By GARY KENT

LONDON—The borders and states laid down by British and French diplomats, Sykes and Picot in Iraq and Syria nearly a century ago have been challenged by two former senior foreign-policy makers on different sides of the Atlantic in a powerful sign of a major rethink of Western policy.

Former British Foreign Secretary, William Hague wrote in the Daily Telegraph that 'the UK and our allies should signal their openness to new solutions. The borders of Syria and Iraq were largely drawn by two British and French diplomats in 1916. They should not be considered immutable. If the leaders of either country cannot construct a state where all communities can live together, it will be right to consider international support for their partition. Kurds have shown their ability to run their own affairs. A subdivided Syria might now be the only one that can be at peace.'

Separately, in the New York Times, the former US Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton argued that 'Today’s reality is that Iraq and Syria as we have known them are gone. The Islamic State has carved out a new entity from the post-Ottoman Empire settlement, mobilizing Sunni opposition to the regime of President Bashar al-Assad and the Iran-dominated government of Iraq. Also emerging, after years of effort, is a de facto independent Kurdistan.'

He concluded that 'rather than striving to recreate the post-World War I map, Washington should recognize the new geopolitics. The best alternative to the Islamic State in northeastern Syria and western Iraq is a new, independent Sunni state.'

Bolton added that 'The functional independence of Kurdistan reinforces this approach. The Kurds have finally become too big a force in the region for Baghdad or Damascus to push them around. They will not be cajoled or coerced into relinquishing territory they now control to Mr. Assad in Syria or to Iraq’s Shiite militias. The Kurds still face enormous challenges, with dangerously uncertain borders, especially with Turkey. But an independent Kurdistan that has international recognition could work in America’s favor.'

The intellectual interventions of these well-known statesmen will be picked up by British MPs as they prepare to digest British Prime Minister David Cameron's case for extending British military action from Iraq to Syria. Cameron will make a statement to MPs by way of a response to a report from the Foreign Affairs Select Committee which last month opposed extension 'unless there is a coherent international strategy that has a realistic chance of defeating ISIL [Daesh] and of ending the civil war in Syria.'

British MPs will debate the issue on Monday and vote on Tuesday for or against British military action. The government would not have tabled a motion if it were not confident of winning the vote. The assumption is that enough Labour MPs will back the government despite the opposition of their leader Jeremy Corbyn.

Rudaw