Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2011 6:51 pm Post subject: sykes Picot treaty
1. What territories and rights does the Sykes-Picot Treaty bestow on the British and French governments? What was the main purpose of the Treaty?
I think the main purpose of the treaty was to insure european influence in the area indefinitely. As far as I understand the treaty not only gives the French and British physical control over much of the area (red zone british) (blue zone French), but it also allos them influence in the A zone and B zone which account for all the rest of the region besides the international zone. Not only that but the British and similarly the french have the right to take hold of respective ports where taxes and tariffs are neglected. The inclusion of railroads that pass through each others spheres of influence means that nearly the entire area is available for tax less trading and resource exploitation. It is also stated that their should be no interior customs tax on any of the aforementioned areas. Meaning that the countries that are under the british and french rule have no way of limiting or making any money off the commerce of these european nations. Finally one of the most interesting things is that both countries will not allow the other to cede territories to other third parties without concent from the other country. This means that without each others permission neither france or britain can leave the territories, as one power leaving could possibly hurt the others validity in the eyes of the countries they occupy. Overall i believe the main purpose of the treaty was to exploit the area, with few complaints from the locals and europe They set it up in such a way that it is fair for both major powers, and the rest of Europe could benefit from trade. They did this all under the guise of keeping Turkish agression at a minimum.
1. What territories and rights does the Sykes-Picot Treaty bestow on the British and French governments? What was the main purpose of the Treaty?
The Sykes picot treaty gives the British control over the Red area and influence in area B, which comprises of Iraq, Jordan, and parts of Saudi Arabia formerly controlled by the Ottoman Empire (down the eastern coast), and Kuwait. The French got influence in the A zone and control over the Blue zone which comprises of Syria turkey and Lebanon. It seems that the point of the agreement was to split up the territories of the Ottoman Empire and make sure that they had equal land and could live with peaceful ruling and trades. They didn’t want discrimination of French goods in the British area and vice verse in the French area, so they wanted a peaceful area but separate leadership divided by this agreement. I think that the countries divided the area up in a friendly way for these two countries, not in general for the Arabs, but they made trading possible and seemingly fair. I agree with Jesse that the purpose was for Resource exploitation, as this area was very wealthy in oil (Which wasn’t discovered until later) and trading. The area was very well suited for trading with India (A British colony at the time) and other eastern countries. I think overall the countries wanted to spread their sphere of influence, have political power and increase trade possibilities in order to increase their economies.
2. Using the documents you've read from pp. 43-52, how did Sykes-Picot play out in practice? What role did the British play in oil production in Iraq? What role did the US play? Do you think these actions lay the seeds for future conflicts? Were they justified?
The situation was definitely divided. The British really took control of their land and really didn’t want anyone else in it. They eventually made an “open door” policy, but that was only true for the United States and France, not really anywhere else. The agreement also didn’t give Arabs many rights, so in practice the British really took over, not giving the Iraqis any benefit from the oil. The somewhat oppressive and authoritarian regime caused anger among many Arabs and violence for independence spread through the areas. Such violence would seem justified because this land was originally the Arab land and the British and French think they can just come in and divide it up without consulting or giving any benefits to the people living there. The United States was kept out for a long time because they weren’t part of the league of Nations, showing just how much control the British took in their area. The US played the role of the spectator, they took that which benefitted them, but didn’t accept things that would harm their access to foreign resources. They really let Britain do the dirty work and only intervened when it became convenient for them. As for the question “What role did the British play in oil production?” I’m not exactly sure about this and if anyone wants to elaborate I’d be very interested. I think they were a major player in the distribution and encountering of oil, but what they did in terms of its production, I wasn’t exactly sure.
1. The Sykes-Picot treaty had several purposes. The primary purpose was to divide land that contained large oil reserves. Since oil at this time was a relatively new and powerful resource with many military applications, every empire wanted it in order to stay competitive. The agreement was also created to redraw borders of countries that had previously been in control of the Ottoman Empire, as the western powers were fairly confident of their eventual victory in WWI.
The British and French empires also wanted to ensure that they would have strong control over the area. They did this by controlling “the importation of arms into the Arab territories.” They also wanted to make sure that they would be able to export the vast resources they would soon control by agreeing to divvy up major ports (Alexandria to the British, Haifa to the French) and make sure that their respective railroads wouldn’t be interfered with.
2. While on paper it looks like both empires got a large amount of land and wealth from the agreement, the readings stated that the British ended up with the lion’s share of oil. This really aggravated the French, who felt like they were being cheated what was rightfully theirs. The treaty also failed to mention anything about American lands or area of control. This upset the American government and oil companies, since they felt like they were somehow entitled to the land as well (this doesn’t make sense to me, since they never declared war on the Ottoman empire and shouldn’t get any of the spoils of victory).
To answer Zach’s question, I think the British’s role in oil production was immense. The Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC) started producing and exporting petroleum pretty quickly after the British acquired Mesopotamian lands.
I think the british were very controlling. It was only after a lot of negotiating that the "open door" policy was instated, as it seemed like the British were reluctant to give anything up to other countries and certainty not to the arabs in the area. they seemed to take control of the resources without regard for the Iraqi people or their rights. With the quick rush of the Mesopotamian oil right after ww1 (beating the french to it) they created a lot of tension right off the bat with france. It said somewhere in the packet that the British considered the oil a primary war objective. What amazed me is that all of this was done without regard for the people whose land they were taking advantage of. I think they were far to free to exploit with the loose wording of the treaty and therefore took advantage and only reluctantly allowed the americans and french to even take part in the exploitation of these lands, while they themselves got fabulously wealthy.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
