The Historical Significance of Barrack’s Syria Message and the Eastern Question

A message from Tom Barrack, whom Trump appointed as the U.S. Ambassador to Ankara, has caught the attention of many. Barrack made an assessment about Europe, the U.S., and the Eastern world—that is, our Ottoman geography—over the past century. The introductory part of his assessment reads as follows:

"A century ago, the West imposed maps, mandates, drawn borders, and foreign rule. Sykes-Picot divided Syria and a broader region not for peace but for imperial gain. This mistake cost generations. We will not do this again."

If Barrack’s assessment is viewed within the framework of day-to-day developments, the historical depth of the events he references is lost. The incidents he mentions are, at least for us, the sorrowful fragments of the infamous "Eastern Question." As is known, the Eastern Question signified the dismantling of the Ottoman state. There was a struggle for dominance over Ottoman territories, and this struggle reached its final stage with World War I. What Barrack refers to as "Western intervention"—events that persist to this day—points to the continuation of the Eastern Question.

When we use the concept of "trauma" for social and political events, psychological dimensions come to mind. Those who employ this term are indeed pointing to the psychological effects these events have left on us. I will set aside the debate over how accurate this definition is. Personally, I believe reducing such major events to psychological dimensions is problematic. For this reason, I have long tried to draw attention to attitudes like "let’s look for the fault in ourselves," which ultimately lead us away from reality. The problems caused by this inward-looking perspective run deep enough to warrant extensive discussion. The "let’s look for the fault in ourselves" narrative is a psychological attitude that sidelines both the events themselves and the ideas that shaped them. I would argue this attitude stems from a prolonged sense of mourning. In short, the chain of events Barrack refers to belongs to a reality beyond the concept of "fault"—it is about structures. I am not a scientist, but the structures encompassing these events necessitate a scholarly perspective.

When Barrack speaks of "a century, maps, mandates, Sykes-Picot, and imperial gain," he is, of course, speaking within the context of U.S. history. This also refers to the U.S.-centric world order that emerged after World War I. Barrack’s terms are a reference to the events and history surrounding Syria. As is known, Palestine was also part of the Syrian map, organized as provinces. By pledging not to repeat "a mistake that cost generations," Trump’s Ambassador to Ankara is essentially acknowledging that disorder and injustices were caused. These statements, too, should not be reduced to psychological dimensions. Because the interventions Barrack mentions led to the deaths of a million people in Syria and the displacement of millions more. The ongoing expansionist "mandate" system has brought Palestine to utter ruin.

So, what is Barrack trying to say? Is there a hidden meaning in his words? Is he trying to appease, or is he pointing to the collapse of a system?

It would be a grave mistake to reduce Barrack’s message to psychological terms. There is no way these words can be understood through psychology. He is not trying to say that the fault lies within himself or the U.S. Unfortunately, countries that have invested in Israel—primarily Britain, the U.S., Germany, and France—have stained our geography with unimaginable crimes that will leave lasting marks on history. As a result of blockades lasting days, weeks, months, and years, Palestinians were starved. First, they were killed with horrifying weapons; now, they are being starved. Such a significant siege and blockade cannot be dismissed with phrases like "Oh, this state of the Islamic world…" Everyone knows there is a hegemony at work, and Palestinians are being killed because they refuse to submit to it. Everyone also knows that threats of the same fate have been hurled at others. The countries I listed were directly involved in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Palestine. European nations, especially Britain and Germany, protect and support Israel under all circumstances. This has nothing to do with fearing Israel or Jewish capital. They share an ideological stance—because they wholeheartedly believe in Zionism, a colonialist and imperialist ideology. We cannot explain this away with psychology.

We cannot succumb once again to the easy path of "looking for the fault in ourselves" and retreat into an inward-looking perspective. The "mistake that cost generations" must be fully exposed in all its dimensions, and we must debate its consequences.