David Shearer's article last week, "Border decisions condemn countries to conflict", seems conflicted. He began by condemning the British-French (Sykes-Picot) "carve-up" of the post-Ottoman Middle East, yet a few lines later bemoaned the fact that the borders don't take into account the nuances and aspirations of minorities. He seems unaware that after Sykes-Picot, the Allies attempted to create Armenia and Kurdistan as nations (Treaty of Sevres) but were thwarted by the emerging nationalistic Turkey under Ataturk (Treaty of Lausanne).
Why are we still infantilising Arabs? Are they not capable of fine-tuning Sykes-Picot to reflect the aspirations of locals?
I asked a Zimbabwean why, after independence, Robert Mugabe hadn't redistributed land along the previous tribal lines?
The response was equal parts exasperation and sadness: "Once these despots strut the stage as President of a sizeable state, they are not going to revert to being Chief of some Bantustan". The Middle East equivalence is palpable.
Contrary to Shearer, some in the serious Arab-language press see Sykes-Picot as a squandered gift. An article by K Khairallah in Al Arab calls Sykes-Picot "a boon". He states: "There are those in the Arab world who have always cursed Sykes-Picot, seeing it as the main reason for Arab calamities and defeats in every field. The Sykes-Picot agreement was not the main reason for these calamities and defeats, but merely the coat hanger on which many Arabs hung their problems and their helplessness, in order to excuse their inability and backwardness ... Sykes-Picot failed because the Arabs moved away from what is realistic and rational, though it could have been made into a success."