User:Lou Löwe/sandbox
Leiden University, History of the Modern Middle East, 2021-22
I am a student enrolled in the course above, whose assessment entails editing a Simple Wikipedia entry. I will be using the space below to draft this entry.
Sykes-Picot Agreement Project
HEADER:
The Sykes–Picot Agreement /ˈsaɪks piˈkoʊ/, officially known as the Asia Minor Agreement, was a secret agreement concluded between the United Kingdom and France in 1916 [1]. The main aim of the British and French was to agree on who should get which sphere of influence in Ottoman territories in Southwest Asia. In this way, they wanted to limit competition between European powers after the First World War and secure strategically important territories for themselves.[2] The Russian Empire and the Kingdom of Italy consented to the agreement, receiving a territorial advantage in return. The agreement was named after the two diplomats who negotiated it: the British diplomat Mark Sykes and the French diplomat François Georges-Picot. They negotiated for five weeks, from the 23rd of November 1915 to the 3rd of January 1916, before agreeing on a memorandum. The agreement itself was concluded on the 9th and 16th of May 1916, when the British and French governments accepted and signed (ratified) the memorandum.
When the Russian revolutionaries made the agreement public in 1917 after the Bolshevik Revolution, this greatly embarrassed the French and British and outraged the Arab and Middle Eastern countries concerned, who had not known about the agreement and felt betrayed.[3] This agreement still plays an important role in the current conflicts and disputes in the respective regions of the Middle East.[4]
Historical context
[edit]The Ottoman Empire, under the lead of the CUP, entered the war in autumn 1914 on the side of the Central Powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria and initially also Italy) and was thus opposed to the Allied Powers (British and French).[5]
British and French interests in the Middle East
[edit]
To understand the background and significance of the Sykes-Picot Agreement, it is important to know the interests of both the British and the French in the Middle East.
Aside from war aims, the main interest of the British was to secure their access to the Mediterranean Sea and thus the route to India, as well as access to the Iraqi oil fields. At the beginning of the twentieth century, oil replaced coal as the most important resource, leading to an increasing dependence on a raw material that was inaccessible on British soil. Oil is not only much lighter, but it also allowed the British to have a faster and more durable military fleet. It is therefore not surprising that the British wanted to secure their control and domination of the area in question.[6]
The French were interested in securing access to the Mediterranean through the port of Lebanon.[5]
Regional division
[edit]
Geographically, the agreement focused primarily on the provinces outside of the Arabian Peninsula. The United Kingdom was supposed to control today’s Southern Israel, Palestine, Jordan, and Southern Iran, as well as parts of Haifa, Acre, with the aim to ensure that the British still had access to the Mediterranean Sea. France in turn would be granted "direct control" stretching along the Syrian coast from southern Lebanon into Anatolia[7]. The promised Arab state was now allocated to the areas under indirect British and French control.[5]
For the treaty to be finalized, Britain and France needed to satisfy the Russians. In exchange for the Russian Empire’s approval of the treaty, the Russian Foreign minister Serkey Saznov and the French ambassador Maurice Paléologue (concluding the Saznov-Paléologue Agreement) mutually agreed that the Russian Empire would get Western Armenia in addition to the already earlier attributed Constantinople and the Turksih Straits (which had been concluded in the 1915 Constantinople agreement). The Kingdom of Italy also knew about the agreement and was convinced by being promised Southern Anatolia the Saint-Jean-de-Maurienne agreement.[8]
Furthermore, the United Kingdom and France agreed that the Holy places and the Palestine region would fall under international administration and be determined in a later settlement.[5]
Sykes-Picot Agreement
[edit]
The Sykes-Picot Agreement was concluded with the British and French expecting victory against the Central Powers and thus the demise of the Ottoman Empire.
The Sykes-Picot Agreement was signed together with the conclusion of the Constantinople Agreement of 1915, the Hussein-McMahon correspondence of 1915 and the Balfour Declaration of 1917 to establish a geographical settlement for the Ottoman territory after the First World War. Therefore, in 1915 and 1916, the British corresponded simultaneously with several parties about the future division of the still existing Ottoman Empire. In the Sykes-Picot Agreement, the British confirmed the French claim to Mount Lebanon and Damascus, and granted France direct control over the coastal area and indirect control over the Syrian hinterland. This contradicted many promises the British had made to Sharif Hussein in his correspondence with McMahon.[5] Although the British state assured the Arabs of sovereignty in all the territories Sharif Hussein wanted, provided that Britain could act freely in these territories without affecting the interests of its ally France[9], this goes against the actual territorial agreement between the British and Hussein.
In this sense, after the Frist World War, the British disrespected their commitment to Sharif Hussein by dividing the promised territory of Greater Syria among themselves and the French. The British also agreed with the Zionists to allow for parts of Palestine to become Jewish land, further ignoring their commitments to Sharif Hussein[10].
Conflicting promises and consequences
[edit]The roots of many disagreements and current conflicts in the Middle East go back to the First World War and the various agreements that were concluded before the war ended.(NEEDS SOURCE!) The agreement completely ignored the promise the British had made to Sharif Hussein of guaranteeing and independent Arab state in the region of Greater Syria, whereas the Arabs had help up their end of the deal with the Arab revolt leading to the defeat of the Ottoman Empire.[5]
Prior agreement with the Arabs: The Hussein-McMahon correspondence
[edit]Prior to negotiating the Sykes-Picot agreement, the English promised the same area of Greater Syria to the Arabs in what is known as the Hussein-McMahon correspondence. This led to the Arabs feeling betrayed, when the Sykes-Picot was published in 1917.[3]
Publication
[edit]Following the October Revolution of 1917, the Bolsheviks released a series of secret documents. Among these publications was the Sykes-Picot Agreement. Greatly embarrassing the allies on one hand, the disclosure of the agreement furhter fuelled the distrust between the West and the Arabs. (NEEDS SOURCE)
Modern politics
[edit]Although the agreement is often accused of having "drawn lines in the sand", i.e. artificially dividing the Middle East without regard to ethnic or cultural factors, and its actual influence on the shape of the modern Middle East remains disputed, it is a myth that the Sykes-Picot Agreement established the geographical conditions and present-day borders of the Middle East. Very little of the agreement was actually implemented.[2] The fact is that the Anglo-French agreement led to dramatic changes in the life, mentality and culture of the region that are still felt today, and marked a turning point in relations between the West and the Arab world.[4] The year 2016 marked the 100th anniversary of the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which was heavily debated given its frequent mention by ISIS (ISIS released a video entitled "The End of Sykes-Picot" in 2014).[2] The Islamic state of Levant and Iraq claimed that in order to create a unified Islamic State, it intended to reverse the effects of the Sykes-Picot Agreement.[11]
See also
[edit]- San Remo Conference of April 1920:
- Treaty of Sèvres, August 1920:
- Treaty of Lausanne July 1923
References
[edit]- ^ Bilgin, Pinar (2016-05-26). "What is the point about Sykes–Picot?". Global Affairs. 2 (3): 355–359. doi:10.1080/23340460.2016.1236518. ISSN 2334-0460.
- ^ a b c Patel, DS (2016). Repartitioning the Sykes-Picot Middle East? Debunking Three Myths. Website: https://www.brandeis.edu/crown/publications/middle-east-briefs/pdfs/101-200/meb103.pdf
- ^ a b Bilgin, Pinar (2016-05-26). "What is the point about Sykes–Picot?". Global Affairs. 2 (3): 355–359 (356). doi:10.1080/23340460.2016.1236518. ISSN 2334-0460.
- ^ a b Kitching, Paula (2015). "The Sykes-Picot Agreement and lines in the sand". Historian. 128: 18–22.
- ^ a b c d e f Anderson, Betty S (2016). A History of the Modern Middle East : Rulers, Rebels, and Rogues, Stanford University Press. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/leidenuniv/detail.action?docID=4544153.
- ^ Barr, James (2011-10-27). A Line in the Sand: Britain, France and the struggle that shaped the Middle East. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 978-1-84983-903-7.
- ^ Cleveland, William L.,Bunton, Martin. A History of the Modern Middle East. 6th edition.
- ^ Mikaberidze, Alexander (2011-07-22). Conflict and Conquest in the Islamic World: A Historical Encyclopedia [2 volumes]: A Historical Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-1-59884-337-8.
- ^ Antonius, George (1938). The Arab Awakening.
- ^ Kramer M (2016). Sykes-Picot and the Zionists. The American Interest. Link: https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/martinkramer/files/sykes-picot_and_the_zionists.pdf
- ^ "Watch this English-speaking ISIS fighter explain how a 98-year-old colonial map created today's conflict". Daily News. 2014-07-02. Retrieved 2022-05-04.