Significance Of Sykes Picot Agreement

Picot had made disproportionate gains over the real balance of forces in the Levant, a fact that the British took advantage of to recover most of the concessions made by Sykes after the war. After Russia was abducted by the revolution, it was no longer necessary to obtain a buffer that protected Mesopotamia from Anatolia. Mosul was then attached to the new mandate of the British League of Nations in Iraq. In Palestine, the Balfour Declaration was used to replace the international regime agreed with Picot with a purely British mandate. In eastern Galilee, the borders of the new Palestinian mandate were then moved north to the Jordan springs and to Yarmuk to embrace the Samakh Triangle. These forced concessions rekindled French resentment and eventually prompted the French authorities in Damascus to refuse cooperation with British troops contested in Palestine during the 1936-1939 Palestinian revolt. After World War II, France`s continued hostility led them to retaliate against Britain`s support for Syrian and Lebanese independence by supporting Jewish terrorist groups in Palestine. Their attacks played a crucial role in forcing the British to accept the partition of the Palestinian mandate, with disastrous consequences for their image in the Arab world. A generation after the agreement undermined the unintended consequences of Britain`s imperial mandate of Sykes-Picot in the Fertile Crescent. Although Russia never officially signed the agreement, it approved it. In exchange, the Allies pledged to take Russian control of Istanbul and the Turkish route.

They also agreed to direct Russian control over parts of East Anatolia (Asia Minor or the present-day Republic of Turkey) at the end of hostilities. 100 years ago today was signed the Sykes-Picot agreement, which divided the Middle East into the domination of the colonial powers. Does this secret agreement make sense today? In 1917, the Bolsheviks took power in Russia. The new government has focused on consolidating power in its own country, not on access to holy sites or interim arrangements, renouncing all secret agreements in which the Tsarist government has participated. The agreement is seen by many as a turning point in Western and Arab relations. She denied the promises made by the United Kingdom to the Arabs[9] concerning a national Arab homeland in the region of Syria in exchange for British support for the Ottoman Empire. The agreement was made public with others on 23 November 1917 in Moscow by the Bolsheviks[10] and repeated on 26 November 1917 in the British Guardian, so that “the British were displaced, the Arabs appalled and the Turks happy.” [11] [12] [13] The legacy of the agreement has caused too much discontent in the region, particularly among the Denarabern, but also among the Kurds, who were denied an independent state. [14] [15] [16] [17] Commentators in the West and elsewhere use the agreement to explain the current unrest in the Arab world. For them, it is a “blowback” – the unintended and damaging effects of imperialist interference in the region. One of Daesh`s stated objectives is to dismantle the agreement. The head of the outfit, Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, called for the decomposed nations of the region to be replaced by a transnational regional power called the “caliphate”. The agreement also “internationalized” Jerusalem – a bone thrown at the Russian empire, then a British and French ally.

The Russians feared that Orthodox Christians would be at a disadvantage if the French Catholics had the final say on the future of the holy city. In 1915-16, Sir Mark Sykes of the British War Office and the French Consul in Beirut, Fran├žois Georges-Picot, reached a secret agreement to divide the Asian provinces of the Ottoman Empire after the First World War into areas of direct and indirect British and French control.