| Submit your comments on this article |
| Olde Tyme Religion |
| Don't blame Sykes-Picot |
| 2016-07-23 |
| "ARROGANT TO the point of blindness," British diplomat Mark Sykes and his French counterpart Georges Picot "carved up the Ottoman empire, not unlike a butcher slicing up slabs of meat fresh out of the freezer," a British columnist charged recently. The diatribe, leveled by Spectator columnist Taki Theodoracopulos, is shared by many, most notably Henry Kissinger, an authority on diplomatic Machiavellianism, who wrote of the Sykes-Picot deal ‐ a deal that had been meant to be kept secret ‐ that it was "the foundation for later wars and civil wars." Though Sykes and Picot did not actually redo the atlas, but merely drew the line between the prospective British and French spheres of influence, their deal was soon fleshed out by the cartographers who penciled borders that later proved unworkable, and in some cases have also become irrelevant, from Libya to Iraq and Syria. That is, of course, true. However, when seen in the broader context of post-colonial history, this external impact does not explain Arab civilization’s crisis, nor does it excuse it. The stuffing by foreigners of local rivals into single polities did not cause the bloody Iran-Iraq War ‒ because the imperialists did properly separate the Persians and the Arabs ‒ nor could Europeans be blamed for the strife along the years between Morocco and Algeria, or Libya and Egypt, or Iraq and Kuwait, all of which pitted Sunni Arabs against each other. In India, for instance, the British also bequeathed a sectarian tinderbox back when independence loomed, and the assassinated Mahatma Gandhi was but one of its victims. Conflict with Pakistan, the violent emergence of Bangladesh, and the unsolved dispute over Kashmir are also seen as colonialism’s farewell gifts. However, the subcontinent has produced a generally accepted political framework where an agricultural revolution was followed by an industrial revolution that soon sparked much social mobility and expanding prosperity. The same can be said of Vietnam, whose splitting and bleeding in the wake of foreign intrusions were followed by a post-ideological quest to manufacture, trade, profit, prosper and to live and let live. The Arab Middle East did not follow these patterns. The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves. |
| Posted by:g(r)omgoru |
| #10 Meatloaf? Again? |
| Posted by: Shipman 2016-07-23 21:00 |
| #9 Where's Meatloaf when you need him? |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2016-07-23 19:55 |
| #8 Oh, and the sub-continent. Three out of four ain't bad either. |
| Posted by: F105wNapalm 2016-07-23 19:19 |
| #7 Sykes-Picot divided up all the Ottoman eyalets into unsustainable mini-states all at war with each themselves and other. For a century. And they still are. What a win. After WWII we should have doubled down and split up Germany, Japan, and China into multiple states. Well two out of three ain't bad. |
| Posted by: F105wNapalm 2016-07-23 18:55 |
| #6 If Sykes Picot has any fault then Europe will be perpetually at war. |
| Posted by: Tarzan Slailet2796 2016-07-23 11:28 |
| #5 How many would be alive today and how prosperous the general population would be if the course taken hadn't been? Or: If we hadn't pressed technology and disruptive culture onto primitive closed societies, ... |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2016-07-23 10:54 |
| #4 G(r)om #2 is the famed inland swimmer AKA Hemmingay. See the difference between #2 and Mind Control Man? |
| Posted by: Shipman 2016-07-23 09:38 |
| #3 Any fundamental difference between the division of the ME after WWI and the American/Soviet divide of Europe after WWII? We sat on them and they've had the longest period of peace in Central Europe since the Romans. The long glace back in time - WWII, WWI, the Balkan Wars, The Wars of German Unification, 1848, The Napoleonic Wars, The Seven Years War, The War of Spanish Succession, The Anglo-Dutch Wars, The Thirty Years War (with an aside of the English Civil War), the Wars of Religion, etc, etc, etc. Sometimes, what you thought was bad (ie colonialism), may have been the better of bad choices. How many would be alive today and how prosperous the general population would be if the course taken hadn't been? |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2016-07-23 08:54 |
| #2 Still, on the positive side, think about how many Moslems all the Moslems have killed. And likely will go on killing. But then would the Moslems have done all that anyway? Moslems seem to enjoy killing other Moslems, bombs in crowds, that sort of thing. Then use a fire hose to wash it all down the gutters and drains and plan to do it again in a week or so. And ( besides ) the MS Media make a few bucks on the deal. And it has been going on for how long, no end in sight , really. Just Moslems killing Moslems. The religion of Peace, don'tcha know.Makes Sykes/Picot seem almost irrelevant and trivial, somehow. Much much too late to repeal or change now . Gives new meaning to the term: " Insh'allah ", don't you think ? |
| Posted by: Shiting Thud8806 2016-07-23 07:46 |
| #1 Sykes-Picot wrongs do not become rights just because the Middle East made many wrongs later. |
| Posted by: BernardZ 2016-07-23 03:01 |