Skip to content

The French Role in the Sykes-Picot Agreement: Shaping the Modern Middle East


As World War I raged across Europe and beyond, the Allied powers began to turn their attention to the future of the Middle East. The Ottoman Empire, which had long controlled vast swaths of the region, was on the brink of collapse, and the prospect of dividing its territories loomed large. In this context, France emerged as a key player in the negotiation and implementation of the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916, a secret pact that would have far-reaching consequences for the Middle East and its people.

The Decline of the Ottoman Empire and European Imperial Ambitions

To understand the significance of the Sykes-Picot Agreement, it is essential to consider the historical context in which it was conceived. The Ottoman Empire, once a formidable power, had been in decline for centuries, beset by internal strife, economic challenges, and growing nationalist movements among its diverse populations. As the empire weakened, European powers, including France and Britain, sought to expand their influence in the region.

France, in particular, had a long history of involvement in the Middle East. Since the Crusades, French monarchs had claimed the title of "Protector of the Christians in the Holy Land," and French cultural, economic, and religious ties to the region were extensive. In the 19th century, France had established itself as a major power in the Levant, with a significant presence in Lebanon and Syria.

| French Territorial Claims in the Middle East (19th-20th centuries) |
| Lebanon | 1861 – French-controlled autonomous region within the Ottoman Empire |
| Syria | 1920 – French Mandate for Syria and Lebanon established |
| Palestine | 1916 – Sykes-Picot Agreement proposes international administration |

The British-French Rivalry and the Rise of Sykes and Picot

As World War I unfolded, France‘s imperial ambitions in the Middle East clashed with those of its ally and rival, Great Britain. The British government, recognizing the strategic importance of the region for its empire, had begun to develop plans for the post-war division of Ottoman territories. In 1915, Mark Sykes, a young British Conservative MP and self-styled expert on the Near East, proposed dividing the region along the "Acre-Kirkuk line," which would create a British-controlled corridor stretching from the Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf.

When French diplomats learned of Sykes‘ plan, they were deeply concerned. The French government, particularly a group of committed imperialists within the foreign ministry, believed that France‘s interests in the Middle East were at risk. To counter the British proposal, François Georges-Picot, a seasoned diplomat from a family of staunch imperialists, was dispatched to London to negotiate with the British.

Picot‘s mission was shaped by his personal background and the legacy of British-French rivalry in the region. The son of a prominent French lawyer, Picot had joined the foreign service in 1898, the same year as the Fashoda Incident, a diplomatic crisis that brought Britain and France to the brink of war over control of the Upper Nile. The incident, which ended in a humiliating retreat for France, left a lasting impression on Picot, who believed that the French needed to be resolute in their dealings with the British.

The Sykes-Picot Negotiations and Compromise

Picot arrived in London in the autumn of 1915, determined to secure France‘s position in the Middle East. He quickly realized that he could use British guilt over France‘s disproportionate sacrifices in the war to his advantage. Picot argued that French public opinion would not accept a post-war settlement that favored British interests at the expense of France‘s long-standing ties to the region.

Over the course of several months, Picot and Sykes engaged in a series of negotiations, each seeking to advance their country‘s interests while also recognizing the need for compromise. The two men ultimately reached an agreement that divided the Middle East into spheres of influence, with France controlling Syria and Lebanon, and Britain controlling Mesopotamia (modern-day Iraq) and Transjordan (modern-day Jordan).

One of the most contentious issues in the negotiations was the future of Palestine. Both France and Britain had significant interests in the Holy Land, and neither was willing to cede control to the other. As a compromise, Sykes and Picot proposed that Palestine be placed under international administration, a solution that satisfied neither party but allowed the agreement to move forward.

The Aftermath of Sykes-Picot and the Betrayal of Arab Aspirations

The Sykes-Picot Agreement, signed in May 1916, was a turning point in the history of the Middle East. The secret pact, which divided the region into artificial states and spheres of influence, laid the groundwork for the modern Middle East and set the stage for decades of conflict and instability.

One of the most significant consequences of the agreement was the betrayal of Arab aspirations for independence and self-determination. During the war, the British had made promises to Arab leaders, most notably Sharif Hussein of Mecca, that they would support the creation of an independent Arab state in exchange for Arab support against the Ottoman Empire. The Sykes-Picot Agreement, which became public knowledge in 1917, revealed the hollowness of these promises and fueled widespread anger and resentment among the Arab population.

| Key Events in the Aftermath of Sykes-Picot |
| 1917 | Balfour Declaration – British support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine |
| 1920 | San Remo Conference – Allied powers allocate mandates for former Ottoman territories |
| 1920-1946 | French Mandate for Syria and Lebanon |
| 1920-1932 | British Mandate for Palestine |
| 1920-1932 | British Mandate for Mesopotamia (Iraq) |

The Legacy of Sykes-Picot: A Region Shaped by Colonial Interests

More than a century after its signing, the Sykes-Picot Agreement continues to cast a long shadow over the Middle East. The borders drawn by the agreement, often with little regard for the region‘s ethnic, religious, and tribal realities, have been a source of ongoing tension and conflict. The creation of artificial states, such as Iraq and Syria, has led to decades of political instability, authoritarian rule, and sectarian violence.

Moreover, the Sykes-Picot Agreement and the subsequent mandate system established by the League of Nations entrenched European colonial control over the Middle East, with far-reaching consequences for the region‘s political, economic, and social development. The legacy of colonial rule, including the suppression of nationalist movements and the exploitation of local resources, continues to shape the region to this day.


France‘s involvement in the Sykes-Picot Agreement was driven by a complex mix of imperial ambition, long-standing cultural and economic ties to the Middle East, and the desire to secure a prominent position in the post-war world. The French role in the agreement, personified by the determined and skilled diplomat François Georges-Picot, helped shape the contours of the modern Middle East, with consequences that continue to reverberate more than a century later.

As we reflect on the Sykes-Picot Agreement in 2024, it is clear that its legacy remains as relevant as ever. The challenges facing the Middle East today – from the ongoing conflicts in Syria and Iraq to the unresolved question of Palestinian statehood – can be traced, in part, to the decisions made by Sykes, Picot, and their colleagues a century ago. Only by grappling with this complex history and its enduring impact can we hope to build a more stable, just, and prosperous future for the region and its people.