For a period of twenty years, the existing Turkish customs tariff will remain in force in all blue and red zones, as well as in zones (a) and (b), and an increase in customs duties or the conversion of ad valorem duties into certain rates will be carried out only by mutual agreement between the two powers. The Sykes-Picot agreement is generally regarded as a symbol of the very complicated and complex reorganization of the region after the First World War. There is a whole list of other important agreements and declarations. I would just like to refer here to the Balfour Declaration. It was published in November 1917, and in which British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour granted London`s Jewish community a national home in Palestine. Or the Hussein-McMahon correspondence in which Hussein bin Ali, the head of the Hejaz, and Sir Henry McMahon, British High Commissioner to Egypt, explained the creation of an independent Arab state. All these agreements were a kind of tapestry of plans and promises. The Sykes-Picot Agreement (officially the Asia Minor Agreement of 1916) was a secret agreement made during World War I between the British and French governments on the division of the Ottoman Empire between the Allied powers. Russia was also aware of the discussions. In another sign of British dissatisfaction with Sykes-Picot, Sykes wrote a “Memorandum on the Asia Minor Agreement” in August, which amounted to advocating its renegotiation, otherwise the French should be made clear that they are “doing good – that is, if they cannot reconcile the military effort with their policies, they should change their policies.” After much discussion, Sykes was tasked with reaching an agreement with Picot or an amendment to Sykes-Picot (“Draft Arrangement”) on the “future status of the Hejaz and Arabia,” and this was achieved at the end of September. [64] At the end of the year, however, the agreement still had to be ratified by the French government. [65] Many sources claim that Sykes-Picot disagreed with the Hussein-McMahon correspondence of 1915-1916 and that the publication of the agreement in November 1917 caused the resignation of Sir Henry McMahon. [107] There were several points of divergence, the most obvious being Iraq in the British red zone and less obviously the idea that British and French advisers would have control of the territory, which is intended for an Arab state.
Finally, while the correspondence did not mention Palestine, Haifa and Acre were to be British and the brown zone (a reduced Palestine) was to be internationalized. [108] A century later, why is the agreement a motive for many emotions in the Arab world? Maurus Reinkowski: Until then, the Ottoman Empire ruled the region. However, Paris and London were of the opinion that the Ottoman Empire would not survive. Sykes-Picot was intended to prevent conflicts that might arise in the division of the spoils after the victory of the First World War. Nevertheless, there were indeed great differences of opinion between the French and the British on the exact demarcation. The agreement was therefore in fact only a first attempt at a split, which in the end had to take place quite differently. George Curzon said that the great powers were still committed to the Organic Settlement Agreement, which concerned governance and non-interference in the affairs of the Maronite, Orthodox Christian, Druze and Muslim communities in relation to the Vilayet of Beirut of June 1861 and September 1864, adding that the rights granted to France in present-day modern Syria and in parts of Turkey under Sykes-Picot are incompatible with this agreement. [78] In the Constantinople Agreement of March 18, 1915, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Sasanonov wrote to the French and British ambassadors after the start of naval operations in the run-up to the Gallipoli campaign, claiming Constantinople and the Dardanelles. During a series of five-week diplomatic talks, Britain and France agreed, citing their own demands for a greater sphere of influence in Iran in the case of Britain and an annexation of Syria (including Palestine) and Cilicia to France.
British and French claims were unanimous, with all parties also agreeing that the exact management of the Holy Places should be left to a later settlement. [18] Without the Russian revolutions of 1917, Constantinople and the strait could have been handed over to Russia after the Allied victory. This agreement and the Sykes-Picot agreement complemented each other, as France and Britain first had to satisfy Russia in order to complete the division of the Middle East. [19] As the centenary of Sykes-Picot approached in 2016, the long-term effects of the agreement attracted a lot of interest from the media[109] and universities[110]. The agreement is often cited as creating “artificial” borders in the Middle East, “regardless of ethnic or sectarian characteristics that have led to endless conflicts.” [111] The extent to which Sykes-Picot actually shaped the borders of the modern Middle East is controversial. [112] [113] At a meeting in a railway car in Saint-Jean-de-Maurienne on April 19, 1917, a provisional agreement was reached between British and French Prime Ministers David Lloyd George and Alexandre Ribot and Italian Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Paolo Boselli and Sidney Sonnino to regulate Italian interests in the Ottoman Empire – in particular Article 9 of the Treaty of London. [38] The agreement was necessary for the Allies to secure the position of Italian forces in the Middle East. . .
.
