Prior to the centenary of Sykes-Picot in 2016, the media[109] and scientists[110] generated strong interest in the long-term effects of the agreement. The agreement is often cited as „artificial“ borders in the Middle East, „without regard to ethnic or sectarian characteristics, which has led to endless conflicts.“ [111] The question of the extent to which Sykes-Picot has really marked the borders of the modern Middle East is controversial. [112] [113] The agreement thus helped to frame the contours of modern nation-states in a region where there were none before. Since it is essentially an agreement between two colonialist powers outside the region, it would have devastating effects. In April 1920, the San Remo conference distributed Class A mandates on Syria to France and Iraq and Palestine to Britain. The same conference ratified an oil agreement reached at a London conference on 12 February, based on a slightly different version of the Long Berenger agreement, previously signed on 21 December in London. In the Sykes-Picot Agreement, concluded on 19 May 1916, France and Great Britain divided the Arab territories of the former Ottoman Empire into spheres of influence. In its intended area, it was agreed that each country can establish a direct or indirect administration or control, as they wish and as they see fit to agree with the Arab State or with the Arab confederation. Under Sykes-Picot, the Syrian coast and much of present-day Lebanon went to France; Britain would take direct control of central and southern Mesopotamia around the provinces of Baghdad and Basra.
Palestine would have an international administration, because other Christian powers, namely Russia, were interested in this region. The rest of the territory in question – a vast territory with syria today, Mosul in northern Iraq and Jordan – would have local Arab leaders under French surveillance to the north and Britons to the south. In addition, Britain and France would retain free passage and trade within the other`s zone of influence. The failure of the draft arrangement was not reflected well on Sykes and, after doubts about his statements from Sykes-Picot to Hussein the previous year, his credibility in Middle East affairs weakened throughout 1918. Nevertheless, he continued his criticism of Sykes-Picot (at his request, now an adviser on Arab and Palestinian affairs at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs) and declared on 16 February that „the 1916 Anglo-French Agreement on Asia Minor should be re-elected“ and then, on 3 March, in a letter to Clayton, „the provisions relating to the red and blue zones can only be considered contrary to the spirit of every minister who has been made. for the last three months.“ Many sources claim that Sykes-Picot came into conflict with the Hussein-McMahon correspondence of 1915-1916 and that the publication of the agreement in November 1917 led to the resignation of Sir Henry McMahon. [107] There were several differences, iraq being the most obvious in the British red territory, and less obvious, the idea that British and French advisers would have control of the area designated as an Arab state.