Sykes–Picot Agreement and its Consequences

前へ 次へ
このQ&Aのポイント
  • The Sykes–Picot Agreement, published in 1917, recognized and protected an independent Arab state.
  • However, conflicts arose due to a post-war settlement in 1918, rendering some guarantees in the Hussein–McMahon agreement invalid.
  • Despite this, the agreement acknowledged the independence of Hejaz and supported autonomy for Syria.
回答を見る
  • ベストアンサー

日本語訳をお願いいたします。

Many sources contend that this agreement conflicted with the Hussein–McMahon Correspondence of 1915–1916 and that the publication of the agreement in November 1917 caused the resignation of Sir Henry McMahon. However, the Sykes–Picot plan itself described how France and Great Britain were prepared to recognize and protect an independent Arab state, or confederation of Arab states, under the suzerainty of an Arab chief within the zones marked A and B on the map. Nothing in the plan precluded rule through an Arab suzerainty in the remaining areas. The conflicts were a consequence of the private, post-war, Anglo-French Settlement of 1–4 December 1918. It was negotiated between British Prime Minister Lloyd George and French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau and rendered many of the guarantees in the Hussein–McMahon agreement invalid. That settlement was not part of the Sykes–Picot Agreement. Sykes was not affiliated with the Cairo office that had been corresponding with Sherif Hussein bin Ali, but Picot and Sykes visited the Hejaz in 1917 to discuss the agreement with Hussein. That same year he and a representative of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs delivered a public address to the Central Syrian Congress in Paris on the non-Turkish elements of the Ottoman Empire, including liberated Jerusalem. He stated that the accomplished fact of the independence of the Hejaz rendered it almost impossible that an effective and real autonomy should be refused to Syria.

  • 英語
  • 回答数1
  • ありがとう数1

質問者が選んだベストアンサー

  • ベストアンサー
回答No.1

多くの関係者は、この協定は1915－1916年のフセインーマクマホン合意に矛盾しており、 1917年11月に協定が公開されたことで、マクマホン卿が辞任に追い込まれた、と主張した。 しかし、サイクス・ピコの構想そのものは、 フランスと大英帝国が地図上のA地点とB地点の内側にあるアラブ首長の宗主権の範囲で、 アラブまたはアラブ連邦の独立を認識し、支持したものであった。 これは、他の地域でのアラブの宗主権を排除するものではなかった。 紛争は1918年12月1日～4日の英仏和睦の結果であり、第一次大戦後の、局所的な結果に過ぎなかった。 （和睦は）英国首相ロイド・ジョージとフランス首相ジョルジュ・クレメンスとで協議したもので、フセイン～マクマホン合意が与えた多くの保障を無にした。 合意はサイクス・ピコ協定の一部ではなかった。 サイクスはシェリフ・フセイン・ビンアリのカイロ事務所とは提携しておらず、 ピコとサイクスはフセインの合意を取り付けるため1917年ヒジャーズを訪問した。 その同じ年、彼とフランス外務省の代表は、オスマン帝国におけるトルコ領外の権（自由エルサレムを含む）で、パリの中央シリア議会に公式見解を伝えた。 彼は、ヒジャーズにおける独立の既成事実により、シリアに対する事実上の自治を拒絶することがほぼ不可能になったと述べた。

iwano_aoi
質問者

お礼

回答ありがとうございました。

  1. カテゴリ
  2. 学問・教育
  3. 語学
  4. 英語

関連するQ&A

  • 英文を日本語訳して下さい。

    The Sykes-Picot agreement, where France recognised Arab independence, had been signed after the letter to King Hussein: "It is accordingly understood between the French and British Governments... that France and Great Britain are prepared to recognise and uphold an independent Arab State or Confederation of Arab States in the areas A. and B. marked on the annexed map under the suzerainty of an Arab Chief." Hence France, argued the British, by signing practically recognised the British agreement with King Hussein, thus excluding Damascus, Homs, Hama, and Aleppo from the blue zone of direct French administration in the map attached to the agreement showed that these cities were included in an independent Arab State. Pichon said France could not be bound by what was for them an unknown agreement and had undertaken to uphold "an independent Arab State or Confederation of Arab States", but this did not mean the Kingdom of Hejaz and if they were promised a mandate for Syria, it would only act in agreement with the Arab State or Confederation of States.

  • 日本語訳をお願いいたします。

    The Agreement is seen by many as a turning point in Western–Arab relations. It negated British promises made to Arabs through Colonel T. E. Lawrence for a national Arab homeland in the area of Greater Syria, in exchange for their siding with British forces against the Ottoman Empire. It has been argued that the geopolitical architecture founded by the Sykes–Picot Agreement disappeared in July 2014 and with it the relative protection that religious and ethnic minorities enjoyed in the Middle East. The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) claims one of the goals of its insurgency is to reverse the effects of the Sykes–Picot Agreement.

  • 英文翻訳をお願いいたします。

    Since the Sykes–Picot Agreement, the League of Nations mandate system had been adopted. If a mandate were granted by the League of Nations over these territories, France wanted that part[which?] put aside for it. Lloyd George said that the League of Nations was unable to break the conditions the British treaty with Hussein bin Ali, Sharif of Mecca, referred to in the notes as King Hussein. He asked if the French intended to occupy Damascus as such a move would be a violation of the treaty the British had with Hussein. Stéphen Pichon replied that France had no convention with King Hussein. Lloyd George said that the whole of the Sykes-Picot Agreement was based on McMahon–Hussein Correspondence from Sir Henry McMahon to King Hussein, on the basis of which King Hussein had committed his resources to help Britain win the war against the Ottomans in World War I. Lloyd George claimed that France had for practical purposes accepted the British commitment to King Hussein by signing the Sykes-Picot agreement. If the British Government now agreed that Damascus, Homs, Hama, and Aleppo should be included in the sphere of direct French influence, they would be breaking their word to the Arabs, and they were unwilling to do this.

  • 日本語訳をお願いいたします。

    The Sykes–Picot Agreement /ˈsaɪks pi.ko/, officially known as the Asia Minor Agreement, was a secret agreement between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the French Third Republic, with the assent of the Russian Empire, defining their proposed spheres of influence and control in Southwestern Asia should the Triple Entente succeed in defeating the Ottoman Empire during World War I. The negotiation of the treaty occurred between November 1915 and March 1916, the agreement was signed on 16 May 1916, and was exposed to the public in Izvestia and Pravda on 23 November 1917 and in the British Guardian on November 26, 1917. The Agreement is considered to have shaped the region, defining the borders of Iraq and Syria and leading to the current conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.

  • 和訳をお願いします。

    The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) claims one of the goals of its insurgency is to reverse the effects of the Sykes–Picot Agreement. "This is not the first border we will break, we will break other borders," a jihadist from the ISIL warned in the video called End of Sykes-Picot. ISIL's leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, in a July 2014 speech at the Great Mosque of al-Nuri in Mosul, vowed that "this blessed advance will not stop until we hit the last nail in the coffin of the Sykes–Picot conspiracy". The Franco-German geographer Christophe Neff wrote that the geopolitical architecture founded by the Sykes–Picot Agreement disappeared in July 2014 and with it the relative protection of religious and ethnic minorities in the Middle East. He claimed furthermore that Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in some way restructured the geopolitical structure of the Middle East in summer 2014, particularly in Syria and Iraq. The former French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin presented a similar geopolitical analysis in an editorial contribution for the French newspaper Le Monde.

  • 英文を訳して下さい。

    Russian claims in the Ottoman Empire were denied following the Bolshevik Revolution and the Bolsheviks released a copy of the Sykes–Picot Agreement (as well as other treaties). They revealed full texts in Izvestia and Pravda on 23 November 1917; subsequently, the Manchester Guardian printed the texts on November 26, 1917. This caused great embarrassment between the allies and growing distrust between them and the Arabs. The Zionists were similarly upset,[citation needed] with the Sykes–Picot Agreement becoming public only three weeks after the Balfour Declaration. The Anglo-French Declaration of November 1918 pledged that Great Britain and France would "assist in the establishment of indigenous Governments and administrations in Syria and Mesopotamia" by "setting up of national governments and administrations deriving their authority from the free exercise of the initiative and choice of the indigenous populations". The French had reluctantly agreed to issue the declaration at the insistence of the British. Minutes of a British War Cabinet meeting reveal that the British had cited the laws of conquest and military occupation to avoid sharing the administration with the French under a civilian regime. The British stressed that the terms of the Anglo-French declaration had superseded the Sykes–Picot Agreement in order to justify fresh negotiations over the allocation of the territories of Syria, Mesopotamia, and Palestine.

  • 英文翻訳をお願いいたします。

    Given the eventual defeat in 1918 and subsequent partitioning of the Ottoman Empire, the agreement effectively divided the Ottoman's Arab provinces outside the Arabian peninsula into areas of future British and French control and influence. An "international administration" was proposed for Palestine. The British gained control of the territory in 1920 and ruled it as Mandatory Palestine from 1923 until 1948. They also ruled Mandatory Iraq from 1920 until 1932, while the French Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon lasted from 1923 to 1946. The terms were negotiated by the British and French diplomats Mark Sykes and François Georges-Picot. The Russian Tsarist government was a minor party to the Sykes–Picot agreement, and when, following the Russian Revolution, the Bolsheviks published the agreement on 23 November 1917 "the British were embarrassed, the Arabs dismayed and the Turks delighted."

  • 以下の英文を訳して下さい。

    George Curzon said the Great Powers were still committed to the Reglement Organique Agreement, which concerned governance and non-intervention in the affairs of the Maronite, Orthodox Christian, Druze, and Muslim communities, regarding the Beirut Vilayet of June 1861 and September 1864, and that the rights granted to France in the blue area under the Sykes–Picot Agreement were not compatible with that agreement. In May 1917, William Ormsby-Gore wrote

  • 日本語訳をお願いいたします。

    "The Palestine position is this. If we deal with our commitments, there is first the general pledge to Hussein in October 1915, under which Palestine was included in the areas as to which Great Britain pledged itself that they should be Arab and independent in the future ... Great Britain and France – Italy subsequently agreeing—committed themselves to an international administration of Palestine in consultation with Russia, who was an ally at that time ... A new feature was brought into the case in November 1917, when Mr Balfour, with the authority of the War Cabinet, issued his famous declaration to the Zionists that Palestine 'should be the national home of the Jewish people, but that nothing should be done—and this, of course, was a most important proviso—to prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine. Those, as far as I know, are the only actual engagements into which we entered with regard to Palestine."

  • 日本語訳をお願いいたします。

    Prior to Sykes's departure to meet Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Sazonov in Petrograd on 27 February 1916, Sykes was approached with a plan by Samuel in the form of a memorandum which Sykes thought prudent to commit to memory and then destroy. He also suggested to Samuel that if Belgium should assume the administration of Palestine it might be more acceptable to France as an alternative to the international administration which France wanted and the Zionists did not. Of the boundaries marked on a map attached to the memorandum he wrote: "By excluding Hebron and the East of the Jordan there is less to discuss with the Moslems, as the Mosque of Omar then becomes the only matter of vital importance to discuss with them and further does away with any contact with the bedouins, who never cross the river except on business. I imagine that the principal object of Zionism is the realization of the ideal of an existing centre of nationality rather than boundaries or extent of territory. The moment I return I will let you know how things stand at Pd."

注目のQ&A

カテゴリ

専門家に質問してみよう

職業から探して質問する

あなたにピッタリな商品が見つかる！ OKWAVEセレクト

質問する