The Article I read was "A Century After Sykes-Picot" by Eugene Rogan. The article explains the steps taken by England, France, and Arab leaders all took in order to help themselves as much as possible. However, as the article explains, the British and French eventually ignored the Arab peoples, only focusing on how they could evenly split the Middle East between the two countries and imperialize as successfully as possible.
The first paragraphs of the article explain a background on the relationship between Sir Henry McMahon and Sharif Hussein, and the deal the two agreed upon in terms of how the Middle East would be divided following World War I. However, the following paragraphs explained that the British, rather than give land to the Arabs, decided to split the Middle East into 2 areas, with themselves and the French each getting individual zones for their own use. The article stresses that this agreement, known as the Sykes-Picot Agreement, did not establish or divide specific countries, but only determined which land would belong to which world power. The final portion of …show more content…
I know that the United States was practicing a non-interventionism approach to foreign affairs, but as the article pointed out, Woodrow Wilsons 12th point of his 14 points stated, "nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development," thus forcing the United States to have some further opinion on the matter. It would be interesting to make the argument as to whether or not the United States belief in Arab self-determination, and their apparent lack of interest to follow up on the issue, has played an effect in how the United States eventually became more involved in the Middle
The first paragraphs of the article explain a background on the relationship between Sir Henry McMahon and Sharif Hussein, and the deal the two agreed upon in terms of how the Middle East would be divided following World War I. However, the following paragraphs explained that the British, rather than give land to the Arabs, decided to split the Middle East into 2 areas, with themselves and the French each getting individual zones for their own use. The article stresses that this agreement, known as the Sykes-Picot Agreement, did not establish or divide specific countries, but only determined which land would belong to which world power. The final portion of …show more content…
I know that the United States was practicing a non-interventionism approach to foreign affairs, but as the article pointed out, Woodrow Wilsons 12th point of his 14 points stated, "nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development," thus forcing the United States to have some further opinion on the matter. It would be interesting to make the argument as to whether or not the United States belief in Arab self-determination, and their apparent lack of interest to follow up on the issue, has played an effect in how the United States eventually became more involved in the Middle