The European powers' arbitrary drawing of borders in Africa and the Middle East during the colonial era is a primary, but often overlooked, cause of the region's persistent instability and conflict.

These borders, created with little to no regard for existing ethnic, linguistic, and cultural divisions, forcibly merged disparate groups into single states and, conversely, split homogeneous populations across multiple countries.

This colonial legacy has fueled ethnic tensions, territorial disputes, and separatist movements that continue to erupt into violence decades after independence.

The Arbitrary Nature of Colonial Borders

The "Scramble for Africa," formalized by the Berlin Conference of 1884-1885, epitomizes the disregard for local realities. European diplomats, sitting in a room thousands of miles away, carved up the continent like a pie. Lines were drawn along rivers, mountains, and even straight across deserts, solely to serve the economic and geopolitical interests of imperial powers. The Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 did the same for the Middle East, dividing the former Ottoman Empire between Britain and France and creating modern-day Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan.

This process created a dual problem: it forced rival groups who had little in common to coexist within the same state, and it severed cultural groups, leaving them as minorities in different nations. The new states were often artificial constructs, lacking a shared national identity or historical foundation. This is a crucial, often unacknowledged, aspect of the problem. When decolonization swept through both regions in the mid-20th century, the new African and Middle Eastern leaders, in a bid to prevent further chaos, largely agreed to uphold the existing colonial borders. This decision, while perhaps pragmatic at the time, essentially locked in the inherited flaws and ensured a future of instability.

The African Continent: A Legacy of Division

The impact of these borders is perhaps most visible in Africa. The continent's post-colonial history is littered with civil wars and insurgencies that are direct consequences of colonial-era mapmaking. The forced amalgamation of different ethnic groups often led to a competition for political power and resources, as the majority group frequently dominated the central government, marginalizing others.

One of the most tragic examples is the Rwandan Genocide of 1994. The conflict between the Hutu and Tutsi ethnic groups was exacerbated by Belgian colonial policies that favored the Tutsis, creating a system of social and political stratification that deepened existing resentments. When the Belgians departed, the institutionalized divisions remained, and the struggle for power between the two groups eventually led to a horrific genocide. While the roots of the conflict are complex, the colonial "divide and rule" strategy and its lasting impact on ethnic identity and power dynamics were undeniable catalysts.

Similarly, the conflicts in Sudan and South Sudan are a direct result of colonial boundary-making. The British colonial administration ruled the two regions separately but then merged them into one country just before independence in 1956. The north, which was predominantly Arab and Muslim, was historically and culturally distinct from the south, which was primarily sub-Saharan African and Christian or animist. Decades of marginalization of the south led to two brutal civil wars, the second of which resulted in the south seceding to form its own country in 2011. However, the new border did not solve all the problems, as it left unresolved issues over oil revenues and the status of certain border areas, like the Abyei region, which continue to be flashpoints for conflict.

The case of Somalia also demonstrates the issue of split ethnicities. The Somali people, a largely homogeneous group, were divided by colonial powers into British Somaliland, Italian Somaliland, French Somaliland, Ethiopian Somalia, and a Somali-majority region of Kenya. After independence, the dream of a "Greater Somalia" led to a series of irredentist conflicts. The Ogaden War (1977-1978) with Ethiopia was a direct attempt to annex a Somali-inhabited region and is a prime example of how colonial borders continue to incite inter-state conflict.

The Middle East: Unstable States and Enduring Rivalries

The borders drawn in the Middle East have been equally, if not more, destructive. The Sykes-Picot Agreement ignored the region's complex religious, sectarian, and tribal affiliations, drawing straight lines that artificially created nations. This led to a concentration of ethnic and religious groups within certain territories, often under a dominant, state-sponsored identity that marginalized others.

The creation of Iraq is a textbook example. The British cobbled together three former Ottoman provinces with distinct identities: the predominantly Shia south, the Sunni center, and the Kurdish north. This forced union created a perpetual struggle for power between these groups. The Sunni minority, under leaders like Saddam Hussein, dominated the state, leading to decades of oppression and internal strife. The post-2003 conflict, the rise of sectarian violence, and the ongoing struggle for autonomy by the Kurds can all be traced back to this initial, flawed foundation.

Syria and Lebanon share a similar fate. The French carved them out of the Ottoman Empire, imposing borders that forced different sectarian groups, including Sunnis, Shias, Alawites, Druze, and Christians, to coexist. While Lebanon's political system was designed to give power to different religious groups, it often led to paralysis and, ultimately, civil war. In Syria, the rise of the minority Alawite sect, to which the Assad family belongs, led to a decades-long authoritarian rule that brutally suppressed dissent from the majority Sunni population. The Syrian civil war, with its deeply sectarian fault lines, is a direct eruption of these long-simmering tensions.

The enduring instability in the Middle East is further compounded by the fact that many of these borders cross resource-rich areas, such as oil fields. This has turned what could have been a simple territorial dispute into a highly coveted, geopolitical conflict. The border between Iraq and Kuwait, for instance, has been a source of tension for decades, culminating in Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990. The dispute was rooted in historical claims and, crucially, in access to oil fields, a resource whose geopolitical importance was solidified during the colonial era.

Conclusion: An Unfinished Chapter

The legacy of European colonialism is not just a historical footnote. It is a living, breathing reality that continues to shape the political landscape of Africa and the Middle East. The borders, drawn with a ruler and a pen, were not just lines on a map; they were seeds of future conflict, sowing ethnic divisions, fueling territorial disputes, and creating a framework of instability that has been almost impossible to overcome. While other factors like poor governance, resource competition, and external intervention certainly contribute to the problem, the colonial borders remain the original sin—the fundamental fracture from which many subsequent problems have grown.

Without a deep understanding of this colonial legacy, it's impossible to grasp why so many of today's conflicts in these regions are so intractable and devastating.