Archive Azar 2024

The Sykes-Picot Agreement, officially known as the Asia Minor Agreement, was a secret arrangement between the United Kingdom and France, with the assent of the Russian Empire, during World War I.

It was negotiated by British diplomat Sir Mark Sykes and French diplomat François Georges-Picot in 1916. This agreement divided the Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire into British and French spheres of influence, laying the groundwork for the modern geopolitical landscape of the Middle East.

The consequences of the Sykes-Picot Agreement have been debated for over a century, as it has been regarded by many as the root of much of the instability in the region.

Historical Context

By 1916, World War I had entered its second year, with the Ottoman Empire siding with the Central Powers against the Allies. As the war progressed, the Allies—particularly Britain and France—began to plan the post-war division of the Ottoman Empire. At the same time, the Arab populations of the Ottoman territories sought greater autonomy and, in some cases, complete independence.

The Sykes-Picot Agreement was not a public treaty but rather a clandestine understanding, reached in the context of a series of other secret diplomatic negotiations, including the 1915 Husayn-McMahon correspondence. The latter promised Arab independence in exchange for an Arab revolt against the Ottomans. However, the Sykes-Picot Agreement revealed the colonial powers’ true intentions, which did not include full Arab sovereignty.

Key Provisions of the Agreement

The Sykes-Picot Agreement carved the Ottoman-controlled Arab lands into distinct spheres of influence:

France was to control modern-day Syria and Lebanon and would be granted influence over parts of southeastern Turkey and northern Iraq.

Britain was given direct control over territories that are now Iraq, Kuwait, and Jordan, as well as coastal areas of present-day Israel and Palestine.

Palestine was to be under international administration, though both powers sought influence there.

Russia was granted control over parts of northeastern Anatolia and Constantinople (Istanbul).

While the agreement acknowledged the possibility of “independent Arab states,” it also made it clear that these states would be under the protection and guidance of Britain and France. This effectively meant that Arab self-determination was subordinated to European colonial interests.

Critique of the Agreement

The Sykes-Picot Agreement has been the subject of significant criticism, both at the time of its revelation and in subsequent historical analyses. Its critics have argued that it was flawed on multiple levels, from its disregard for ethnic, religious, and tribal divisions in the region to its betrayal of Arab aspirations for independence.

1. Disregard for Ethnic and Religious Realities

The agreement carved up the Middle East with little regard for the ethnic, sectarian, and tribal makeup of the populations. Artificial borders were drawn, grouping together diverse communities with different, and often conflicting, religious and ethnic identities. For instance, the Sunni Arab, Shi’a Arab, and Kurdish populations of Iraq were placed within a single political entity, sowing seeds of future internal strife.

The boundaries created by the agreement have often been blamed for exacerbating sectarian conflicts, such as those seen in Lebanon and Iraq throughout the 20th and 21st centuries. The French mandate over Lebanon, for example, led to the creation of a confessionalist system (this allowed people to be grouped by religious confession as opposed to nationality or ethnicity), which institutionalized sectarianism rather than promoting unity.

2. Betrayal of Arab Nationalism

The agreement was made without any consultation with Arab leaders, particularly Sharif Hussein of Mecca, who had been promised an independent Arab kingdom in exchange for supporting the British war effort against the Ottomans. This duplicity, combined with the later Balfour Declaration in 1917, which promised a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, further alienated Arab populations from European powers.

The Arab revolt against Ottoman rule, led by Hussein and his sons, was based on the expectation of eventual independence. The revelation of the Sykes-Picot Agreement after the Russian Revolution in 1917 shattered these expectations, fostering distrust and resentment toward the colonial powers, particularly Britain and France.

3. Colonialism and Imperial Interests

The agreement was emblematic of European colonial attitudes in the early 20th century, which viewed the non-European world as a chessboard on which imperial powers could expand their influence. The primary concern of Britain and France was securing strategic and economic advantages, particularly access to resources like oil and control of trade routes, including the Suez Canal.

Rather than promoting the development of stable, independent states, the agreement established mandates that allowed Britain and France to exert indirect control over the region. This not only delayed the emergence of fully sovereign Middle Eastern nations but also created a legacy of resentment toward Western intervention that persists to this day.

4. Lasting Instability

The arbitrary borders created by the Sykes-Picot Agreement have often been cited as a contributing factor to the chronic instability that has plagued the Middle East. The artificial nature of the nation-states created after World War I has led to repeated conflicts, both between and within these countries. In many cases, the agreement sowed the seeds of future disputes over territory, identity, and governance.

For example, the conflict between Israel and Palestine has its roots in the post-war settlement and the international administration proposed for Palestine. Additionally, the ongoing struggles in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon can also be traced to the haphazard imposition of borders that failed to reflect the realities on the ground.

To Bring it All Together

The Sykes-Picot Agreement was a product of its time—an era when European powers divided the world to serve their imperial interests with little regard for the people living within those borders. The agreement’s disregard for ethnic and religious realities, its betrayal of Arab nationalist aspirations, and its perpetuation of colonialism had far-reaching consequences. The boundaries it created contributed to the fragmentation of the Middle East, laying the groundwork for many of the conflicts that have since defined the region.

While the Agreement may have been designed to secure British and French interests in the short term, its long-term effects have been disastrous. The legacy of this agreement is still felt today, as the Middle East continues to grapple with the consequences of externally imposed borders and the unresolved aspirations of its peoples for genuine self-determination.

Introduction

Tarof is one of the defining characteristics of Iranian culture, reflecting a set of manners and etiquette that individuals practice in their relationships with others. It functions as a social lubricant, allowing people to express politeness, respect, and friendship through a series of ritualistic phrases and behaviors.

The term tarof originates from the Arabic word “Arafah,” meaning to know or become acquainted, underscoring its function of expressing familiarity.

In modern Iran, tarof manifests in many ways: from greeting and formal introductions to offering and politely refusing hospitality or gifts. It represents a delicate dance of manners and deference, where both parties understand the nuances of the exchange.

Background of Tārof

Historically, tarof has deep roots in Persian literature and the cultural expectations of respect, especially between the young and elders.

These traditions are reflected in Persian praise literature and historical texts, where flattery and titles were often used to express respect, especially toward those in positions of power.

For example, rulers would bestow titles such as “Yamin al-Dawlah” and “Nasser Din Allah” to individuals, signifying the importance of their relationship with the caliphate. Over time, this practice evolved, becoming an essential part of Iranian social interactions.

During the Safavid and Qajar periods, the language of tarof grew more elaborate. Travelers to Iran often commented on the exaggerated hospitality and compliments, and some, like Hermann Norden, admired the warm reception they received from Iranians.

This tradition has persisted into the modern era, with many foreign visitors noting the complex nature of tarof during social interactions in Iran, particularly under the rule of Naser al-Din Shah.

Contemporary Use and Regional Variations

The practice of tarof is not uniform across Iran. It can vary significantly depending on the region and social group.

For example, the Kurds of Iran, known for their hospitality, engage in extreme tarof practices, particularly when offering food to guests. In Kurdish regions, it is customary to offer food to anyone passing by, and failing to do so would be considered a serious breach of etiquette. This contrasts with other regions where tarof may be less intense or practiced differently.

In everyday life, tarof is most frequently observed during invitations to social gatherings.

Hosts often downplay the quality of their hospitality, repeatedly apologizing for “insufficient” food, while guests respond by praising the host’s generosity. This ritualistic exchange is well understood by both parties and serves to reinforce bonds of respect and friendship.

Gift-giving is another important context for tarof, particularly when visiting a patient or returning from a religious pilgrimage.

Despite the often hollow nature of such compliments, both parties generally understand the performative nature of tarof, which has become a social norm that is rarely taken literally.

Parallels in Other Cultures

Many cultures around the world have similar customs of exaggerated politeness or ritualistic refusal. These practices, like tarof, serve as markers of respect, social hierarchy, or politeness.

1. Japan: Tatemae and Honne
   In Japan, the concepts of tatemae (public facade) and honne (true feelings) are similar to tarof. Social interactions in Japan are often dictated by tatemae, where individuals express what is expected of them, regardless of their true feelings. For instance, Japanese people might insist that guests stay longer or refuse gifts at first, just as Iranians do.
2. China: Keqi (客气)
   In Chinese culture, keqi, meaning politeness or modesty, is also comparable to tarof. When offered a gift or favor, it is customary in China to refuse a few times before accepting, a gesture that conveys humility and gratitude.
3. India: Manners of Respect
   In India, exaggerated politeness and modesty also play an important role in social etiquette, particularly during greetings or when hosting guests. Indian hosts often say, “Please excuse the simple meal,” when in fact they have prepared a feast. Similarly, during gift exchanges, the giver and receiver engage in a ritual of modest refusal before the gift is finally accepted, reflecting a broader South Asian pattern of showing respect through deference.
4. Mexico: Modesty and Humility
   In Mexico, modesty in hospitality can also be seen in the phrase “Es poca cosa” (It’s nothing) when presenting food or gifts. Mexican hosts often downplay their efforts and display humility when hosting guests, a practice deeply rooted in cultural values of respect. Guests are expected to recognize this modesty as part of the social etiquette and respond accordingly with compliments.

Special Case: Iranian Tārof and Italian Fare i Complimenti

The Italian concept of fare i complimenti revolves around the art of giving compliments. Italians are known for their expressive and passionate communication style, and giving compliments is a way to show appreciation, respect, or admiration. It often involves a certain level of exaggeration or enthusiasm that reflects the Mediterranean warmth.

Example 01:

If an acquaintance of yours (not an intimate friend) invites you for dinner, the correct answer to the invitation should not be: “sì, grazie”, but on the contrary something like: “no, dai, sarebbe troppo disturbo per te” (no, thanks, that would be too much trouble for you). The other person is then supposed to insist and only at this time you should accept the invitation. While having dinner, if the landlady asks you whether you want some more pasta, you are supposed to say: “no grazie”. Your kind refusal will allow the host to repeat his or her offer, after which you can decide to accept it or not.

Critical View of Tarof in Iranian Society

Despite its prevalence, Iranians are often aware of the superficial nature of tarof. Both the giver and receiver know that the compliments exchanged are often insincere, but they continue to engage in the ritual out of social obligation.

One popular story in Iran humorously critiques the emptiness of tarof: a man offers a passing horseman food by saying, “Bismillah, please join me,” and the rider takes the offer seriously and says “Where should I stable my horse?”. The man, regretting his excessive politeness, then jokingly says, “Stable your horse to my tongue!”

Notably, proverbs like “Shah Abdul Azimi’s Tarof” are generally used for any non-practical tarofs that do not come from the heart. The origin of this particular expression is linked to the shrine of Shah Abdul Azim, a revered religious figure in Rey, near Tehran. Pilgrims from Tehran would visit the shrine during the day and, given the short distance, almost always return to their homes at night. The people of Rey, fully aware that these pilgrims intended to go back to Tehran by nightfall, would engage in a highly exaggerated form of tārof, insisting that the visitors stay with them despite knowing the offer would not be accepted.

To Bring it all together

Tārof is a deeply embedded cultural tradition in Iran that has evolved over centuries, shaping social interactions in significant ways. While similar practices exist in cultures around the world, each has its own unique nuances. Despite its performative nature, tarof continues to play an essential role in maintaining social order, respect, and relationships within Iranian society. Like many such cultural rituals, it can be both a source of pride and a subject of critique, illustrating the complex relationship between tradition and modernity in contemporary Iran.