This Agreement Divided Sea Between Britain And France

On 21 October, the war cabinet asked Smuts to prepare the peace letter in a summary form, and asked Richards to carry out this task, which resulted in a “P-memo” for the peace conference delegates. [87] [88] The Eastern Committee`s conclusions on page 4 of the P-Memos were aimed at abolishing Sykes-Picot and supporting the Arabs in their right to a capital state in Damascus (according to McMahon-Hussein correspondence). [89] During this period, the Iranian people`s opposition to the D`Arcy oil concession and the licensing conditions, where Iran received only 16% of net profit, was widespread. Since industrial development and planning and other fundamental reforms were based on oil revenues, the government`s lack of control over the oil industry helped to reinforce the Iranian government`s concerns about the way APOC conducted its business in Iran. Mr Wilson intervened and stressed the principle of the agreement of the governed, whether it be Syria or Mesopotamia, that he believes that the issues are about world peace and are not necessarily a matter between France and Great Britain. He proposed to form and send an Inter-Allied Commission to discover the desires of the local population in the region. The discussion ended with Wilson`s willingness to draft a mandate to the Commission. [94] After confronting the desiderata of all parties concerned, namely the British, the French and the Arabs, the two statesmen devised a compromise solution. The terms of the division agreement were set out in a letter of 9 May 1916 addressed by Paul Cambon, French Ambassador to London, to Sir Edward Grey, British Foreign Minister. These conditions were ratified on 16 May in a letter of Grey`s return to Cambon, and the agreement was formalized on 26 April and 23 May 1916 in an exchange of notes between the three Allied powers. In addition, in a sign of British discontent with Sykes-Picot, Sykes wrote in August a “Memorandum on the Asia Minor Agreement” to support his renegotiation, to make the French understand that they “are doing a good job, that is, they should change their policy if they cannot make military efforts consistent with their policies.” After much discussion, Sykes was ordered to enter into an agreement or complement to Sykes-Picot (“Project Arrangement”) on the “future status of hejaz and Arabia,” which was reached until the end of September.

[64] However, before the end of the year, the agreement still had to be ratified by the French government. [65] Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) asserts that one of the objectives of its insurgency is to reverse the effects of the Sykes-Picot agreement on the construction of a unified Islamic State. [114] [115] [116] “This is not the first border we will cross, we will cross other borders,” an ISIL jihadist warned in a video entitled End of Sykes-Picot. [114] Former ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi said in July 2014, in a speech at the Grand Mosque of al-Nouri in Mosul, that “this blessed progress will not stop until we have planted the final nail in the coffin of the Sykes-Picot conspiracy.” [117] [118] Former French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin presented a similar geopolitical analysis in an editorial article for the French newspaper Le Monde. [119] Numerous sources claim that Sykes-Picot came into conflict with the Hussein-McMahon correspondence of 1915-1916 and that the publication of the agreement in November 1917 led to the resignation of Sir Henry McMahon. [107] There were several differences, iraq being the most obvious in the British red territory, and less obvious, the idea that British and French advisers would have control of the area designated as an Arab state.