We've Moved!
Visit SDSU’s new digital collections website at https://digitalcollections.sdsu.edu
Description
The purpose of this thesis will be to better understand the process in which the Transjordanian-Syrian border was created. This thesis argues that the Imperial Powers decided to impose this border based on a number a reasons, some indirectly related to the future states that would be Syria and Jordan. Also, I argue that the Sykes-Picot Agreement became moot and the final agreements had more to do with direct and indirect imperial relations with the Arabs. Had the Sykes-Picot Agreement remained the official agreement, the imperialist division of the Levant would not have existed in regard to direct French military control of Syria and the separation of Transjordan from it. Therefore, this thesis examines not only the agreements by the Imperialists but also the way in which the Arabs themselves, along with the imperial powers did not abide by it, but was only a framework used in the creation of the borders of the modern states of the Fertile Crescent. In relation to books directly and indirectly corresponding to this topic, primary sources such as The Fitroy Somerset Collection 1919-1921, The Deliberations of the Council of Four (March 24-June 28, 1919), Documents on British Foreign Policy 1919-1939, The Memoirs of King Abdullah I (1950) of Transjordan as translated by Philip Graves, T.E. Lawrence's Seven Pillars of Wisdom (1935). Secondary sources such as George Antonius' The Arab Awakening (1965), Ma'an Abu Nowar's The History of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (1989), David Fromkin's A Peace to End All Peace (1990), and Eliezer Tauber's The Formation of Modern Syria and Iraq (1995) as well as others have been of great help during the search for answers to the questions of why and how Sykes and Picot agreed and how the agreement was put into practice by the governments of Great Britain and France. This presentation will highlight several examples of political borders immediately before the implementation of the Imperial mandates as well as different interpretations of what borders were constituted by the mandates. The first example that will be used to show the lack of official recognition of the Sykes-Picot line will be the borders that constituted the limits of "Syria" in late 1918 to early 1919. The Euphrates town of Raqqa was to be Syria's frontier town on its eastern border with Iraq as this was the case during the period of Ottoman administration. This was contrary to the Sykes-Picot Agreement which would have given all of northern Mesopotamia to the future French Mandate of Syria. This gives some leverage to my argument that the Sykes-Picot Agreement was not as authoritative as commonly perceived. Syria's status at that time was a monarchy under Faisal I while Iraq was under British authority. Being on the border, Northwestern Mesopotamians obviously preferred to join an Arab-controlled state under Faisal, rather than what seemed to them to be the British Colony of Iraq. Therefore after many diplomatic and military efforts, the British agreed to attach that portion of Mesopotamia to Faisal's Syria. Ironically, Faisal became king of Iraq after being ousted of Syria by the French while Northwestern Mesopotamia remained attached to French Syria, coincidentally in accordance with the Sykes-Picot Agreement. The second example will be the southern border of the Levant, separating it from the Arabian Peninsula. The southern border of Transjordan with Saudi Arabia as it currently exists was created during the Saudi Conquest of the Hashemite Kingdom of the Hejaz in 1925. The northernmost districts of the Kingdom of Hejaz included current Jordanian cities as far north as Shawbak. During the Saudi conquest of the Hejaz, the northern districts as far south as Aqaba were transferred to the government of Transjordan by Abdullah I's older brother, Ali, who was the King of Hejaz at that time. The Saudi government did not formally recognize this transfer until 1965, claiming that the transferred areas are naturally part of the Hejaz. This was also excluded from imperialist designations and finalized almost exclusively between the Arabs themselves (the British played an advising role).
