105 years ago on 16 May 1916, the Sykes-Picot agreement was signed. The British and French obtained mandates over different parts of Muslim lands, that had formerly been part of the Ottoman Empire. 

The First World War was very much a clash of dying empires competing to consolidate or take control of territories/regions.  The aftermath of the World War I, in which there were 40 million casualties saw the era of the rise of nation-states. 

Empires had always been composed of different nations of people, who tended to co-exist with their own tribal or feudal leaders, but in return for professing allegiance to some central authoritative ruler/religious figure or state. At a time where population size was relatively small compared to today, it was possible to maintain control over large tracts of territory and nations of people using relationships of suzerainty. Central control and authority could easily be enforced militarily if needed, as the central authority had a monopoly on arms/ violence, taxes, and could use soldiers from different ethnicities and regions to keep other ethnicities or tribes in check.  

The Rise of Nation-States and Liberation Ideologies.

However, the rise of nationalist sentiments, especially in Europe in the 19th century after the French Revolution, meant the inevitable end of Empires, and the emergence of different kinds of global power relationships. World War 1 led to increased ethno-nationalist movements everywhere. Different races, religions or regions now wanted their own independent states.  

The victorious European powers used this nationalism to cement their control over parts of the Ottoman Empire, and began to carve up different peoples in the Muslim world into statelets and eventually states. As part of this capitulation the Sykes-Picot agreement  was signed between France and Britain, and ratified by the Russian Empire.   The agreement essentially drew lines on maps and carved up control of  the Levant territories between the two  European powers, and they eventually empowered local leaders whom they preferred . The diversity of peoples in the region, and their history and cultural differences was given little thought. Existing centuries-old ethnic, tribal, or religious and sectarian solidarities and loyalties were downplayed for European imagined concepts of race, identity or nation. 

Under European tutelage the new states of Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, and eventually Israel were born.  Whilst other Arab nation-states emerged later in the century.  The states contained different peoples or tribes within their boundaries. These states tried to forge new bonds of social solidarity and identity around modern nationalism, or Pan-Arabism, or Ba’ath socialism.  

Jewish nationalism had also emerged, and took on the form of Zionism to forge a Jewish racial solidarity. What remained of the Ottoman empire became Turkey, who also created a new sense of identity around ethnic Turkish nationalism under Ataturk (Kemalism). 

These new bonds of social solidarity were useful in the struggle against colonial powers helping to achieve physical independence from European occupation, often through wars. For a time, the bonds succeeded in trying to develop new modern states. However, this tended only to be under the rule of local strongmen with military power. The rulers with military power held different peoples together often with brute force, as in the case of Iraq, Syria, and Libya. The military weapons and hardware of the new states ( purchased either from the West and Soviet Union), were as much to hold their own people together, or fight rival states in when needed, as they were for fighting European enemies. 

Nation State and Wars

There have always been nations of people living under empires with their own leadership or governance, which could be considered as states within empires. Modern states or nation states are distinguished from the past in several ways. 

A state is an organised government which has sovereignty over a defined spatial area, with defined borders, recognised by other states internationally. A nation is a group of people who see themselves as a cohesive and coherent unit based on shared racial, ethnic, cultural, or historical criteria. Nations can also be socially constructed units as well as by nature. A nation-state therefore combines both elements. 

A city state is a city which serves as the centre of political, economic, and cultural life over its contiguous territory, and has the capacity to become an independent sovereign city. Such cities include, New York, Tokyo, Shanghai, and some countries like Hong Kong, Dubai, Singapore, and Malta.  

The post empire nation-states have had many wars, including two world wars, with the deaths of the greatest number of people and causalities seen in history. In a 2006 study, Andreas Wimmer and Brian Min argued that the formation of nation-states increases the likelihood of wars (“From Empire to Nation-State: Explaining Wars in the Modern World 1816 -2001”). They argue there have been three main types of war from the emergence of the nation states: (1) wars of independence aimed at removing foreign rule; (2) Civil wars within nation states, sometimes based on ethno-nationalist struggles over the character of a state; (3) interstate wars to help oppressed co-nationalists in other states.

To this list, I would add that in Muslim lands, there have subsequently been wars or popular movements to remove indigenous oppressive rulers or military from power. European states learned the hard way about the capacity of nation-states for war and mass destruction. In the aftermath of World War II, they established collective institution and military structures for solidarity to maintain peace among themselves, such as the European Union and NATO. 

On the other hand, in the last 45 years, the Muslim world have undergone one of their worst historical episodes of violence, human suffering, and mass refugee populations, particularly in the Middle East. 

The End of Middle East Nation-States.

These last 45 years have probably been the Muslim world’s World War II moment. The rulers and the people in the region must surely have concluded by now, that they cannot continue to slaughter each other, and destroy each others infrastructure, often at the behest and interests of Western nations. 

In any event, the nation-state in this region is dying or dead. To continue as a nation-state requires a state not only to be able to exercise control of its borders, but retain the loyalty and allegiance of its people. In the Middle East both these requirements elements appear to be crumbling, in an era where religious or ideological movements and affiliations are now global. People around the world hold multiple allegiances whilst residing inside one state.

If we examine the current situation of some states in the region, we find in some cases the borders are now irrelevant, or people inside states have loyalties/affiliations outside of those states.  

In Lebanon, Hizbullah holds the state together yet their loyalty is to Iran and its Supreme Leader. The Sunni leaders have tended to be supported by Saudi Arabia, and lean towards Saudi sponsored or other Sunni movements. Christian leaders on the other hand the groups historically empowered by the French are more pro-Western. Arabism is now a dying  unifying ideology. There is also a significant Palestinian population in Lebanon,  just as there is in Jordan. The Palestinian people are committed to an independent Palestinian state. 

Iraq is effectively now divided into three main groups.  The majority Shia community, the Sunni Arabs and the Sunni Kurdish community who have their own ambitions of a regional Kurdish state across a  number of states in the region. Each of these communities are in a contest for power and often oppress and fight each other for control.   Meanwhile Syria has effectively ceased to exist as a state.  It is held together by Russia and Iran. Around half its population are refugees and reside elsewhere, in Turkey, Lebanon, or Jordan. Syria is under Russian, Iranian, and part Turkish control.

In Yemen, the Houthis are have emerged as the most powerful force in the country. Yet their loyalties are to Houthi movements and their leaders, who are also supported by Iran. Whilst in Bahrain the ruling leadership are Sunni whilst  the majority of the population are Shia.

Some of the smaller Gulf Arab states have ruling tribes and small number of indigenous Arab citizens.  Yet the vast majority of their populations consist mainly of non-indigenous people who have few property or citizenship rights. These people effectively run these economies, yet they are citizens and  are citizens loyal to their own states, notably India.

Further afield, Libya and Sudan have both fragmented into their racial, tribal,or ethnic components and been subject to civil wars, with outside powers aiding different groups and vying for control.

Iran meanwhile with it larger population will remain a key player in the region, and sees itself as the protector of Shia communities in the Middle East and beyond, as well as a supporter of Palestinian and other “resistance” movements.

On the other hand, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, and Oman are beginning to turn to Israel as a protector of their interests in the region, against the background of a retreating USA, and emerging power block around Iran. The United States having realised that the region destined for much political and economic turmoil for some time to come, has decided it is better to move to new emerging sources of wealth, in other parts of the world.

Ba’athism and Arabism as unifying ideologies in the region have both failed, and will no longer be able to hold countries or the region together. As alternatives both  Saudi Arabia and Iran have used religion to attract loyalties of people in the region, to secure their ethno-national interests, and to counter each other. This has also fuelled a bitter sectarianism which has found expression around the world and among Muslim communities in the West.

Population Growth and Economic Survival.

If these political challenges are not enough, the economic challenges are likely to become even greater. As oil resources have begun to diminish in the region, the oil states are now in a bitter competition for new sources of revenue (primarily high-end Western tourism, leisure, and service sectors). Wealth in the region has become even more concentrated among ruling elites and their families or business corporations emerging from them.

However, the challenges of population growth, including the growth of people from different ethnicities will mean that meeting the economic expectations of all the people in the region will become a major issue within states.  This is likely to lead to further political and military conflicts and possibly even more ethnic/religious fragmentation. 

In 2012, the University of Haifa in Israel, published a geo-strategic forecast of the population growth challenges in the region. The table below shows just how serious those challenges for economic survival are, with huge growths in population happening in the region. The growth forecasts for 2011 and 2025, have already been reached or exceeded in most countries.

The report concludes that that the Arab population in the region is likely to double, and that states in the region will not be able to create the necessary infrastructure in 30 years to meet the needs of their people. This, it is argued, will lead to more social protests, religious extremism, and religious wars. 

The forecast for Israeli society is also not optimistic. It argues that a decline of the population in secular Jews and the increase in population of ultra-orthodox religious Jews (due to family sizes) will lead to gloomy social, political, and military outcomes and the emergence of a religious Jewish state instead of a secular one. Events that have unfolded this month in Israel, including the election,  perhaps indicate that chaos has begun, and a process of mass elimination/eviction of the Palestinian population is a real possibility. 

Conclusion 

The nation-states created in the aftermath of Sykes-Picot region are disintegrating, or will become practically meaningless in the coming decades. The people and states in the region can continue to wage war with each other, cause huge suffering to their people’s, and destroy what infrastructure they have, or they can focus on their many common challenges and co-existence. That means they have to realise  that unless they work towards a process of unification and new forms of governance structure beyond the nation-state, the future looks grim.  A failure to do so will mean that they will not be able to meet the infrastructure needs (hospitals, education, transport etc) of their populations or their economic needs. The last 45 years of conflict must has to be the Muslim people’s World War II moment, in which we realise individual nations-states and the ideologies that came with them are failing. To avoid what seems to be inevitable wars of nation-states, Muslims in the region need to come up with a collective vision and structure for the region and future for the Ummah. Whatever, emerges from the current chaos in the Middle East, it will not look like that which the European powers created in the region. Sykes-Picot is dead.