability has often led to the rise of oppressive regimes. Leaders like Saddam Hussein, Hafez al-Assad, and Muammar Gaddafi ruled with iron fists, maintaining order through brutal repression. While these regimes kept radical Islamic movements in check for a time, their eventual collapse—whether through external intervention or internal revolution—unleashed chaos, allowing groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda to thrive. Islamic Terrorism: A Reaction to Political Disenfranchisement The rise of Islamic terrorism in the Middle East cannot be understood without considering the political disenfranchisement that many communities experienced under the regimes created or influenced by Sykes-Picot. The failure of these states to provide political representation or economic opportunity for all their citizens created a fertile ground for radical ideologies to take root. Islamic terrorism in the Middle East is, in many ways, a reaction to the power vacuum and sense of injustice that followed the collapse of these regimes. Groups like ISIS capitalized on the resentment felt by marginalized communities—particularly Sunnis in Iraq and Syria—who were excluded from power and persecuted by their governments. In many cases, these terrorist organizations framed their cause as a fight against foreign-imposed governments and artificial borders, resonating with those who felt alienated by the post-Sykes-Picot order. The Sykes-Picot boundaries also set the stage for conflicts between states in the region. The creation of Israel in 1948, another product of Western interference, has been a focal point for jihadist ideologies. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which remains unresolved to this day, has been a rallying cry for terrorist groups across the Middle East, who portray their struggle as part of a broader fight against Western imperialism and Zionism. Terrorist groups have long used the plight of Palestinians to justify attacks on Western and regional targets. ISIS and the Rejection of Sykes-Picot Borders One of the most prominent examples of Islamic terrorism in the Middle East is the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), also known as Daesh. ISIS, which emerged in the chaos of the Syrian Civil War and the U.S. invasion of Iraq, explicitly rejected the borders created by the Sykes-Picot Agreement. When ISIS declared its caliphate in 2014, it demolished border posts between Iraq and Syria, symbolizing its rejection of the nation-states that had been imposed by Western powers. ISIS presented itself as an alternative to the corrupt and dysfunctional states that had been created in the aftermath of Sykes-Picot. The group claimed to offer a return to a purer, more authentic form of Islamic governance that transcended the artificial boundaries imposed by colonialism. In its propaganda, ISIS frequently referenced the Sykes-Picot Agreement, framing its fight as a continuation of the struggle against Western imperialism. While the caliphate established by ISIS was ultimately crushed, the group's ideology and its rejection of the post-World War I order remain influential. Other extremist groups across the region continue to challenge the legitimacy of modern nation-states, seeking instead to establish their own vision of Islamic governance. The Role of Foreign Powers: A Cycle of Intervention and Radicalization Foreign intervention, particularly by Western powers, has played a significant role in exacerbating the problems created by the Sykes-Picot Agreement. The United States, in particular, has intervened in the Middle East multiple times, often with disastrous consequences. The 2003 invasion of Iraq is a prime example. While the U.S. justified the invasion by citing the need to remove Saddam Hussein’s regime and eliminate weapons of mass destruction, the result was a power vacuum that led to the rise of ISIS and a wave of sectarian violence. Western powers have often been perceived as neo-colonial actors, continuing the legacy of Sykes-Picot by imposing their will on the region. This perception has fueled anti-Western sentiment and provided terrorist groups with a potent narrative: that they are defending Islam from foreign invaders. The U.S. and its allies, despite their intentions, have often played into this narrative by supporting authoritarian regimes or conducting military operations that result in civilian casualties. The role of regional powers must also be considered. Iran and Saudi Arabia, the two major regional powers in the Middle East, have engaged in proxy wars that have further destabilized the region. Both countries have used sectarianism as a tool to advance their own geopolitical interests. Iran, a Shia-majority country, has supported Shia militias in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, while Saudi Arabia, a Sunni-majority country, has funded Sunni extremist groups across the region. This sectarian competition has exacerbated the divisions created by the Sykes-Picot Agreement, contributing to the rise of terrorist groups. The Search for Solutions: Addressing the Legacy of Sykes-Picot The Sykes-Picot Agreement created a fragmented and unstable Middle East, where artificial borders and political disenfranchisement have fostered violence and extremism. To address the issue of Islamic terrorism in the region, it is essential to confront the legacy of this colonial-era agreement. One potential solution is to support the development of more inclusive political systems in the region. Many of the states created by Sykes-Picot have been governed by authoritarian regimes that exclude large segments of their populations. Establishing governments that represent all citizens—regardless of ethnicity or religion—is crucial to reducing the appeal of extremist ideologies. Decentralization of power is another potential avenue for reform. Many of the conflicts in the Middle East are driven by groups seeking autonomy or independence, such as the Kurds in Iraq and Syria. Allowing for greater regional autonomy could help to address some of the grievances caused by the artificial borders imposed by Sykes-Picot. Moreover, foreign powers must reassess their approach to the region. Military interventions and support for authoritarian regimes have often done more harm than good, fuelling anti-Western sentiment and radicalization. A more constructive approach would involve diplomatic efforts to mediate conflicts and support political reforms that promote inclusivity and stability. Finally, addressing the underlying economic and social issues in the region is essential. Many young people in the Middle East face high unemployment and limited opportunities, making them susceptible to radicalization. Providing economic development and education can help to counter the appeal of extremist ideologies. Conclusion The Sykes-Picot Agreement, though nearly a century old, continues to cast a long shadow over the Middle East. The arbitrary borders and political systems imposed by Western powers have created a legacy of instability, sectarian violence, and terrorism. Islamic terrorism in the region is, in part, a reaction to the political disenfranchisement and artificial nation-states that emerged from the agreement. To address the problem of terrorism, it is essential to confront the underlying causes of instability in the Middle East, including the legacy of colonialism, the failures of authoritarian regimes, and the destructive role of foreign intervention. Only by addressing these root causes can the region begin to move towards a more stable and peaceful future, free from the scourge of terrorism. ----- Grace Mubashir is a independent researcher on contemporary Islam in South Asia URL: https://www.newageislam.com/islam-west/ghost-sykes-picot-terrorism-middle-east-political-ideological-terrorism/d/133306 New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism