What Is the Reaction to the Agreement in the Arab World

What Is the Reaction to the Agreement in the Arab World

The memorandum was forwarded to the Federal Foreign Office and circulated for comment. On January 16, Sykes told the State Department that he had spoken with Picot and believed Paris could agree. On January 21, Nicolson convened an interdepartmental conference. Following the meeting, a final draft agreement was circulated to the Cabinet on 2 February, the War Committee considered it on 3 February and, finally, at a meeting on the 4th between Bonar Law, Chamberlain, Lord Kitchener and others, it was decided that: Repeated and contradictory promises to both parties during the term fuelled further nationalist resentment. Everyone expected the country to remain in their hands, which was apparently what the British had promised them. And repeated attempts to divide or divide the country did not suit any of them. PERALTA: I mean, symbolically, it`s a big problem. Remember; In Sudan, Arab countries met in the 60s and signed the Khartoum resolution. And there they decided that there would be no peace, no recognition, no negotiations with Israel. Sudan reached an agreement with some of the victims of al-Qaeda`s terrorist attacks when al-Qaeda obtained a safe haven in Sudan.

And in return, the United States removed Sudan from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. The hope is that international investment and aid will begin to flow and that Sudan will be able to get out of this economic hole. But what this means concretely – it is in the air. On Monday, January 3, 1916, they reached an agreement and initialed a joint memorandum containing the so-called Sykes-Picot Agreement. They had agreed on a compromise in the two main areas of divergence – they divided the Vilayet of Mosul on the Little Zab River into two parts, with the French taking the northern part (Mosul and Erbil) and the British the southern part (Kirkuk and Sulaymaniyah), and Palestine to be placed under an “international administration, the form of which is to be decided after consultation with Russia. and then in consultation with other allies and representatives of the Sheriff of Mecca. [31] [25] The agreement was based on the premise that the Triple Entente would successfully defeat the Ottoman Empire during World War I, and was part of a series of secret agreements that considered its division. The most important negotiations that led to the agreement took place between November 23, 1915 and November 3, 1915. In January 1916, British and French diplomats Mark Sykes and François Georges-Picot initialled an agreed memorandum. [3] The Convention was ratified by their respective governments on 9 and 16 May 1916. [4] In May, Clayton Balfour stated that in response to a proposal that the agreement was contentious, Picot had “allowed a significant revision to be necessary given the changes that had taken place in the situation since the agreement was drafted,” but nonetheless considered that “the agreement is definitely the principle.” The second lesson to be learned from Sykes-Picot is that any solution developed by the international community through negotiations or applied on the ground by local actors must pass the test of implementation.

Can new borders – such as those imposed by isis`s conquest of Syria and Iraq, or those of a new Alawite entity that some believe could be revived – include a functioning state rather than hollow territory? There is a lot of vague discussion about what a Levant Sykes-Picot might look like: a division of Iraq into three states, as in the 2006 Biden-Yellow plan; an independent Iraqi Kurdistan, perhaps in a cowardly confederation with Sunni and Shia states; an Alawite rump state under the control of Bashar al-Assad in Syria; the Sunni states in Syria and Iraq, replacing the Islamic State; and consolidated autonomous Kurdish cantons in northern Syria. All of these ideas were eventually approved by one group or another. Syrian parties have proven difficult to bring together. The Syrian government agreed to participate in order to “pursue the demands of the Syrian people, first and foremost the elimination of terrorism,” a term applied to the entire opposition. Opposition groups recognized and therefore invited by the international community were divided on whether or not to participate, but the Kurds, who were not invited separately from other groups, demanded to have their own voice. .