• ベストアンサー
  • 困ってます


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.


  • 回答数1
  • 閲覧数63
  • ありがとう数1


  • 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。





  • 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.

  • 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."

  • 英文を日本語訳して下さい。

    Lord Grey had been the Foreign Secretary during the McMahon–Hussein negotiations. Speaking in the House of Lords on 27 March 1923, he made it clear that, for his part, he entertained serious doubts as to the validity of the British Government's (Churchill's) interpretation of the pledges which he, as Foreign Secretary, had caused to be given to the Sharif Hussein in 1915. He called for all of the secret engagements regarding Palestine to be made public. Many of the relevant documents in the National Archives were later declassified and published. Among them were various assurances of Arab independence provided by Secretary of War, Lord Kitchener, the Viceroy of India, and others in the War Cabinet. The minutes of a Cabinet Eastern Committee meeting, chaired by Lord Curzon, held on 5 December 1918 to discuss the various Palestine undertakings makes it clear that Palestine had not been excluded from the agreement with Hussein. General Jan Smuts, Lord Balfour, Lord Robert Cecil, General Sir Henry Wilson, Chief of the Imperial General Staff, and representatives of the Foreign Office, the India Office, the Admiralty, the War Office, and the Treasury were present. T. E. Lawrence also attended. According to the minutes Lord Curzon explained:

  • 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."

  • 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.

  • 英文を日本語訳して下さい。

    Much of the trauma and dislocation suffered by the peoples of the Middle East during the 20th century can be traced to the events surrounding World War I. During the conflict, the Ottoman Empire sided with the Central Powers against the Allies. Seeing an opportunity to liberate Arab lands from Turkish oppression, and trusting the honor of British officials who promised their support for a unified kingdom for the Arab lands, Sharif Hussein bin Ali, Emir of Mecca and King of the Arabs (and great grandfather of King Hussein), launched the Great Arab Revolt. After the conclusion of the war, however, the victors reneged on their promises to the Arabs, carving from the dismembered Ottoman lands a patchwork system of mandates and protectorates. While the colonial powers denied the Arabs their promised single unified Arab state, it is nevertheless testimony to the effectiveness of the Great Arab Revolt that the Hashemite family was able to secure Arab rule over Transjordan, Iraq and Arabia.

  • 日本語訳をお願い致します。

    Later on, the Ottomans officially claimed to have scored a substantial victory in further heavy fighting around Shaikh Othman and Bir Ahmad. This was a sheer invention. In January 1916, the Aden Movable Column moved out to protect some friendly troops to the east of the Aden Protectorate against Ottoman troops who had been sent to coerce them. The column located the Ottoman force near Subar, and defeated it. The general position was so unsatisfactory, however, that in April 1916, it was decided, on the suggestion of the Government of India, that ladies should not be allowed to land at Aden without receiving permission from the Commander-in-Chief in India. British Camel Battery of BLC 15 pounder guns after the capture of Hatum on 5 January 1918. Teams of four camels in two pairs are seen towing a gun and limber at left and right of picture. In the centre appears to be an ammunition limber towed by three camels. End of the campaign in South Arabia[edit] The eruption of the British-sponsored Arab Revolt in the Hejaz diverted Ottoman attention from Aden in the summer of 1916. Those Ottoman troops which remained reverted to the defensive, while the British built an eleven-mile-long defensive perimeter around Aden. They did not attempt to resecure lost territories in the hinterland, and no major fighting with the British took place after 1916. The Ottomans continued to hold territories in the protectorate until the Armistice of Mudros in October 1918 and the partition of the Ottoman Empire after the war.