Arab Security Exposure to New Sykes-Picot Confrontation – Mustafa Kamel Al-Sayed

The Arabs came at a time when they were cursing the Sykes-Picot Agreement in 1916, in which France and Britain, with the participation of Czarist Russia, agreed to divide the territories of the Ottoman Empire in the Middle East between the three countries, which was already achieved after the First World War, and I added to it the Balfour Declaration of the Zionist movement Palestine would be a “national home” for the Jews, and the Arab National Movement of the 1950s and 1960 considered this agreement to be a betrayal of promises made by Britain to Sharif Hussein, the prince of Mecca, who was supported by a vanguard of Arab intellectuals and military, as the fruit of their revolution against the Ottoman Empire would support Britain in establishing a kingdom. An Arab from the Arabian Peninsula and the Levant, led by Sharif Hussein himself, according to the famous correspondence between Hussein and McMahon, the British commissioner in Cairo. The Arab National Movement felt that Britain’s betrayal of these promises was the reason for the fragmentation of much of the Arab world and an obstacle to realizing the dream of Arab unity. Criticism of the deal was not limited to Arab nationalists, but a number of Western Middle Eastern experts have joined them, notably after the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, and the establishment of a constitution for it based on the logic of quotas, and also after the Arab dignity revolutions in 2011, so these experts came up with the saying to reconsider Sykes. Beko to further divide the Arab world on the basis of primary loyalties, so that there are three countries in Iraq, and maybe two in Yemen, and following the same logic in Syria, Lebanon and other countries Arabs. Faced with this proposal, I used to say to these experts and to my Arab friends that after the failure of the many projects of Arab unity and the decline of the Arab national project following the defeat of 1967, the urgent task of Arab nationalists in these circumstances was to preserve the division of the Arab world as agreed by Sykes-Picot. But the deterioration of conditions in the Arab world did not stop at this point, as we now face a new division of the Arab world that goes much further than the British and French diplomats proposed, and while the first Sykes-Picot was a betrayal of promises of support for the project of an Arab country, Sykes-Picot. The second takes place at a time when the Arabs hardly feel that a single danger threatens them, and with the participation of the Arab parties in its investigation. What are the new Sykes-Picot milestones and what additional security risks do they pose for Arab countries? Is there a way to deal with it?
New Sykes-Picot milestones
The first of the new functionalities of Sykes-Picot is the regional extension by land, sea and air to the countries of the Middle East and to the main countries outside the region. Of course, there is the Israeli extension, which includes large lands in the West Bank, which the Israeli prime minister intends to annex next month, estimated at 30% of its area, in addition to all of Jerusalem. Israel has declared its capital united, in addition to the Golan Heights, which intends to deepen settlement in it and the Shebaa farms, and Israel is imposing a blockade. On the Gaza coast, it launches air raids in the skies of Syria and Lebanon whenever its political or military leaders wish. There is Turkey, which imposes its control over important areas in northern Syria and expands northern Iraq, and gains a permanent presence in Libya, and the Eastern Mediterranean is a Turkish lake in which its fleet sails and its companies undertake exploration for oil and natural gas ignoring the borders of the economic zone of the countries of the eastern Mediterranean, and there is Iran, which occupies three of them. United Arab Emirates, and prefers indirect control through Iranian economic and security agents and institutions in Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq and Syria, and outside the Middle East, Russia has fixed bases in Syria that are fully under its sovereignty, and US forces are located near the oil fields in northern Syria.
The second of these milestones is the overhaul of the political map of the Arab world, which also opens the door to control of its territory or to threatening neighbors, just as Turkey is currently doing in Libya and also in Qatar, and just like the Iran is doing this through its previously mentioned allies, and just as Israel can do through its connections. Growing up with the Arab Gulf States.
The third of these characteristics is that the countries involved in the design of the new Sykes-Picot were not party to the first Sykes-Picot. Rather, they can envision their expansion into the Arab world in retaliation for what happened to them because of the First Division, and in the aftermath of World War I this is the case with Turkey, which the Arabs revolted. During this war, and its president claims that its expansion in the western Mediterranean is a restoration of the properties of the Ottoman state, which some Turkish historians consider the first Arab revolution to be a betrayal, and the strange thing is that the second of these parties is Russia, whose Bolshevik strangeness revealed what happened between British and French diplomats and with Tsarist participation. In 1916, Russia could avenge its deprivation of the Istanbul region, parts of Armenia and large areas inhabited by Kurds in northeastern Turkey at present, which these two diplomats promised, by a direct presence on the coast of the warm seas of Latakia in Syria.
And the third part is the United States of America, which has not yet become a major pole of the international system with strategic interests in all parts of the world, and Israel stands on common ground between the countries that mapped the Middle East after World War I and countries that did not participate in these secret talks, Even though the Zionist movement was not directly present in the Sykes-Picot talks, the creation of ‘Israel was an indirect result of the division of the East Arab between France and Britain, as well as close ties between Chaim Weizmann, who later became president of the World Zionist Organization (1921-1931) and the first president of Israel. Arthur James Balfour, the British Foreign Secretary who made this disturbing promise. Britain emerges as a follower of the United States if its parliament allows it to have a military presence in the region, and it is currently occupied with its internal conditions and its exit from the European Union, and has avoided her own dreams of empire, and France is fighting by diplomatic means to resist the extension of Turkish and Iranian influence in the eastern and western Mediterranean ineffective. Major.
And the fourth feature of this new division of the Arab world, and unlike the first division, it takes place with effective Arab participation. The First Division was a betrayal of promises made by representatives of the British Empire at that time, including diplomats and spies, in which they renounced their commitment to support the establishment of a single Arab kingdom in the Arab Mashrek, and the opposing party was a mixture of the traditional leadership of Sharif Hussein and his sons and Arab intellectuals and military officers of the Ottoman army in this area. The era, including Aziz Al-Masry and others, was later allowed to hold high ministerial posts in some Arab countries, and the behavior of the British colonial government shocked them, even though Sharif Hussein was able to lead and his son three Arab countries, Hijaz, Iraq and Jordan, in compensation for the betrayal of the pact before Abdulaziz overthrows. Ibn Saud in the state of Hejaz, ending the existence of the marginal family there, but the dream of one Arab state remained alive in the hearts of many in all these countries. As for the new division, it enjoys the support or neglect of the powerful Arab parties. We have not heard an Arab voice decisively reject, even verbally, Israel’s attempt to annex large areas in the Jordan Valley, with the exception of King Abdullah of Jordan, who refused to meet with Netanyahu. , the Prime Minister of Israel, according to what Israeli newspapers have revealed, of course without neglecting the mention of a statement by the Arab League in this regard. Nobody rates it by weight. Arab parties such as the government of Qatar, the Muslim Brotherhood movement in Egypt and Tunisia, and armed organizations that wave the banner of Islam, are participating in the efforts of Turkish forces to expand their influence in Syria, Iraq and Syria. Libya, and are allied with Iran, the Syrian government, armed organizations and political forces in Lebanon, Yemen and Iraq.
Can national security be assured in light of the new division?
Of course, this situation can be assessed from an Arab national perspective. It is possible and clear, but this prospect has lost its credibility with the numerous Arab defeats since 1967, and most Arab governments have abandoned any serious commitment to Arab solidarity, but these situations can be viewed from the perspective of Qatar’s pure interest, and the answer is clear. There is not a single Arab country that does not face a real and immediate threat to its Qatari security. I start with the large Arab countries, whose common position in 1973 was the last shining moment for Arab solidarity, namely Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia. Egypt, according to President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi, faces threats to its security from the east, west and south, and even with the Turkish maritime presence in the eastern Mediterranean also from north, as well as the continuing terrorist attacks from time to time in the Sinai. The missiles launched by the Ansar Allah Houthis on the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia fall from Yemen, in which the Kingdom is waging a war with the help of the UAE that has failed to resolve it for five years, and there are armed forces of at least five countries and dozens of warring armed organizations on Syrian soil. This article will not be enough to mention Qatar’s internal and external security threats to all Arab countries.
It should be noted that these threats are current and existing despite the alliances that Arab countries have made with regional and international parties. The implicit and open alliance with Israel with the United States has failed to protect the Saudi Arabian-led Gulf states from what they see as a direct or disguised Iranian threat behind the Ansar Allah organization in Yemen, and if NATO countries doubt the seriousness of the United States ‘commitment to protecting its security, then the United States’ commitment will be The security of the Gulf States is stronger than its commitment to the countries from Western Europe, with which they have cultural, political, economic and historical ties, and they certainly need it in their competition with China and Russia? Will the alliance with Iran, Turkey or Russia be firmer in the face of internal changes in these countries or in Arab countries allied with them?
Purely national long-term interest calls on Arab intellectual elites first, before their governments, to reconsider Sykes-Picot’s new dangers to their security, and perhaps their governments will listen to them before it is too much. late.