Repeating History? The Fatal Flaws of Exclusionary Diplomacy from Palestine to Ukraine

The legacy of early 20th-century geopolitical agreements continues to shape global conflicts and diplomatic efforts. Two pivotal document the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 and the Balfour Declaration of 1917 had a profound impact on redrawing the map of the Middle East and laid the foundation for complex, ongoing tensions in Palestine.

The Sykes-Picot Agreement was a secret arrangement between Britain and France, with Russia’s approval, to divide up the Ottoman Empire’s Middle Eastern territories following World War I.

While designed to protect strategic and colonial interests, the agreement established borders that often disregarded the deep-seated ethnic, religious, and cultural landscape of the region, leading to consequences that continue to resonate today.

Just a year later, the Balfour Declaration saw the British government declare its support for a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, while also promising to safeguard the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities.

Although the declaration’s text attempted to strike a balance between competing interests, its aftermath revealed inherent contradictions and set the stage for contentious political dynamics in Palestine. Both the Sykes-Picot Agreement and the Balfour Declaration were emblematic of a broader trend decisions made by European powers from a position of colonial authority, often without genuine consultation with the region’s inhabitants.

These agreements not only redefined Palestine’s political trajectory but also embedded ongoing tensions between Jewish aspirations for statehood and the rights of indigenous Palestinian communities.

The underlying assumption was that global powers could impose arrangements and achieve stability, even when the perspectives of those most affected were inadequately considered.

This historical experience underlines a pressing lesson for today: Europe and the wider international community continues to bear a responsibility to engage ethically and inclusively in ongoing regional challenges. Acknowledging historical missteps is a necessary first step, but meaningful progress requires diplomacy that is principled, inclusive, and attuned to the diverse perspectives and rights of all stakeholders.

The value of these lessons can be seen in present-day diplomacy, such as the recent summit between President Trump and President Putin in Alaska. Much like the Yalta Conference of 1945, where major powers charted the post-World War II order without input from smaller nations,

Alaska meeting on the Ukraine conflict has raised concerns due to the absence of direct involvement from European countries or NATO.

Such exclusive negotiations prompt legitimate questions about the fairness, legitimacy, and long-term effectiveness of outcomes decided without broad stakeholder input.

History shows that when critical regional decisions are made through bilateral or narrowly focused talks, important voices are sidelined and the risk of instability grows. Diplomatic outcomes reached through exclusive processes rarely endure.

For any peace effort to be genuinely sustainable, all directly affected parties must have a seat at the negotiating table this is not just a diplomatic ideal, but a matter of enduring legal and moral obligation.

Reflecting on the outcomes of Sykes-Picot, the Balfour Declaration, and Yalta demonstrates the importance of inclusive negotiations, transparency, and respect for sovereignty and human rights in building a just international order.