Journals / All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace / 2020 / Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 1

Deconstructing the Sykes-Picot Myth: Frontiers, Boundaries, Borders and the Evolution of Ottoman Territoriality

Pages
83–104
Publication Date
2019-12-20
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

This study concludes that the Sykes-Picot agreement is only one, complementary part of a long process in the emergence of Middle Eastern geopolitics.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study aims to evaluate the emergence of the Sykes-Picot order and deconstruct its mythologization by proposing an evolutionary assessment of border understanding.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study addresses the following primary research questions: How did the interplay of domestic, regional, and international developments lay the groundwork for the formation of the Sykes-Picot territorial order?
💡
Conclusion & Impact:This study concludes that the Sykes-Picot agreement is only one, complementary part of a long process in the emergence of Middle Eastern geopolitics.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Ottoman territoriality · Sykes-Picot Agreement · Middle Eastern borders

Abstract

This study aims to evaluate the emergence of the Sykes-Picot order and deconstruct its mythologization by proposing an evolutionary assessment of border understanding. This study addresses the following primary research questions: How did the interplay of domestic, regional, and international developments lay the groundwork for the formation of the Sykes-Picot territorial order? How was the administrative structure and regional divisions before the Sykes-Picot agreement and to which border categorizations did these structures correspond? Was the Sykes-Picot agreement the only international intervention that affected the borders of the region or were there other international interventions before the Sykes-Picot agreement? This study argues that the history of Middle Eastern border formation is not only an international one but also involves many aspects that have not widely been taken into consideration. In doing so, this paper adopts a critical historical perspective to analyze the evolution of Middle Eastern borders. This paper proposes a three-tracked evolutionary analytical framework (frontiers, boundaries, borders) to analyze the emergence of borders and applies it to the emergence of Ottoman territoriality. This study concludes that the Sykes-Picot agreement is only one, complementary part of a long process in the emergence of Middle Eastern geopolitics.

🔖

Cite This Article

KURŞUN, A. M. (2019). Deconstructing the Sykes-Picot Myth: Frontiers, Boundaries, Borders and the Evolution of Ottoman Territoriality. All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace, Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 1, 83–104. https://ajindex.com/articles/119769

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (7)

  1. Akarli, Engin. The Long Peace: Ottoman Lebanon, 1861-1920. University of California Press, 1993.
  2. Akyıldız, Ali, and Zekeriya Kurşun, eds. Osmanlı Arap coğrafyası ve Avrupa emperyalizmi. İstanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, 2015.
  3. Al-Maghafi, Fadhl. “More than Just a Boundary Dispute: The Regional Geopolitics of Saudi-Yemeni Relations.” SOAS, University of London, 2012. http://eprints.soas.ac.uk/15941/2/Al-Maghafi_3478_vol2.pdf.
  4. Anscombe, Frederick F. The Ottoman Gulf: The Creation of Kuwait, Saudia Arabia, and Qatar. New York: Columbia University Press, 1997.
  5. Ateş, Sabri. Ottoman-Iranian Borderlands: Making a Boundary, 1843-1914. Cambridge University Press, 2013.
  6. Bilgin, Pınar. “Thinking Postcolonially about the Middle East: Two Moments of Anti-Eurocentric Critique.” Center for Mellemoststudier, June 2016. https://www.google.com.tr/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjz54rjiIrRAhXIvBoKHWy1DXoQFggjMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sdu.dk%2F-%2Fmedia%2Ffiles%2Fom_sdu%2Fcentre%2Fc_mellemoest%2Fvidencenter%2Fartikler%2F2016%2Fbilgin%2Barticle%2B(june%2B16).pdf&usg=AFQjCNEUhMtV_0--tDo8F9vl3tzHrxksYQ&sig2=u63QOpbZF1suUfbBweDKpw. ———. “What Is the Point about Sykes–Picot?” Global Affairs 2, no. 3 (May 26, 2016): 355–59. doi: 10.1080/23340460.2016.1236518. Brunet-Jailly, Emmanuel. “Special Section: Borders, Borderlands and Theory: An Introduction.” Geopolitics 16, no. 1 (January 31, 2011): 1–6. doi: 10.1080/14650045.2010.493765. Buzpınar, Ş Tufan. “Abdülhamid II and Sayyid Fadl Pasha of Hadramawt.” The Journal of Ottoman Studies 13, no. 13 (1993): 227–39.
  7. Çelebi, Katib. Tuhfet ül-kibâr fi esfâr il-bihâr. Müteferrika, 1729. Custred, Glynn. “The Linguistic Consequences of Boundaries, Borderlands, and Frontiers.” Journal of Borderlands Studies 26, no. 3 (December 1, 2011): 265–78. doi: 10.1080/08865655.2011.675716. Danforth, Nick. “Stop Blaming Colonial Borders for the Middle East’s Problems.” The Atlantic, September 11, 2013. http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/09/stop-blaming-colonial-borders-for-the-middle-easts-problems/279561/. Devlet-i Aliyye-i Osmaniye’nin 1313 Senesine Mahsus İstatistik-i Umumiyesidir. İstanbul: Nezaret-i Umur-i Ticaret ve Nafia, 1316. Elden, Stuart. “Thinking Territory Historically.” Geopolitics 15, no. 4 (November 19, 2010): 757–61. doi: 10.1080/14650041003717517. ———. “Why Is the World Divided Territorially?” In Global Politics: A New Introduction, edited by Jenny Edkins and Maja Zehfuss, Se