A Picot Agreement

Returning to the Sykes-Picot agreement, it should be noted that St. Petersburg must have become aware of the Russian plan to resolve the Straits issue as ambitious. First, the Western European Allies agreed on conditions – in addition to Russia, which accepted the division of the Arab vilayets of the Ottoman Empire between England and France, pursued free trade across the strait and set up a “free port” regime in Constantinople – in favor of total victory over Turkey (“if the war is carried out.” London and Paris, which had suffered some bitter defeats in the war, were not sure they could overcome the Ottomans without Russia. They handed Russia the key role of the war and put it under pressure. Secondly, the issue had to be officially settled in a future peace treaty and it was not at all known how London and Paris would behave after Turkey`s defeat. Third, to stop its own positions, Russia needed powerful levers to put pressure on its cartel partners, which it unfortunately did not have. It is no coincidence that most Russian historians regard the St. Petersburg agreement with London and Paris as a kind of IOU for which a payment has not yet been made. In the Constantinople Agreement of 18 March 1915, after naval operations began in the run-up to the Gallipoli campaign, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Sazonov wrote to the French and British ambassadors to claim Constantinople and the Dardanelles.

During a five-week series of diplomatic talks, the United Kingdom and France, although they made their own claims, agreed on greater influence in Iran in the case of the United Kingdom and on the annexation of Syria (including Palestine) and Cilicia for France. The demands of the United Kingdom and France were unanimous and all parties agreed to leave the exact management of the holy sites to a subsequent settlement. [18] Without the Russian revolutions of 1917, Constantinople and the Strait could have been given after the Allied victory over Russia. This agreement and the Sykes-Picot agreement were complementary, because France and Great Britain had to satisfy Russia first to conclude the partition of the Middle East. [19] I also have the honour of declaring that Her Majesty`s Government is proposing to the Russian Government to make the agreement complete, in order to exchange notes that correspond to those exchanged by her and the Government of His Excellency on April 26 last year. Prior to the centenary of Sykes-Picot in 2016, the media[109] and scientists[110] generated strong interest in the long-term effects of the agreement. The agreement is often cited as “artificial” borders in the Middle East, “without regard to ethnic or sectarian characteristics, which has led to endless conflicts.” [111] The question of the extent to which Sykes-Picot has really marked the borders of the modern Middle East is controversial. [112] [113] The agreement was drawn up and negotiated by the country`s diplomats over the next few months and signed by the Allies between 18 August and 26 September 1917. [38] Russia was not represented in this agreement because the Tsarist regime was in the midst of a revolution. The lack of Russian approval of the Saint-Jean-de-Maurienne agreement was then used by the British at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference to invalidate it, a position that greatly outraged the Italian government. [41] On 18 September Faisal arrived in London and on the 23rd he met at length with Lloyd George, who explained the memory aid and the British position.

Lloyd George stated that he was “in the position of a man who had inherited two groups of commitments, those of King Hussein and those of the French,” Faisal noted that the agreement “seemed to be based on the 1916 agreement between the British and the French.”