THE HANDSTAND

october 2004




What? A new Sykes/Picot Agreement
          the United States, supported by France, wants  to impose on the Arab states? 

 By: Adib S. Kawar ŠSept.2004
U.N. Security Council Resolution 1559

F. Laurence Oliphant (1829-1888), MP and Evangelical Christian, was a follower of Lord Shaftesbury. In 1880 Oliphant published a book entitled The Land of Gilead,  urging the British Parliament to assist the restoration of Jews to Palestine from Russia and Eastern Europe, and advocating that Palestinian Arabs be removed to reservations like those of the North American Indians.  

  During WW I, actually in 1916, the British/French Sykes-Picot Agreement decided on a new colonialist  movement, by  force of which the two parties agreed to divide the Arab territories of the Ottoman Empire between the two colonialist powers. This took place at the time when these territories were still under Ottoman rule, and while the colonialist allies were promising the Arabs an independent Arab united state. The British insisted on getting Palestine, Trans Jordan and Iraq while they were already in control of the Arabian Gulf, because they had in mind to indorse Palestine to Zionism as a “national home for the Jews”. The French got what they called the Levant, and they divided it later into two states, Syria and Lebanon, and in 1939 they cut out of northern Syria the Sanjak of Iskandaron and gave it on a golden platter to Turkey; so as not to join the war with the axis, namely Germany, Italy and Japan. 

15 & 16 May, 1916:
The Sykes-Picot Agreement

1. Sir Edward Grey to Paul Cambon, 15 May 1916

I shall have the honour to reply fully in a further note to your Excellency's note of the 9th instant, relative to the creation of an Arab State, but I should meanwhile be grateful if your Excellency could assure me that in those regions which, under the conditions recorded in that communication, become entirely French, or in which French interests are recognised as predominant, any existing British concessions, rights of navigation or development, and the rights and privileges of any British religious, scholastic, or medical institutions will be maintained.

His Majesty's Government are, of course, ready to give a reciprocal assurance in regard to the British area.

2. Sir Edward Grey to Paul Cambon, 16 May 1916

I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Excellency's note of the 9th instant, stating that the French Government accept the limits of a future Arab State, or Confederation of States, and of those parts of Syria where French interests predominate, together with certain conditions attached thereto, such as they result from recent discussions in London and Petrograd on the subject.

I have the honour to inform your Excellency in reply that the acceptance of the whole project, as it now stands, will involve the abdication of considerable British interests, but, since His Majesty's Government recognise the advantage to the general cause of the Allies entailed in producing a more favourable internal political situation in Turkey, they are ready to accept the arrangement now arrived at, provided that the co-operation of the Arabs is secured, and that the Arabs fulfil the conditions and obtain the towns of Homs, Hama, Damascus, and Aleppo.

It is accordingly understood between the French and British Governments---

1. That France and Great Britain are prepared to recognize and protect an independent Arab State or a Confederation of Arab States in the areas (A) and (B) marked on the annexed map, under the suzerainty of an Arab chief. That in area (A) France, and in area (B) Great Britain, shall have priority of right of enterprise and local loans. That in area (A) France, and in area (B) Great Britain, shall alone supply advisers or foreign functionaries at the request of the Arab State or Confederation of Arab States.

2. That in the blue area France, and in the red area Great Britain, shall be allowed to establish such direct or indirect administration or control as they desire and as they may think fit to arrange with the Arab State or Confederation of Arab States. 3. That in the brown area there shall be established an international administration, the form of which is to be decided upon after consultation with Russia, and subsequently in consultation with the other Allies, and the representatives of the Shereef of Mecca.

4. That Great Britain be accorded (1) the ports of Haifa and Acre, (2) guarantee of a given supply of water from the Tigris and Euphrates in area (A) for area (B). His Majesty's Government, on their part, undertake that they will at no time enter into negotiations for the cession of Cyprus to any third Power without the previous consent of the French Government.

5. That Alexandretta shall be a free port as regards the trade of the British Empire, and that there shall be no discrimination in port charges or facilities as regards British shipping and British goods; that there shall be freedom of transit for British goods through Alexandretta and by railway through the blue area, whether those goods are intended for or originate in the red area, or (B) area, or area (A); and there shall be no discrimination, direct or indirect against British goods on any railway or against British goods or ships at any port serving the areas mentioned.

That Haifa shall be a free port as regards the trade of France, her dominions and protectorates, and there shall be no discrimination in port charges or facilities as regards French shipping and French goods. There shall be freedom of transit for French goods through Haifa and by the British railway through the brown area, whether those goods are intended for or originate in the blue area, area (A), or area (B), and there shall be no discrimination, direct or indirect, against French goods on any railway, or against French goods or ships at any port serving the areas mentioned.

6. That in area (A) the Baghdad Railway shall not be extended southwards beyond Mosul, and in area (B) northwards beyond Samarra, until a railway connecting Baghdad with Aleppo via the Euphrates Valley has been completed, and then only with the concurrence of the two Governments.

7. That Great Britain has the right to build, administer, and be sole owner of a railway connecting Haifa with area (B), and shall have a perpetual right to transport troops along such a line at all times.

It is to be understood by both Governments that this railway is to facilitate the connexion of Baghdad with Haifa by rail, and it is further understood that, if the engineering difficulties and expense entailed by keeping this connecting line in the brown area only make the project unfeasible, that the French Government shall be prepared to consider that the line in question may also traverse the polygon Banias-Keis Marib-Salkhab Tell Otsda-Mesmie before reaching area (B).

8. For a period of twenty years the existing Turkish customs tariff shall remain in force throughout the whole of the blue and red areas, as well as in areas (A) and (B), and no increase in the rates of duty or conversion from ad valorem to specific rates shall be made except by agreement between the two Powers.

There shall be no interior customs barriers between any of the above-mentioned areas. The customs duties leviable on goods destined for the interior shall be collected at the port of entry and handed over to the administration of the area of destination.

9. It shall be agreed that the French Government will at no time enter into any negotiations for the cession of their rights and will not cede such rights in the blue area to any third Power, except the Arab State or Confederation of Arab States without the previous agreement of His Majesty's Government, who, on their part, will give a similar undertaking to the French Government regarding the red area.

10. The British and French Governments, as the protectors of the Arab State, shall agree that they will not themselves acquire and will not consent to a third Power acquiring territorial possessions in the Arabian peninsula, nor consent to a third Power installing a naval base either on the east coast, or on the islands, of the Red Sea. This, however, shall not prevent such adjustment of the Aden frontier as may be necessary in consequence of recent Turkish aggression.

11. The negotiations with the Arabs as to the boundaries of the Arab State or Confederation of Arab States shall be continued through the same channel as heretofore on behalf of the two Powers.

12. It is agreed that measures to control the importation of arms into the Arab territories will be considered by the two Governments.

I have further the honour to state that, in order to make the agreement complete, His Majesty's Government are proposing to the Russian Government to exchange notes analogous to those exchanged by the latter and your Excellency's Government on the 26th April last. Copies of these notes will be communicated to your Excellency as soon as exchanged.

I would also venture to remind your Excellency that the conclusion of the present agreement raises, for practical consideration, the question of the claims of Italy to a share in any partition or rearrangement of Turkey in Asia, as formulated in article 9 of the agreement of the 26th April, 1915, between Italy and the Allies.

His Majesty's Government further consider that the Japanese Government should be informed of the arrangement now concluded.

From Sir Edward Grey To Count Benckendorff, May 10/23, 1916

..................... In so far, then, as these arrangements directly affect the relations of Russia and great Britain, i have the honor to invite the acquiescence of your excellency's government in an agreement on the following terms:

  1. That Russia shall annex the regions of Erzeroum, Trebizond, van, and Bitlis, up to a point subsequently to be determined on the littoral of the black sea to the west of Trebizond.
  2. That the region of Kurdistan to the south of van and of Bitlis between Mush, Sert, the course of the Tigris, Jezireh Ben Omar, the crest line of the mountains which dominate Amadia, and the region or Merga Var, shall be ceded to Russia; and that starting from the region of Merga Var, the frontier of the Arab state shall follow the crest line of the mountains which at present divide the ottoman and Persian dominions, these boundaries are indicated in a general manner and are subject to modifications of detail to be proposed later by the delimitation commission which shall meet on the spot.
  3. That the Russian government undertake that, in all parts of the ottoman territories thus ceded to Russia, and concessions accorded to British subjects by the ottoman government shall be maintained, if the Russian government express the desire that such concessions should later be modified in order to bring them into harmony with the laws of the Russian empire, this modification shall only take place in agreement with the British government.
  4. That in all parts of the ottoman territories ceded to Russia, existing British rights of navigation and development, and the rights and privileges of any British religious, scholastic, or medical institutions shall be maintained. His majesty's government, on their part, undertake that similar Russian rights and privileges shall be maintained in those regions which, under the conditions of this agreement, become entirely British, or in which British interests are recognized as predominant.
  5. The two governments admit in principle that every state which annexes any part of the ottoman empire is called upon to participate in the service of the ottoman debt.

Sir Edward Grey

 After WW II the two imperialist powers, the victorious allies France and Great Britain, imposed their will on the “League of Nations”, which they created to grant them mandate, a polite polished terminology for colonies, over the “liberated” Arab territories.

 The new mini Arab states got their independence and sovereignty after a long struggle, but unfortunately they did not try  to unite into a big and strong enough viable state. The problem was not the people, but the puppet rulers the colonialist powers imposed as heads of state. Since then, abolishing the borders drawn by these colonialists powers became a violation of world security.

  France, after an awakening of conscience, apologized for its colonialist past, but its policy towards them was considered progressive. In 2003France led the opposition camp against the neocolonialist policy of the United States especially in its war of aggression against Iraq, which made the leaders of its neo-conservative camp label the Europe of France and Germany the “Old Europe” while European states which supported its invasion of Iraq, especially the old Soviet satellites, were labelled “the new Europe”.

  The present Franco/American draft, August, 2004, of a Resolution calling on Syria to immediately withdraw from Lebanon and dismantle the so-called "terrorist organizations",  namely Hezbollah, shocked and astonished us. It is not strange that the neo-conservative U.S. Administration would take this step; on the contrary this was expected.  The cause of our shock is France's involvement, in cooperation with this administration. France had been in conflict with it and critical of  Israeli terrorism towards the Palestinians, and we had never heard of it criticizing Lebanese resistance led by Hezbollah, which liberated South Lebanon from Israeli occupation and reunited it with Lebanon anew.

  It is worth mentioning that the French resistance to the Nazi occupation of France during WW II was highly esteemed by the Free French and the Allied forces led by the United States of America. The resistance men and women were rightly considered heroes. After the liberation the French resistance organizations killed many collaborators without trial, and they were not considered  terrorists or killers. On the other hand after the liberation of South Lebanon was partly achieved, with the exception of areas including the Chibaa Farms, the Lebanese resistance, unlike the French resistance, did not take revenge on the Lebanese collaborators, who with the Zionist occupation forces killed a large  number of resistance fighters. On the contrary Lebanese  resistance handed over the collaborators, (who did not flee to the Zionist enemy state), to the Lebanese Governmental authorities to be tried by the judicial authorities, who handed down  unbelievably light sentences.

Lebanon UPDATE: 10TH SEPT.

The Foreign Ministry memorandum
The Foreign Ministry memorandum addressed to the UN secretary-general described as a “dangerous precedent” the interference of the United States and other Western countries in the matter of the Lebanese presidential election, and expresses the fear of Lebanese state officials that the timing of this Franco-Euro-American initiative may have negative repercussions on the process of the election.
In regard to the presence of Syrian troops on Lebanese territory, the text notes “that it is linked with the Taef Agreement and accords concluded between Lebanon and Syria and is supervised by qualified legal institutions in the two countries. No external party or body has the right to interfere on this level. Further, the Syrian presence serves both countries’ common interests, whose usefulness, limits, necessity and procedure of development are decided by the two countries alone”.
In conclusion, the Foreign Ministry asked the UN secretary-general to prevent this “dangerous precedent” by blocking the draft Franco-American resolution and asking that its memorandum be distributed, as an official document, to the member states of the UN and the Security Council.

  In our opinion the major purpose of the Franco/American and other European powers campaign and their resolution of the Security Council (No. 1559) of August 2nd is to impose their control over the two rebellious Arab states, Syria and Lebanon, and put them under the Zionist / American umbrella. 

 Experts confirm that this move, especially by the United States, comes under  cover of its project to reform the  Middle East politically, and economically, and its claimed to introduce democracy.

  U.S. envoys, whether dropping in on Beirut during their tours in the area, or stationed ambassadors, visit the Lebanese president of the republic, the parliament speaker, the prime minister, the minister of foreign affairs or any official, and during their press conferences lecture their hosts on what they should do or not to do. How to elect the president of the republic, disarm resistance organizations, settle Palestinian refugees where they are, tell them to give up the idea of the right of return of Palestinians to their homes and land.........  Endless orders and orders from the U.S. Administration envoys and visiting congressmen...... But "Israel has the right to defend itself" through terrorizing  occupying and subjugating Palestinians as well as other Arabs.

  This comes at the time when we thought France a close friend of the Arabs. France is now considering that its relations with the Western bloc are more important than its good and honest relations with the Arabs, which hitherto received no contradiction. We believe this is a result of the Zionist/American pressure to give a blow to the Lebanese resistance (so called militias), and in this case Hezbollah.

  “An official with the French delegation to the Security Council told The Daily Star (Lebanese English language daily) Tuesday Aug. 31st., afternoon, that one of the points already written and agreed on by Washington and Paris was the disarmaments of all militias in Lebanon.”

  Hezbollah, which was the major contributor to the liberation of South Lebanon and the West Bekaa, that is 10% of the total area of Lebanon, was and is still performing its duty with the blessing of the Lebanese Government and people. Without its sacrifices and those of other resistance parties, this part of Lebanon would have syet been occupied by the Zionist enemy. It is without doubt a Zionist interest to concentrate on the disarmament of the resistance forces. Israel hailed the resolution, and its minister of foreign affairs, (wrongly called Shalom that is "peace" in Hebrew), said that this will ensure that Lebanon becomes the third Arab state to conclude a "peace treaty" with the Zionist entity.
The resistance forces are a necessity for the security of Lebanon against the violation of Lebanon’s sovereignty, and a vital need to proceed with the final and total liberation of the country. On this basis the Zionist entity and its ally/supporter the United States see in the Lebanese resistance a threat to their interests in the region, that is their military, political and economical interests, namely their total domination of the area.

  Second is to corner Syria and Lebanon, the two Arab states that did not yet fall under the yoke of the Israeli / American coalition. The U.S. law for the accountability of Syria and Lebanon’s sovereignty was not passed by the U.S. Administration and Congress, that are under the strong influence of the Zionist lobbies, because their hearts ached for Lebanon’s freedom sovereignty and independence.

  The Franco/American Security Council resolution, which called for immediate withdrawal of all foreign forces from Lebanon should mean Israeli Zionist occupation forces, and cannot mean Syrian forces, because Syria as an Arab state is not foreign as far as Lebanon is concerned.

  Where were these supreme powers in condemnation of Israeli violations of the security of Arab countries, or the terrorizing of Palestinian Arabs,  when:

  ˇ       Zionist occupation and almost the annexation of South Lebanon were ongoing.

  ˇ        Zionist forces invaded Lebanon and reached its capital, Beirut.

  ˇ        Zionist forces collected the Lebanese members of parliament from their homes by force “to elect” a “Lebanese President”, Bashir El-Jmayel in 1982.

  ˇ       Zionist forces occupied the Syrian Golan Heights, which is still occupied and annexed to Israel.

  ˇ        Zionist forces over-ran the remaining 22% of historic Palestine not occupied in 1948, which is being fully colonized.

  ˇ       Zionist forces apply Israeli state terror, which has been systematically demolishing everything built and planted by the Palestinians, not to speak about their occupation forces exhibiting the worst type of terrorism.

  ˇ        Zionist forces are assassinating Palestinians of all ages and sexes, on the pretence of targeting “terrorists” who are fighting for their existence, future and dignity as human beings.

  ˇ        The Zionist enemy violated tens of U.N. resolutions, and the U.S. vetoed tens more condemning Israeli state terrorism.

  ˇ        The United states waged two wars on Iraq, putting  it under siege for over a decade, resulting in the death of hundreds of thousands of people by bombardment, use of uranium depleted shells and malnutrition caused by its sanctions on Iraq. This not to speak about the Korean and the Vietnamese wars waged by "the greatest democracy in the world".

  ˇ        The United States had been supporting and financing Israeli state terrorism and occupation of a sovereign state.

  ˇ        The United States had been overlooking Israel’s WMD, especially its arsenal of atomic bombs.

 This issue has become a part of the American election campaign and the fight for the presidency between the two candidates, Bush and Kerry. The latter said: "The Syrian interference in Lebanese affairs is unacceptable." Kerry like his competitor is justifying American interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states around the world, waging wars on some and threatening others with the use of force and/or putting economic and other types of sanctions on them. All this without endoresment from international organizations;  on the contrary the two candidates take pride in unilateral acts of war. President Bush during his four years in the White House waged two wars, first on Afghanistan then after a short time on Iraq, which he could not justify, or his justifications proved to be unfounded. 

 Syria and Lebanon were one of a whole, which was divided into two states by the former French "mandate" imposed on them. The Franco/American resolution considers the relations between Syria and Lebanon as an interference  of the first in the internal affairs of the second; although they have a political, economical and security cooperation agreement officially signed and approved by their respective parliaments, and a copy of which was received without complaint by the United Nations. If this claim is justified why don't these supreme powers give good examples to the regional powers not to Resolutions such as these? There is a long record of air-raids and other acts of state terrorism committed by this rogue state, Israel, which are  blessed by the United states and considered as "self defence."  Is it possible  to compare such "Syrian interference" in Lebanese internal affairs with Israeli intervention!!!? If the Resolution that originated as a complaint against Syrian/Lebanese relations is justified, why don't those who passed it give a good example to the Israelis? Where is the comparison with the Israeli interference, which involves invasions, occupations and the use of state terror against so many Arab states extending between Tunis in the West and Iraq in the east, and, as we mentioned above,  the Syrian presence in Lebanon?

 Nobody should think we do not believe in democracy.  We firmly believe that the lack of democracy in Arab states, with the 1917 partitions of the Arab land, are among our most serious problems, which now also  include Zionist occupation and colonialist domination. 
 

We also believe that constitutions should not be drafted and tailored to fit a certain ruler or party and should not be amended to serve the interest of a person or a ruling party. On this basis even though we believe that President Lahoud of Lebanon, due to his patronage of the Lebanese resistance, is the most suitable for the country, but also we believe that the Lebanese constitution should not have been amended to extend his term in office.