Essay Sample on Conflict in Syria: Global Humanitarian Crisis & Threat to International Community

Introduction

The conflict in Syria is one of the greatest humanitarian disasters witnessed in the 21st century. Hundreds of thousands of Syrians have been killed, and millions of others have been displaced, precipitating a refugee crisis. The warring factions have also been involved in gross violations of human rights. The impacts of the war have spilled over and are not only a threat to the region but also the international community. For instance, the changing dynamics of the war has seen an increase in extremist activities in Europe and the United States of America. Though most attention is focused on ways to end the war, it is also important to understand its roots. While most people think that the Syrian Civil War began in 2011 during the Arab Spring, the truth is that the conflict has its origins in 1916. To this end, this paper argues that the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 turned the Ottoman Empire, which had been relatively peaceful, into one of the most volatile regions on earth. The Syrian Civil War, as well as the other conflicts that have been experienced in the Middle East over the years, can be traced to this agreement.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The Sykes-Picot Agreement

In his book titled, 100 Years of the Middle East: The Struggle for the Post Sykes-Picot Middle East, Adnan Khan, traces the anarchy, chaos, and instability that characterizes the region to the agreement. He argues that the bulk of literature on the issue focusses on the role played by oil, gas, Islam, Suez Canal, and history in the escalation. However, few researchers have delved into the role of external influence and interference in the region, yet it is the major cause of chaos in the Middle East, according to the author. This influence has been there since 1916, when the British and French governments determined the borders of Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Iraq. The other allies were also involved in this decision.

Before World War I, most Arab countries were under the Ottoman Empire. For centuries, the empire had offered them protection against the Europeans, who had various interests in the region. As the war raged on, the question of what would happen to the territories held by the Ottoman Empire in case of disintegration arose. France, Great Britain, and Russia, known as the Triple Entente, were keen to secure and advance their interests in the region. Therefore, the three made an agreement on how the territories would be shared. Russia would take Istanbul and the surrounding areas since the country was interested in the Mediterranean Sea. France had made several investments in Syria and hence was given the areas around Aleppo. Since Great Britain was keen to safeguard access to India, she was to get areas around the Persian Gulf and the Suez Canal. This need to align their interests in the region led to the birth of the Sykes-Picot Agreement.

The Ottoman Empire fought on Germany's side during the war. Unfortunately, the empire was defeated and dissolved during the war. On the 19th of May 1916, the French and British governments secretly made an accord to divide most of the Arab lands that had previously been ruled by the Ottoman Empire between them. The British and French negotiations were headed by Sir Mark Sykes and Francois Georges-Picot, respectively. This accord is widely known as the Sykes-Picot agreement. The agreement sought to protect and advance their interests in the region and did not leave any space for the growth of Arab nationalism in the years that followed. The secret agreement was made official in 1920 during the San Remo Conference.

Under the agreement, the Syrian coast, as well as most of present-day Lebanon, was allocated to France. On her side, Britain took control of the central and southern Mesopotamia regions. The remaining areas were placed under local Arab chiefs who were supervised by the British in the south and French to the north. The agreement also allowed France and Britain to retain free trade and passage in the region. The accord also had the assent of Russia. Several Armenian provinces and some Kurdish territories were acquired by Russia. The agreement also provided that between the British and French acquisitions, there would be single independent Arab states or confederation of Arab states divided into spheres of either British or French influence. Other provisions were that Alexandretta would be a free port, and Palestine would be controlled by an international regime.

Relation of the Agreement to Chaos in the Middle East

The years after the agreement was signed were characterized by several other declarations, deals, and treaties. At the end of the process, the modern-day Middle East states were carved out of the collapsed Ottoman Empire. Though the original was greatly distorted by the San Remo agreement as well as the mandate policies, the initial demarcation of Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, and Transjordan borders remained. All along, the agreement and scheme by the colonial powers were vulnerable and fragile. The secrecy and speed with which the agreement was signed surrounded it with a cloud of mutual distrust right from the start.

In dividing the territories, the colonialists ignored the exiting political preferences and local identities. While the region had previously been divided along linguistic, religious, and ethnic lines, the agreement drew artificial colonial lines to divide it. Though the territory was made up of several nomadic Arab tribes, the borders separated and scattered them into different states. The agreement also introduced a central form of governance that the people strongly rejected. Resultantly, there was a bitter reaction to the whole Sykes-Picot process. Conflicts also arose and worsened over the years, culminating in the current chaotic region that the Middle East is. People in the region are also striving to reach for their older identities, which the borders crushed. In the process, authorities collapse, and sectarian groups step in to fill the power vacuum leading to more conflicts and violence.

Over the years, the colonial powers carried out various diplomatic schemes that also directly contributed to the volatility witnessed in the region. For instance, these schemes led to the domination of the Alawite minority in Syria, where Sunni are the majority. Similarly, the Sunni minority in Iraq were strengthened and dominated the Shiite majority. These dynamics have led to the internal uprisings, revolts, and coups that are synonymous with the region today. For example, the war between Iraqi Sunnis and Iranian Shiites destabilized the region and claimed more than one million lives.

The colonial masters also made unrealistic and conflicting promises before and after the agreement. The conflicts can be seen in the Balfour Declaration and the McMahon-Hussein letters. In the McMahon-Hussein letters, exchanged between 1915 and 1916, Great Britain agreed to recognize the independence of Arabs after the war. In exchange, the Arabs were required to help Britain against the Ottomans. Though not explicitly mentioned, recognition Palestine was also among the promises. In direct contradiction, in the Balfour declaration of 1917, Great Britain supported the proposal to create a home for Jews in Palestine. The conflicting promises are at the heart of the historical tensions and conflicts between Israel and Palestine. They also led to nationalist resentment, with each of the parties expecting the land to remain under their control. Moreover, subsequent attempts to divide or partition the land did not suit either of the states.

Other than the Israeli-Pakistani conflict, the Sykes-Picot Agreement can also be directly linked to the recent breakdown of Arab states as well as the emergence of Islamic State (IS). The IS has severally stated that dismantling the agreement is one of its goals. The outfit has also used the agreement to spread propaganda.

The Case of the Syrian Civil War

While tens of conflicts have been witnessed in the Middle East over the years, none has had a bigger impact than the Syrian Civil War. Just like in several other conflicts in the region, the troubles in Syria can be directly linked to the events that followed the Sykes-Picot agreement. Particularly, the mandate system and political arrangements that the French imposed on the state have played a huge role. As evident in the agreement, France only sought to protect her economic, strategic, and ideological interests. No attempts were made to agree on the terms of the independence treaty, and France would eventually evacuate in 1946 without an agreement. The indigenous officials were not trained on the newly imposed systems, and the country was not given solid guidance on responsible self-governance. The divisions and sub-divisions that ensued also hindered the establishment of an administrative elite. Resultantly, Syria's experience of unity was exceedingly little by 1946. Worse still, it was not in France's plan to support a political and social reconstruction that would have generated a stable and democratic society. Political radicalization that was practiced, instead, led to political instability in the country. These issues, coupled with the search for the lost identities, have led to the constant conflicts in the country. The simmering tensions ultimately erupted into the civil war in 2011.

Similar schemes were also carried out in Lebanon. When Greater Lebanon was created, sectarian rivalries emerged in Lebanon hence destabilizing her political system. Uncertain relationship with her neighbors further fuelled the tensions. The presence of different religious communities also hindered the formation of a cohesive government, leading to conflicts. For instance, separation of the coastal regions occupied by Muslims in Lebanon led to wars in the 1970s and 1980s.

Role Played by the United States in the Sykes-Picot Process

The United States did not take part in any of the agreements that divided the Middle East. Instead, the U.S. let the League of Nations guarantee self-determination. However, the U.S has historically played a big role in addressing the conflicts that arose in the Middle East as a result of the agreement. For instance, the U.S. has been involved in the Iraq war. The U.S. has also been blamed for maintaining cordial relations with some of the region's autocrats, dictators, monarchs, and unelected elites over the years. Today, the United States is in the frontline to stabilize Iraq, end the gruesome civil war in Syria, and confront the Islamic State. Interestingly, the American Policy seeks to preserve the borders that were initially established by the Sykes-Picot agreement. The volatility and unpredictability of the region make it difficult to predict whether the region will experience any form of calm in the near future.

Moreover, it is important to note that the Sykes-Picot borders are not the sole causes of the conflicts in the region. To prove this, it can be argued that the initial boundaries have gotten blurred over the years, and new ones have been established. For instance, Iraq has been split into Shia, Kurdish, and Sunni regions. Similar divisions have also been witnessed in Syria. Unfortunately, the new divisions have made the situation worse, as evidenced by the rise in ethnic and religious conflicts. Thus, borders alone cannot be wholly responsible for the conflicts in the Middle East.

Conclusion

The chaos and conflicts being experienced in Syria and the larger Middle Eastern region can be directly attributed to the Sykes-Picot Agreement. In a bid to protect their interests in the region, the British and French came up with the plan that artificially demarcated the territories without considering the cultural, demographic, and social id...