Sykes Picot Agreements

This year, the discussions of the agreement took place in many countries that linked the events of the First World War to the crisis that hit the Middle East region today. The thesis on “the collapse of the Sykes-Picot system”, which establishes boundaries that ignored the historical, geographical and demographic realities of the region, has gained momentum. It is often forgotten that the agreements between England and France from 1915 to 1916 did not in fact constitute borders between the future territories/states of Mashriq. This is what happened later at the Paris Peace Conference (January 18, 1919- January 21, 1920), in the Treaty of Sevres of August 10, 192 and at conferences in San Remo (April 19-26, 1920) and Lausanne (sporadically between November 20, 1922 and July 24, 1923). In addition, part of Mashriq`s Anglo-French management plan was the Balfour Declaration, a letter from British Foreign Minister Arthur Balfour to Lord Rothschild on 2 November, expressing the London agreement on the “creation of a national homeland for the Jewish people” in Palestine, to be forwarded to the Zionist Federation. The Sykes-Picot agreement was only part of the secret war diplomacy concerning the Middle East. It was supplemented by agreements with two other war powers interested in the region, Russia and Italy, as well as a series of subsequent British actions and commitments, such as the Balfour Declaration and correspondence with the Hashemite family. Despite these and other changes, the term “Sykes-Picot” also refers to the general settlement of peace in the Middle East and the political order it has established. For nearly four centuries – from the beginning of the 16th century to the end of the First World War – most Arab countries were represented by the Vilayet provinces of the Ottoman Empire, while the western part of the Arab East was already under the rule of the colonial powers england and France. In 1916, London and Paris secretly agreed on a future partition of the Asian part of the Ottoman state, which suffered defeat during the war.

Under these agreements, after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, the Arab vilayets should be subject to the mandate of these powers. Their representatives, the British Sir Mark Sykes and the Frenchman Fran├žois Georges-Picot, made history when the authors of the first version hastily compiled to share the Asian part of colonial Ottoman Turkey. The following eleven points included the formal agreements between Great Britain, France and Russia. The Anglo-French declaration was read in the protocol, and Pichon commented that it showed the selfless position of the two governments towards the Arabs and Lloyd George that it was “more important than all the old agreements”. [91] Pichon mentioned an agreement proposed on 15 February on the basis of the private agreement between Clemenceau and Lloyd George last December. [91] (According to Lieshout, Clemenceau presented Lloyd George, just before Faisal met at the conference of 6, a proposal that seems to cover the same subject; Lieshout, which issued on British materials related to the 6, while the date is not specified in the minutes. [92]) Loevy points to the British and French practice of “Ottoman colonial development as an insider” in sections 4 to 8 of the agreement, and that this experience served as a roadmap for subsequent war negotiations. [51] While Khalidi examined the negotiations of Great Britain and France in 1913 and 1914 on the Homs-Baghdad railway line, as well as their agreements with Germany, in other regions, as a “clear basis” for their subsequent spheres of influence under the agreement. [52] The agreement was based on the premise that the Triple Agreement would take place during the First World War and would conclude warning agreements during the First World War.