Why Were Arab Leaders Upset About The Sykes-Picot Agreement

ROLE:

After Russia`s agreement on 26 April 1916, the final conditions were sent on 9 May 1916 by Paul Cambon, French Ambassador to London, to Foreign Minister Edward Grey and ratified in Grey`s reply of 16 May 1916. [34] [35] The first lesson is that international and regional actors are not in a position to impose solutions, although the military and diplomatic resources they could mobilize are much greater than those of local actors. The way international players treat the Levant is influenced by many reflections, some of which have little to do with the situation on the ground. The United States has become a little more confident in its policy towards Syria since Russia decided to intervene there. The resources that the United States devotes to Syria are a fraction of what it could theoretically mobilize, but they are already greater than they were before Putin began to bend his muscles. Like France and Britain in 1918, the United States and Russia have Syria in mind. This also applies to Iran and Saudi Arabia, while Turkey`s desire to end the Assad regime is tempered by its determination to contain the successes of the Syrian Kurds, lest such successes strengthen the Kurdish opposition in Turkey. On the other hand, local actors are generally much more determined and contribute all their resources to their goals. At present, ISIL has only one goal – the construction of an Islamic state – and all the resources it can mobilize are devoted to this goal. In his introduction to a symposium on Sykes-Picot in 2016, law professor Anghie notes that much of the agreement is entrusted to “trade and trade agreements, access to ports and railway construction.” [50] At a meeting in a railway car in Saint-Jean-de-Maurienne, On 19 April 1917, an interim agreement was reached between british and French Prime Ministers David Lloyd George and Alexandre Ribot, the Italian Prime Minister and Foreign Ministers Paolo Boselli and Sidney Sonnino, in order to respond to Italian interest in the Ottoman Empire, in particular Article 9 of the Treaty of London. [38] The agreement was necessary by the Allies to secure the position of the Italian armed forces in the Middle East.

The current situation in the Middle East and the possible disintegration of Iraq or Syria have led to predictions – not just Baghdadis of ISIS – that the region was ending in the Sykes Picot era. However, there are few predictions about what could replace them. As a result, until recently, there was a limited demand for a transformation of the Levant countries (I exclude here the Israeli-Palestinian question, which is quite different from the problems of other states).