The Sykes-Picot Agreement
A secret wartime understanding shaped imperial plans but did not single-handedly draw today's borders.
In 1916, British and French representatives Mark Sykes and Francois Georges-Picot negotiated a secret understanding about spheres of influence in parts of the Ottoman Empire. The agreement reflected wartime imperial aims and conflicted with other promises made during the war.
Postwar borders and mandates were shaped by later negotiations, local political movements, conflict, and decisions by multiple governments. Sykes-Picot is a useful symbol of imperial mapmaking, but it did not alone create every modern boundary or explain a century of regional violence.
If local communities had greater influence over postwar arrangements, borders and political institutions might have differed. The region was diverse, and no single map could neatly resolve competing national, religious, economic, and security claims.
The counterfactual asks who gets to define political order after an empire collapses. It also cautions against explaining present conflicts with one colonial document while ignoring later decisions and local agency.
It also cautions against explaining present conflicts with one colonial document while ignoring later decisions and local agency.
When I explain a conflict through a map drawn by outsiders, whose later choices and agency am I overlooking?