Revision as of 15:56, 8 June 2013 view sourceMaccabipage (talk | contribs)230 edits →April 24, 1920: The Balfour Declaration becomes a legal document← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 14:00, 27 October 2024 view source RedactedHumanoid (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers2,881 edits Changed a link target.Tag: Visual edit | ||
(244 intermediate revisions by 87 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Short description|1920 meeting on post-WWI Ottoman territories}} | |||
The '''San Remo conference''' was an international meeting of the post-] ], held in ], ], from 19 to 26 April 1920. It was attended by the four Principal ] who were represented by the prime ministers of ] (]), ] (]) and ] (]) and by ]'s Ambassador K. Matsui. | |||
{{pp-30-500|small=yes}} | |||
{{Use dmy dates|date=February 2018}} | |||
{{Infobox document | |||
| document_name = San Remo resolution | |||
| image = San Remo Conference 1920.JPG | |||
| image_size = 300px | |||
| image_caption = After the resolution on 25 April 1920, standing outside Villa Devachan, from left to right: ], ], ], ], ], ], ] | |||
| date_created = {{start date|1920|04|25|df=yes}} | |||
| writer = ], ], ] and ] | |||
| purpose = Allocating the Class "A" ]s for the administration of three then-undefined ] territories in the ]: "Palestine", "Syria" and "Mesopotamia" | |||
}} | |||
{{Paris Peace Conference sidebox}} | |||
The '''San Remo conference''' was an international meeting of the post-] ] as an outgrowth of the ], held at ] in ], Italy, from 19 to 26 April 1920. The '''San Remo Resolution''' passed on 25 April 1920 determined the allocation of Class "A" ]s for the administration of three then-undefined ] territories in the ]: "]", "]" and "]". The boundaries of the three territories were "to be determined by the Principal Allied Powers", leaving the status of outlying areas such as ] and ] unclear. | |||
Resolutions passed at this conference determined the allocation of Class "A" ]s for administration of the former ]-ruled lands of the ]. | |||
The conference was attended by the four Principal ] who were represented by the prime ministers of ] (]), ] (]), ] (]) and by ]'s Ambassador ]. | |||
The precise boundaries of all territories were left unspecified, to "be determined by the Principal Allied Powers," and were not finalized until four years later. The conference decisions were embodied in the ] (Section VII, Art 94-97). As Turkey rejected this treaty, the conference's decisions with regard to the Palestine mandate were finally confirmed by the Council of the ] on 24 July 1922. | |||
== |
==Prior events== | ||
It was convened following the February ] where the allies met to discuss the ] and the negotiation of agreements that would become the ]. | |||
During the meetings of the "Council of Four" in 1919, British Prime Minister Lloyd George stated that the ] was a treaty obligation and the agreement with Hussein was the basis for the ] which proposed an independent Arab state or confederation of states.<ref></ref> In July 1919 the parliament of Greater Syria had refused to acknowledge any right claimed by the French Government to any part of Syrian territory.<ref></ref> | |||
On 30 September 1918 supporters of the Arab Revolt in Damascus declared a government loyal to |
On 30 September 1918 supporters of the ] in ] had declared a government loyal to ], who had been declared "King of the Arabs" by religious leaders and other notables in ].{{sfn|George|2005|p=6}} During the meetings of the ] in 1919, British Prime Minister Lloyd George stated that the ] was the basis for the ], which proposed an independent Arab state or confederation of states.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=goto&id=FRUS.FRUS1919Parisv05&isize=M&submit=Go+to+page&page=1|title=FRUS: Papers relating to the foreign relations of the United States, The Paris Peace Conference, 1919: The Council of Four: minutes of meetings March 20 to May 24, 1919|website=digicoll.library.wisc.edu}}</ref> In July 1919 the parliament of Greater Syria had refused to acknowledge any right claimed by the French Government to any part of Syrian territory.{{sfn|Baker|1979|p=161}} | ||
==History== | |||
The San Remo conference was hastily convened. It was attended by by the prime ministers of Great Britain, France, and Italy, and representatives of Japan, Greece, and Belgium.<ref></ref> Great Britain and France both agreed to recognize the provisional independence of Syria and Mesopotamia, while claiming mandates for their administration. Palestine was composed of the ]. Under international law, premature recognition of its independence would be a gross affront to the government of the newly declared parent state. It could have been construed as a belligerent act of intervention without any League of Nations sanction.<ref> and </ref> | |||
On 6 January 1920 Hussein's son Prince ] initialled an agreement with French Prime Minister ] which acknowledged "the right of the Syrians to unite to govern themselves as an independent nation".{{sfn|Paris|2003|p=69}} A ], meeting in Damascus, had proclaimed an independent ] on 8 March 1920.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=0NwLAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA665|title=King's Complete History of the World War ...: 1914–1918. Europe's War with Bolshevism 1919–1920. War of the Turkish Partition 1920–1921. Warfare in Ireland, India, Egypt, Far East 1916–1921. Epochal Events Thruout the Civilized World from Ferdinand's Assassination to Disarmament Conference|first=William C.|last=King|date=24 April 1922|publisher=History Associates|isbn=9780598443120|via=Google Books}}</ref> The new state included modern Syria and Jordan, portions of northern Mesopotamia which had been set aside under the Sykes–Picot Agreement for an independent Arab state or confederation of states, and nominally the areas of modern Israel–Palestine and Lebanon, although the latter areas were never under Faisal's control. Faisal was declared the head of state. At the same time ], Faisal's brother, was declared regent of Mesopotamia. | |||
For France, the San Remo decision meant that most of its claims in Syria were internationally recognized and relations with Faysal were now subject to French military and economic considerations. The ability of Great Britain to limit French action was also significantly diminished.<ref></ref> France issued an ultimatum and intervened militarily at the ] in June 1920, deposing the Arab government and removing King Faisal from Damascus in August 1920. In 1920, Great Britain appointed ] as high commissioner and established a mandatory government in Palestine that remained in power until 1948.<ref></ref> | |||
==Attendees== | |||
Article 22 of the covenant was written two months before the signing of the peace treaty. It was not known at that time to which territories paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 would relate. The territories which came under the regime set up by this article were three former parts of the Ottoman Empire and seven former overseas possessions of Germany referred to in Part IV, Section I, of the treaty of peace. Those 10 territorial areas were originally administered under 15 mandates.<ref> | |||
The conference was attended by the allies, the US representative joining the meeting later in an observer capacity:<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.israellegalfoundation.com/sanremominutes.html |title=San Remo Peace Conference Minutes |date=1920-04-25 |website=Office For Israeli Constitutional Law |access-date=2018-04-23 |df=dmy-all |archive-date=28 July 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190728134649/http://www.israellegalfoundation.com/sanremominutes.html |url-status=dead }}</ref> | |||
</ref> | |||
British Empire: | |||
==Resolutions== | |||
* David Lloyd George, Prime Minister | |||
The decisions of the San Remo conference confirmed the mandate allocations of the First ]. The San Remo Resolution adopted on 25 April 1920 incorporated the ] of 1917. It and Article 22 of the Covenant of the ] were the basic documents upon which the ] was constructed. Under the Balfour Declaration, the British government had undertaken to favour the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine without prejudice to the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. Britain received the mandate for Palestine and ]; France gained control of Syria, including present-day Lebanon. | |||
* ], Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs | |||
* ] | |||
* Colonel Walter H. Gribbon | |||
* Secretaries: ], Lieutenant-Colonel L. Storr | |||
France: | |||
==The Founding Document of Eretz Israel/Palestine== | |||
* Alexandre Millerand, President of the French Council of Ministers | |||
* ] | |||
* {{interlanguage link|Albert Kammerer|fr}} | |||
Italy: | |||
After 25 years of research, lawyers Howard Grief and Dr. Jacques Gauthier have come to the conclusion that the San Remo Conference in general and the San Remo Resolution in particular constitute the foundation documents of the modern State of Israel under international law. | |||
* Francesco Saverio Nitti, Prime Minister (in the Chair) | |||
* ] | |||
* Secretaries: Signor Garbasso, Signor Galli, Signor Trombetti, Lieutenant Zanchi. | |||
Japan: | |||
===April 24, 1920: The Balfour Declaration becomes a legal document=== | |||
* ] | |||
* Secretaries: Mr. Saito, Mr. Sawada. | |||
Interpreter: | |||
The San Remo Conference took place from April 18, to April 26, 1920. It's goal was to decide upon the future fate of all of Turkey’s ex-territorial possessions lying outside Anatolia, which, as a consequence of World War I, had ceased to be under the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire, as laid out in the Treaty of Versailles. | |||
* Gustave Henri Camerlynck | |||
United States of America (as observers): | |||
The San Remo Conference constitutes the first acknowledgement and recognition under modern international law, of the legal title of the ] to the mandated territory of Palestine, in all of its historical parts and dimensions. This decision was made by the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers (France, Great Britain, Italy and Japan; USA as an observer). The Principal allied Powers gave their approval to the ] of November 2, 1917, thereby giving international legal effect to its provisions. This act constituted a conversion of the Balfour Declaration from a mere statement of British government policy, into a binding legal document. This is further evidenced by the significant change in the nature and wording of Britain’s pledge or promise to the Jewish People to establish in Palestine a national home for the Jewish People: | |||
(November 2, 1917: “their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of the object” | |||
April 24, 1920: “responsible for putting into effect” this declared object.) | |||
* ], US Ambassador in Rome | |||
Henceforth the Balfour Declaration was to constitute and become the legal and constitutional basis for administering Palestine, in conjunction with the general provisions of the newly-established Mandates System created by Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant.<ref>{{cite web | |||
* ] | |||
| http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijS8mFP4I1A | |||
* ] | |||
| accessdate = July 9, 2010 | |||
==Issues addressed== | |||
===Origin of the Name Palestine=== | |||
The peace treaty with Turkey, the granting of League of Nation mandates in the Middle East, Germany's obligations under the ] of 1919, and the Allies' position on Soviet Russia.<ref name="HDEI">{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=uyqepNdgUWkC&q=san+remo+agreement+1920&pg=PA543|title=Historical Dictionary of European Imperialism|first=James Stuart|last=Olson|date=24 April 1991|publisher=Greenwood Publishing Group|via=Google Books|isbn=9780313262579}}</ref> | |||
==Agreements reached== | |||
The Christian and Zionist provenance of the name Palestine stems from the common denotation of the region as Palestine, | |||
Asserting that not all parts of the Middle East were ready for full independence, mandates were established for the government of three territories: Syria, Mesopotamia and Palestine. In each case, one of the Allied Powers was assigned to implement the mandate until the territories in question could "stand alone." Great Britain and France agreed to recognize the provisional independence of Syria and Mesopotamia, while claiming mandates for their administration. Palestine was included within the Ottoman administrative districts of the ] together with the ] and ].<ref>{{cite book |last=Büssow |first=Johann |title= Hamidian Palestine: Politics and Society in the District of Jerusalem 1872–1908 |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=crPPX99rjYUC&pg=PA5 |access-date=2013-05-17 |date=2011-08-11 |publisher=BRILL |isbn=978-90-04-20569-7 |page=5}}</ref><ref>The 1915 ''Filastin Risalesi'' ("Palestine Document") is a country survey of the ] of the Ottoman Army, which identified Palestine as a region including the sanjaqs of Akka (the Galilee), the Sanjaq of Nablus, and the Sanjaq of Jerusalem (Kudus Sherif), see </ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/3.jpg?OpenImageResource|title=Annex III – Ottoman Administrative Districts – Map|publisher = UN|date = 1915}}</ref> | |||
the Holy Land and/or Judea to denote the Land where Jesus was born among Christians. | |||
At the ] in August 1897, the Zionists adopted the Basle Program themselves using the name Palestine, in order to appeal to the Christian world. On July 1917, the term Palestine was included in the Zionist formula of the Balfour Declaration. | |||
After April 1920 Palestine became the official name of the country where the Jewish National Home and Jewish State would be established. The British military and civil administration rendered this name in Hebrew in all legal documents and postage stamps as Palestina followed by the letters aleph, yod in brackets (for Eretz Yisrael, giving it an official status. | |||
The decisions of the San Remo conference confirmed the mandate allocations of the Conference of London. The San Remo Resolution adopted on 25 April 1920 incorporated the ] of 1917. It and Article 22 of the ] were the basic documents upon which the ] was constructed. Under the Balfour Declaration, the British government had undertaken to favour the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine without prejudice to the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.<ref>The two-fold aims of the Mandate granted to Britain were reflected in the final text of Palestine Mandate granted to Britain by the League of Nations in 1922 . | |||
===Synonymy of Eretz Israel and Palestine=== | |||
It preamble stated that the purpose of the Mandate was both "giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations" and "putting into effect the declaration issued by the British govenemnt on November 2, 1917" (i.e. the ]". Article 2 stated that "The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home" but also "the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion".</ref> Article 22, para.4 of the Covenant, classified certain populations as "communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire" as having "reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nation can be provisionally recognized" (the ] under the League of Nations), and tasked the mandatory with rendering to those territories "administrative advice and assistance until such time as they are able to stand alone"<ref name="Lorca2014">{{cite book|author=Arnulf Becker Lorca|title=Mestizo International Law|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=yZaiBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA296|year=2014|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-0-521-76338-7|pages=296–}}</ref><ref name="Evans2010">{{cite book|author=Malcolm Evans|title=International Law|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ZWecAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA214|date=24 June 2010|publisher=OUP Oxford|isbn=978-0-19-956566-5|pages=214–}}</ref> | |||
. | |||
Britain received the mandate for Palestine and ]; France gained control of Syria, including present-day Lebanon. Following the ], Britain and France also signed the ], whereby Britain granted France a 25 percent share of the oil production from Mosul, with the remainder going to Britain<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=71sMAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA329|title=The Journal of International Relations|first1=George Hubbard|last1=Blakeslee|first2=Granville Stanley|last2=Hall|first3=Harry Elmer|last3=Barnes|date=24 April 1921|publisher=Clark University|via=Google Books}}</ref> and France undertook to deliver oil to the Mediterranean. The draft peace agreement with Turkey signed at the conference became the basis for the 1920 Treaty of Sèvres. Germany was called upon to carry out its military and reparation obligations under the Versailles Treaty, and a resolution was adopted in favor of restoring trade with Russia.<ref name="HDEI" /> | |||
Whilst Syria and Mesopotamia were provisionally recognized as states which would be given Mandatory assistance, Palestine would instead be administered by the Mandatory under an obligation to implement the ] and Article 22 of the ]. | |||
The establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine simultaneously meant creating the state and country of Palestine. Palestine in its entirety was reserved exclusively for the self-determination of the Jewish People. The Foreign Secretary f the Great Britain, Lord Curzon stated: “Palestine was in the future to be the National Home of the Jews throughout the world." | |||
France based its objection to inserting the Balfour Declaration in the Peace Treaty with Turkey precisely on the ground that doing so meant the actual establishment of a Jewish State which it strongly opposed but which it implicitly conceded to be the case after it was agreed by the Supreme Council to insert an obligatory version of the Balfour Declaration into the Treaty of Sèvres. | |||
] | |||
Those two new entities in international law (Palestine and Eretz Israel/the Jewish National Home) were therefore synonymous since they were both created | |||
at the very same time for the very same purpose. The Jewish National Home was to be housed in Palestine and Palestine was to be the Jewish National Home, i.e., the Jewish State, otherwise Palestine would never have been legally created on April 25, 1920 as a separate country. | |||
France insisted on maintaining “existing traditional rights” of the French and Latin Catholic Community in Palestine while adding “civil” and/or “political” rights to the rights awarded to the “existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine” of the Catholic religious community. Catholics in general and France in particular felt strong political and religious ties with Palestine because of the Crusades. It is important to understand that political rights meant individual electoral rights and not collective political rights. This ruled out any kind of national autonomy or self-determination for the Arabs living in Palestine. | |||
==San Remo Resolution – 25 April 1920== | |||
Thus, in the Draft Resolution concerning Mesopotamia, Palestine and Syria the title of sovereignty over Palestine was exclusively vested in the Jewish People. | |||
===April 25, 1920: Britain to be the Mandatory Power=== | |||
A mandate was conferred upon Great Britain for reconstituting the Jewish National Home in Palestine for an ancient nation most of whose members lived outside Palestine and only for that specific objective. | |||
The boundaries of Palestine were to be based on the biblical formula „from Dan to Beersheba“ based on the historical connection of the Jewish People with the entire Land of Israel, referring to the Promised Land that had been conquered, settled and ruled by the Twelve Tribes of Israel and their descendants, in both the First and Second Temple periods. | |||
The eventual demarcation of the boundaries of both Syria and Palestine was delayed and finally taken care of at the Franco-British Boundary Convention of December 23, 1920, as were the boundaries of Mesopotamia and Syria. The historical formula, “from Dant to Beersheba” was thrice agreed upon previously by Britain and France: the Lloyd George-Clemenceau agreement of December 1, 1918, the British aide-memoire dated September 13, 1919 (Anglo French negotiations at Deauville) and the London Conference on February 21, 1920 | |||
===The San Remo Resolution=== | |||
The Draft Resolution was approved on April 25, 1920 and adopted Final Resolution concerning Mesopotamia, Palestine and Syria, constituting a document referred to as San Remo Resolution. This Resolution in regard to Palestine stands on its own merit as an act of basic international law which was the legal source of British power of government in Palestine under the Mandates System. | |||
The San Remo Resolution is referred to as the “Mandates Article” in the Treaty of Peace with Turkey (Treaty of Sèvres of August 10, 1920). Furthermore, this very same name has been applied to Article 22 of the League of Nations. | |||
By virtue of the San remo Resolution, the title of sovereignty over Palestine was exclusively vested in the Jewish People. In addition the secret ] of May 1916 was officially replaced and terminated in addition with all other secret and illegal British Treaties from 1915-17: the Constantinople Agreement of March-April 1915 with France and Russia, the Treaty of London of April 26, 1915 with France and Italy, the McMahon Pledge made to the Sherif of Mecca, Hussein Ibn-Ali, on October 24, 1915, the Sykes-Picot Treaty of May 9 and 16, 1916 subsequently adhered to by Russia and the Agreement of Saint Jean de Maurienne of April 1917 with France and Italy. | |||
The ] was further repudiated by virtue of the Covenant of the ] in the ] of June 28, 1919. Article 18 states the repudiation of secret diplomacy as confirmed by virtue of the United Nations Charter (Article 102). Furthermore, the ] of 1969 requires treaties to be transmitted to th Secretariat of the United Nations for registration and publication (Article 80). | |||
The San Remo Resolution on Palestine named the Jewish People as the national beneficiary of the principle of self-determination in the Mandate Charter, for the purpose of applying the general provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. The dual or joint application of the Balfour Declaration with Artcile 22 of the ] meant that Palestine was reserved for the Jewish People as a whole (estimated 14.000.000), not merely fot the approximately 60.000 Jews living in Palestine at the end of the Great War. Nor was Palestine reserved for the estimated half-million Arabs then living there, even though they compromised the great majority of the relatively small population of the country. | |||
Thus the Jewish People were given a recognized international status by becoming the beneficiary of the right of national independence under Article 22 in conjunction with the Balfour Declaration. The Arabs were mentioned only once in the English version of the minutes (though not in the French version) by Lord Curzon in regard to safeguarding the rights of religious minorities under the first proviso of the Balfour Declaration that applied to the existing non Jewish communities in Palestine. | |||
It is thus clear that non-Jewish in this context centered on religious communities only and did not deal with national communities. Thus is may justly be assumed that Lord Curzon referred to Moslems, rather than Arabs. | |||
===Jewish De Jure Sovereignty over Palestine=== | |||
As a direct result of naming the Jewish People as the national beneficiary of the mandate for Palestine and basing the future administration of the country upon both the Balfour Declaration and Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant, de jure sovereignty or legal title over Palestine was implicitly transferred to the Jewish People by the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers who acted as the disposing agent under international law, by virtue of their military victory over the Central Powers. The Jewish People received this devolution of sovereignty or legal title from the very same source that the inhabitants from Syria and Mesopotamia also received it, by the considered decision of the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers. | |||
No valid complaint can therefore be seriously made by Arab spokesmen that the Supreme Council had no right to grant the Jewish people what it also granted to the new Arab states who were, in fact, the greatest recipients of Allied munificence. | |||
Once international law in the form of the San Remo Resolution recognized that de jure sovereignty over all regions of historical Palestine and the Land of Israel had been vested in the Jewish People, neither the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers, nor the Council of the League of Nations nor its successor, the United Nations could or can thereafter revoke or alter Jewish sovereignty by a new decision. Legal ownership or title to Palestine had been permanently transferred to the Jewish People and any right the Principal Allied Powers previously had in regard to this country had disappeared after its official creation. In the case of the League of Nations, it never had any right in its Covenant to deprive the Jewish People of its sovereignty over any part of Palestine, the designated Jewish State under Mandate. Nor does the United Nations possess this right in its Charter. If either of these bodies really had such a right in regard to Palestine and the Land of Israel, the sovereignty of every state in the world over its own territory would be put in jeopardy. | |||
The San Remo Resolution on Palestine is the base document upon which the Mandate for Palestine was constructed and to which it had to conform. | |||
The San Remo Resolution on Palestine is the foundation document of the State of Israel, the legal existence of which is directly traceable from that document and not, as commonly believed, from the U.N. General Assembly Partition Resolution of November 29, 1947. | |||
===The Aftermath=== | |||
The Insertion of the San Remo Resolution in the Treaty of Sèvres took place on August 10, 1920 as agreed upon at the Conference of San Remo. This was followed up by the insertion of the San Remo Resolution in the Preamble of the Mandate Charter. | |||
On December 23, 1920, the Franco-British Boundary Convention and Demarcation Agreement finally solidified the borders of Palestine and Syria. | |||
The Mandate Charter was approved on June 1922 by 52 nations and by all additional nations that subsequently joined the League of Nations | |||
In 1923, the Treaty of Sèvres was replaced by the Treaty of Lausanne, which did not mention the San Remo Resolution specifically. Because it was an independent act of binding international law, the San Remo Resolution on Palestine was not diminished in any way by this fact. The San Remo Resolution remained as a binding legal document standing on its own merit, because it was encapsulated into the first three recitals of the Preamble of the Mandate for Palestine, and was reinforced by the Franco-British Boundary Convention of December 23, 1920, which delineated the original borders in what was meant to be the Jewish State of Palestine. In this context, the San Remo Resoluton is an inter-Allied agreement between the four Principal Allied Powers that created the modern Middle East. | |||
Its status as an independent act of international law that was not merely one of the Articles of the Treaty of Sèvres is further evidenced by the fact that it contained two provisions not found in any other document: | |||
First, the naming of the Mandatory Powers for the three Middle Eastern Mandates concerning which the Treaty of Sèvres is silent. | |||
Second, the right accorded to Italy to refuse to approve the terms of those Mandates | |||
The San Remo Resolution in Regard to Mesopotamia (Iraq) and Syria was executed in full. The tragedy of the Jewish People in the ensuing years after the Resolution’s adoption resulted from the fact that it was decapitated in practice, by successive Governments of Great Britain who distorted it beyond recognition and failed to properly carry out its true meaning in accordance with the international legal obligations they had undertaken. | |||
Foreign Secretary of Great Britain Lord Curzon reiterated the importance of the San Remo Resolution when he stated publicly: "The San Remo Resolution on Palestine is the Magna Charta of the Zionists." | |||
===Ultimate Deception=== | |||
Lord Curzon subsequently turned down Chaim Weimanns request to insert a clause in the Preamble of the Mandate for Palestine which would have explicitly recognized the historical connection of the Jewish People with Palestine, as he thought nothing more to be required. | |||
Lord Curzon was not loyal to his own words, while ] did not fully grasp the true meaning of the San Remo Resolution. The only Zionist leader at the time who properly understood the natural consequences of the legal recognition of the Balfour Declaration in the San Remo Resolution was U.S. Supreme Court Justice, ]. | |||
He realized that the political and legal battle to obtain the Charter of Freedom which was the central goal of Herzlian ] had been won and that practical measures could now be taken by the Zionist Movement to re-build the ancient Jewish State and Homeland, concentrating mainly on economic policy and promoting investments to make the Jews of Palestine self-reliant and self-supporting. He saw no further need for more political action in the international arena to secure over again what had just been so marvelously secured by the extraordinary efforts of Weizmann and many others, including Brandeis himself. He clashed with Weizman and his supporters who wanted the Zionist Movement to continue unabated its political work, as if the San Remo Resolution, the crowning achievement of pre-State Zionism, never existed. Brandeis thought that such work should be left principally in the hands of the Jewish community in Palestine. When Weizmann’s view gained the upper hand, Brandeis withdrew in 1921 from the ranks of leadership of both American and world Zionism. Thus the brilliant legal mind of Brandeis was subsequently absent in Zionist counsels when it was most needed to defeat ignoble British attempts to undermine Jewish legal rights and title of sovereignty over Palestine that began immediately after the San Remo Resolution was adopted by the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers, due to changes in government. | |||
The minutes in English of the San Remo Peace Conference for the sessions hold on April 24 and 25, 1920 were not published until 1958, which left most historians in the dark about the true meaning and ultimate consequences of that meeting. | |||
In addition, the Treaty of Sèvres which incorporated the San Remo Resolution, never entered into legal force as a ratified treaty. By contrast, the ] which was subsequently ratified, did not mention the San Remo Resolution in particular, simply stating that "all previous agreements to these territories ought to be respected." | |||
British refusal to implement the San Remo Resolution according to what it really meant in regard to Palestine led to its de facto erasure as an independent act of international law. | |||
However, this does not change the fact that the San Remo Resolution on Palestine constitutes the preeminent foundation document of the State of Israel under modern international law. | |||
==Anniversary celebrations== | |||
In 2010, the town of San Remo marked the 90th anniversary of the conference with several events organized by the European Coalition for Israel and Canadian Supporters for Israel's Rights. A panel was held under the auspices of San Remo mayor Maurizio Zoccarato on the subject of the San Remo's legal significance for the status of Israel and Jerusalem under international law. Panel participants included Deputy Speaker of the Knesset MK ], Italian MP ] and international legal expert Jacques Gauthier of Toronto.<ref>]]</ref> | |||
According to Gauthier, the San Remo Conference was a “key defining moment in history” on the issue of title to Jerusalem, a sentiment expressed at the time by ], who called it the “most important moment for the Jewish people since the exile.” At the 90th anniversary celebrations, Gauthier stated that the Jewish claim submitted to the world powers at San Remo was to be recognized as a people under the law of nations, to have the Jewish historical connection to what was then known as “Palestine” recognized; and to be granted the right to “reconstitute” Jewish historical rights in Palestine. While the Arabs also had claims on Ottoman territory, they were not specific to Palestine or Jerusalem.<ref>]]</ref> | |||
==Text of Resolution== | |||
'''San Remo Resolution - April 25, 1920''' | |||
'''It was agreed –''' | '''It was agreed –''' | ||
'''(a)''' To accept the terms of the Mandates Article as given below with reference to Palestine, on the understanding that there was inserted in the |
'''(a)''' To accept the terms of the Mandates Article as given below with reference to Palestine, on the understanding that there was inserted in the ] an undertaking by the Mandatory Power that this would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine; this undertaking not to refer to the question of the religious protectorate of France, which had been settled earlier in the previous afternoon by the undertaking given by the French Government that they recognized this protectorate as being at an end. | ||
'''(b)''' that the terms of the Mandates Article should be as follows: | '''(b)''' that the terms of the Mandates Article should be as follows: | ||
The High Contracting Parties agree that Syria and Mesopotamia shall, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 22, Part I (Covenant of the League of Nations), be provisionally recognized as independent States, subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The boundaries of the said States will be determined, and the selection of the Mandatories made, by the Principal Allied Powers. | The High Contracting Parties agree that Syria and Mesopotamia shall, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 22, Part I (Covenant of the League of Nations), be provisionally recognized as independent States, subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The boundaries of the said States will be determined, and the selection of the Mandatories made, by the Principal Allied Powers.{{sfn|Quigley|2010|p=29}} | ||
The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory, to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on |
The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory, to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on the 8th November, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.{{efn|group=lower-alpha|1={{harvtxt|Quigley|2010|p=29}} "The provision on Palestine thus read differently from the provision on Syria and Mesopotamia and omitted reference to any provisional recognition of Palestine as an independent state. The provision on Palestine read differently for the apparent reason that the mandatory would administer, hence the thrust of the provision was to make that point clear. In any event, the understanding of the resolution was that all the Class A mandates were states. Before leaving San Remo, Curzon telegraphed a memorandum to the Foreign Office in London to explain the San Remo decisions. In explaining to the Foreign Office how the boundaries between the mandate territories would he fixed, Curzon wrote that "he boundaries of these States will not be included in the Peace Treaty but are also to be determined by the principal Allied Powers."}} | ||
La Puissance mandataire s’engage |
''La Puissance mandataire s’engage à nommer dans le plus bref delai une Commission speciale pour etudier toute question et toute reclamation concernant les differentes communautes religieuses et en etablir le reglement. Il sera tenu compte dans la composition de cette Commission des interets religieux en jeu. Le President de la Commission sera nommé par le Conseil de la Societé des Nations.'' | ||
The terms of the mandates in respect of the above territories will be formulated by the Principal Allied Powers and submitted to the Council of the League of Nations for approval. | The terms of the mandates in respect of the above territories will be formulated by the Principal Allied Powers and submitted to the Council of the League of Nations for approval. | ||
Line 142: | Line 91: | ||
Turkey hereby undertakes, in accordance with the provisions of Article to accept any decisions which may be taken in this connection. | Turkey hereby undertakes, in accordance with the provisions of Article to accept any decisions which may be taken in this connection. | ||
'''(c)''' Les mandataires choisis par les principales Puissances |
'''(c)''' ''Les mandataires choisis par les principales Puissances alliés sont: la France pour la Syrie, et la Grande Bretagne pour la Mesopotamie, et la Palestine.'' | ||
In reference to the above decision the Supreme Council took note of the following reservation of the Italian Delegation: | In reference to the above decision the Supreme Council took note of the following reservation of the Italian Delegation: | ||
La Delegation Italienne en consideration des grands |
''La Delegation Italienne en consideration des grands interêts economiques que l’Italie en tant que puissance exclusivement mediterranéenne possède en Asie Mineure, reserve son approbation à la presente resolution, jusqu’au reglement des interêts italiens en Turquie d’Asie.'' | ||
<ref>, MidEastWeb</ref> | |||
}} | |||
==Subsequent events== | |||
{{see also|Mandate for Palestine}} | |||
] | |||
While Transjordan was not mentioned during the discussions,{{sfn|Biger|2004|p=173}} three months later, in July 1920, the French defeat of the ] state precipitated the British need to know 'what is the "Syria" for which the French received a mandate at San Remo?' and "does it include Transjordania?"{{refn|1=Hubert Young to Ambassador Hardinge (Paris), 27 July 1920, FO 371/5254, cited in {{harvtxt|Wilson|1988|p=44}}}} – it subsequently decided to pursue a policy of associating Transjordan with the mandated area of Palestine but not to apply the special provisions which were intended to provide a national home for the Jewish people West of the Jordan{{efn|group=lower-alpha|1={{harvtxt|Karsh|Karsh|2001}} A telegram from Earl Curzon to Sir Herbert Samuel, dated 6 August 1920 stated: "I suggest that you should let it be known forthwith that in the area south of the Sykes-Picot line, we will not admit French authority and that our policy for this area to be independent but in closest relations with Palestine;" (in Rohan Butler et al., Documents of British Foreign Policy, 1919–1939, first series volume XIII London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1963, p. 331.) Karsh writes that at the same time Curzon wrote to ], stating: "His Majesty's Government are already treating 'Trans-Jordania' as separate from the Damascus State, while at the same time avoiding any definite connection between it and Palestine, thus leaving the way open for the establishment there, should it become advisable, of some form of independent Arab government, perhaps by arrangement with King Hussein or other Arab chiefs concerned."}}{{efn|group=lower-alpha|1={{harvtxt|Wilson|1988|p=44}} Since the end of the war the territory north of Ma'an had been ruled by Damascus as a province of Faysal's Kingdom of Syria. Although it fell within the British zone according to the Sykes-Picot agreement, Britain was content with the arrangement because it favoured Arab rule in the interior and Faysal was, after all, British protege. However, when France occupied Damascus the picture changed dramatically. Britain did not want to see France extend its control southward to the borders of Palestine and closer to the Suez Canal.... It suddenly became important to know 'what is the "Syria" for which the French received a mandate at San Remo?' and 'does it include Transjordania?'... The British foreign secretary, Lord Curzon, decided that it did not and that Britain henceforth would regard the area as independent, but in 'closest relation' with Palestine.}}{{efn|group=lower-alpha|1={{harvtxt|Wilson|1988|pp=46–48}} Samuel then organised a meeting of Transjordanian leaders at Salt on 21 August, at which he would announce British plans... On 20 August Samuel and a few political officers left Jerusalem by car, headed for the Jordan river, the frontier of British territory at that time. ‘It is an entirely irregular proceeding,’ he noted, ‘my going outside my own jurisdiction into a country which was Faisal's, and is still being administered by the Damascus Government, now under French influence. But it is equally irregular for a government under French influence to be exercising functions in territory which is agreed to be within the British sphere: and of the two irregularities I prefer mine.’... The meeting, held in the courtyard of the Catholic church, was attended by about 600 people..... Sentence by sentence his speech describing British policy was translated into Arabic: political officers would be stationed in towns to help organise local governments; Transjordan would not come under Palestinian administration; there would be no conscription and no disarmament......On balance, Samuel's statement of policy was unobjectionable. Three things feared by the Arabs of Transjordan – conscription, disarmament, and annexation by Palestine – were abjured.... The presence of a few British agents, unsupported by troops, seemed a small concession in return for the protection Britain's presence would afford against the French, who, it was feared, might press their occupation southward... Samuel returned to Jerusalem well pleased with the success of his mission. He left behind several officers to see to the administration of Transjordan and the maintenance of British influence.}}{{efn|group=lower-alpha|1={{harvtxt|Wasserstein|2003|pp=105–106}} "Palestine, therefore, was not partitioned in 1921–1922. Transjordan was not excised but, on the contrary, added to the mandatory area. Zionism was barred from seeking to expand there – but the Balfour Declaration had never previously applied to the area east of the Jordan. Why is this important? Because the myth of Palestine's 'first partition' has become part of the concept of 'Greater Israel' and of the ideology of Jabotinsky's Revisionist movement."}} – and the French proclaimed ] and ] on 31 August 1920. | |||
For France, the San Remo decision meant that most of its claims in Syria were internationally recognized and relations with Faisal were now subject to French military and economic considerations. The ability of Great Britain to limit French action was also significantly diminished.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-13974397.html|title=France in Syria: the abolition of the Sharifian government, April–July 1920. Middle Eastern Studies | HighBeam Research |date=27 February 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110227231928/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-13974397.html |archive-date=27 February 2011 }}</ref> France issued an ultimatum and intervened militarily at the ] in July 1920, deposing the Arab government and removing King Faisal from Damascus in August 1920. In 1920, Great Britain appointed ] as high commissioner and established a mandatory government in Palestine that remained in power until 1948.<ref>{{Cite journal|url=https://academic.oup.com/ehr/article/XCI/CCCLXI/753/427976|title=Herbert Samuel and the Palestine problem|first=Bernard|last=Wasserstein|date=1 October 1976|journal=The English Historical Review|volume=XCI|issue=CCCLXI|pages=753–775|via=academic.oup.com|doi=10.1093/ehr/XCI.CCCLXI.753}}</ref> | |||
Article 22 of the ], which contained the general rules to be applied to all ], was written two months before the signing of the Versaille Peace Treaty. It was not known at that time to which territories paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 would relate. The territories which came under the regime set up by this article were three former parts of the Ottoman Empire and seven former overseas possessions of Germany referred to in Part IV, Section I, of the treaty of peace. Those 10 territorial areas were originally administered under 15 mandates.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=goto&id=FRUS.FRUS1919Parisv13&isize=M&submit=Go+to+page&page=94|title=FRUS: Papers relating to the foreign relations of the United States, The Paris Peace Conference, 1919: I: The treaty of peace between the Allied and Associated Powers and Germany, signed at Versailles, June 28, 1919|website=digicoll.library.wisc.edu}}</ref> | |||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
{{Portal|Politics}} | |||
*] | |||
*] | *] | ||
*] | *] | ||
*] | |||
==Notes== | |||
{{notelist-la}} | |||
==References== | ==References== | ||
{{reflist}} | {{reflist}} | ||
==Sources== | |||
{{refbegin}} | |||
*{{cite book | |||
| title = King Husain and the Kingdom of Hejaz | |||
| url = https://books.google.com/books?id=n706ShSYt-sC&pg=PA161 | |||
| first1 = Randall| last1 = Baker | |||
| publisher = Oleander | |||
| isbn = 978-0900891489 | |||
| date = 1979 | |||
}} | |||
*{{cite book|first=Gideon|last=Biger|title=The Boundaries of Modern Palestine, 1840–1947|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=wUqRAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA170|date=2004|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-1-135-76652-8}} | |||
*{{cite book | |||
| url = https://books.google.com/books?id=GhSge_Tq09sC&pg=PA7 | |||
| title = Jordan: Living in the Crossfire | |||
| first1 = Alan | |||
| last1 = George | |||
| publisher = Zed Books | |||
| date = 2005 | |||
| isbn = 978-1842774717 | |||
}} | |||
*{{cite book | |||
| url = https://books.google.com/books?id=1E_SATQRKjoC&pg=PA317 | |||
| title = Empires of the Sand: The Struggle for Mastery in the Middle East, 1789–1923 | |||
| first1 = Efraim| last1 = Karsh | |||
| first2 = Inari | last2 = Karsh | |||
| date = 2001 | |||
| publisher = Harvard UP | |||
| isbn = 978-0674005419 | |||
}} | |||
*{{cite book | |||
| title = Britain, the Hashemites and Arab Rule, 1920–1925 | |||
| first1 = Timothy J | |||
| last1 = Paris | |||
| publisher = Routledge | |||
| date = 2003 | |||
| isbn = 978-0714654515 | |||
}} | |||
*{{cite book | |||
| first1 = John| last1 = Quigley | |||
| title = The Statehood of Palestine: International Law in the Middle East Conflict | |||
| url = https://books.google.com/books?id=iTR3BQ0aJ6UC&pg=PA29 | |||
| date = 2010 | |||
| publisher = CUP | |||
| isbn = 978-1139491242 | |||
}} | |||
*{{cite book |first1 = Bernard | |||
|last1 = Wasserstein | |||
|date = 2003 | |||
|publisher = Yale UP | |||
|isbn = 978-0300101720 | |||
|title = Israelis and Palestinians : Why do they fight? Can they stop? | |||
|url-access = registration | |||
|url = https://archive.org/details/israelispalestin00wass | |||
}} | |||
*{{cite book | |||
| title = King Abdullah, Britain and the Making of Jordan | |||
| series = (Cambridge Middle East Library) | |||
| first1 = Mary Christina | |||
| last1 = Wilson | |||
| publisher = CUP | |||
| date = 1988 | |||
| isbn = 978-0521324212 | |||
}} | |||
{{refend}} | |||
==Further reading== | ==Further reading== | ||
{{refbegin}} | |||
*{{cite book|first=David|last=Fromkin|title=A Peace to End All Peace|location=New York|publisher=Henry Holt|year=1989}} | |||
*{{cite book|first=David|last=Fromkin| author-link = David Fromkin |title=A Peace to End All Peace|location=New York|publisher=Henry Holt|year=1989|title-link=A Peace to End All Peace}} | |||
*{{cite book|first=Leonard|last=Stein|title=The Balfour Declaration|location=London|publisher=Valentine Mitchell|year=1961}} | *{{cite book|first=Leonard|last=Stein|title=The Balfour Declaration|location=London|publisher=Valentine Mitchell|year=1961}} | ||
* , New York Times, April |
* , New York Times, 28 April 1920, Wednesday. "CONFEREES DEPART FROM SAN REMO; Millerand Receives Ovation from Italians on His Homeward Journey. RESULTS PLEASE GERMANS; Berlin Liberal Papers Rejoice at Decision to Invite Chancellor to Spa Conference." | ||
{{refend}} | |||
==External links== | ==External links== | ||
* | * | ||
* | * {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060518044016/http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/britman.htm |date=18 May 2006 }} | ||
* | |||
* (map) | |||
{{Paris Peace Conference navbox}} | |||
{{Documents of Mandate Palestine}} | {{Documents of Mandate Palestine}} | ||
{{Arab–Israeli diplomacy}} | {{Arab–Israeli diplomacy}} | ||
{{authority control}} | |||
{{DEFAULTSORT:San Remo Conference}} | {{DEFAULTSORT:San Remo Conference}} | ||
Line 179: | Line 214: | ||
] | ] | ||
] | ] | ||
] | ] | ||
] | ] | ||
] | ] | ||
Line 186: | Line 221: | ||
] | ] | ||
] | ] | ||
] |
Latest revision as of 14:00, 27 October 2024
1920 meeting on post-WWI Ottoman territories
San Remo resolution | |
---|---|
After the resolution on 25 April 1920, standing outside Villa Devachan, from left to right: Matsui, Lloyd George, Curzon, Berthelot, Millerand, Vittorio Scialoja, Nitti | |
Created | 25 April 1920 (1920-04-25) |
Author(s) | Lloyd George, Millerand, Nitti and Matsui |
Purpose | Allocating the Class "A" League of Nations mandates for the administration of three then-undefined Ottoman territories in the Middle East: "Palestine", "Syria" and "Mesopotamia" |
Paris Peace Conference |
---|
League of Nations |
Treaty of Versailles |
Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye |
Treaty of Neuilly-sur-Seine |
Treaty of Trianon |
Treaty of Sèvres |
Others |
The San Remo conference was an international meeting of the post-World War I Allied Supreme Council as an outgrowth of the Paris Peace Conference, held at Castle Devachan in Sanremo, Italy, from 19 to 26 April 1920. The San Remo Resolution passed on 25 April 1920 determined the allocation of Class "A" League of Nations mandates for the administration of three then-undefined Ottoman territories in the Middle East: "Palestine", "Syria" and "Mesopotamia". The boundaries of the three territories were "to be determined by the Principal Allied Powers", leaving the status of outlying areas such as Zor and Transjordan unclear.
The conference was attended by the four Principal Allied Powers of World War I who were represented by the prime ministers of Britain (David Lloyd George), France (Alexandre Millerand), Italy (Francesco Nitti) and by Japan's Ambassador Keishirō Matsui.
Prior events
It was convened following the February Conference of London where the allies met to discuss the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire and the negotiation of agreements that would become the Treaty of Sèvres.
On 30 September 1918 supporters of the Arab Revolt in Damascus had declared a government loyal to Sharif Hussein, who had been declared "King of the Arabs" by religious leaders and other notables in Mecca. During the meetings of the Council of Four in 1919, British Prime Minister Lloyd George stated that the McMahon–Hussein Correspondence was the basis for the Sykes–Picot Agreement, which proposed an independent Arab state or confederation of states. In July 1919 the parliament of Greater Syria had refused to acknowledge any right claimed by the French Government to any part of Syrian territory.
On 6 January 1920 Hussein's son Prince Faisal initialled an agreement with French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau which acknowledged "the right of the Syrians to unite to govern themselves as an independent nation". A Pan-Syrian Congress, meeting in Damascus, had proclaimed an independent Arab Kingdom of Syria on 8 March 1920. The new state included modern Syria and Jordan, portions of northern Mesopotamia which had been set aside under the Sykes–Picot Agreement for an independent Arab state or confederation of states, and nominally the areas of modern Israel–Palestine and Lebanon, although the latter areas were never under Faisal's control. Faisal was declared the head of state. At the same time Prince Zeid, Faisal's brother, was declared regent of Mesopotamia.
Attendees
The conference was attended by the allies, the US representative joining the meeting later in an observer capacity:
British Empire:
- David Lloyd George, Prime Minister
- Lord Curzon, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
- Robert Vansittart
- Colonel Walter H. Gribbon
- Secretaries: Maurice Hankey, Lieutenant-Colonel L. Storr
France:
- Alexandre Millerand, President of the French Council of Ministers
- Philippe Berthelot
- Albert Kammerer [fr]
Italy:
- Francesco Saverio Nitti, Prime Minister (in the Chair)
- Vittorio Scialoja
- Secretaries: Signor Garbasso, Signor Galli, Signor Trombetti, Lieutenant Zanchi.
Japan:
- Matsui Keishirō
- Secretaries: Mr. Saito, Mr. Sawada.
Interpreter:
- Gustave Henri Camerlynck
United States of America (as observers):
- Robert Underwood Johnson, US Ambassador in Rome
- Leland Harrison
- T. Hart Anderson, Jr.
Issues addressed
The peace treaty with Turkey, the granting of League of Nation mandates in the Middle East, Germany's obligations under the Versailles Peace Treaty of 1919, and the Allies' position on Soviet Russia.
Agreements reached
Asserting that not all parts of the Middle East were ready for full independence, mandates were established for the government of three territories: Syria, Mesopotamia and Palestine. In each case, one of the Allied Powers was assigned to implement the mandate until the territories in question could "stand alone." Great Britain and France agreed to recognize the provisional independence of Syria and Mesopotamia, while claiming mandates for their administration. Palestine was included within the Ottoman administrative districts of the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem together with the Sanjak of Nablus and Sanjak of Akka (Acre).
The decisions of the San Remo conference confirmed the mandate allocations of the Conference of London. The San Remo Resolution adopted on 25 April 1920 incorporated the Balfour Declaration of 1917. It and Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations were the basic documents upon which the British Mandate for Palestine was constructed. Under the Balfour Declaration, the British government had undertaken to favour the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine without prejudice to the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. Article 22, para.4 of the Covenant, classified certain populations as "communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire" as having "reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nation can be provisionally recognized" (the Class A mandates under the League of Nations), and tasked the mandatory with rendering to those territories "administrative advice and assistance until such time as they are able to stand alone" . Britain received the mandate for Palestine and Iraq; France gained control of Syria, including present-day Lebanon. Following the 1918 Clemenceau–Lloyd George Agreement, Britain and France also signed the San Remo Oil Agreement, whereby Britain granted France a 25 percent share of the oil production from Mosul, with the remainder going to Britain and France undertook to deliver oil to the Mediterranean. The draft peace agreement with Turkey signed at the conference became the basis for the 1920 Treaty of Sèvres. Germany was called upon to carry out its military and reparation obligations under the Versailles Treaty, and a resolution was adopted in favor of restoring trade with Russia.
Whilst Syria and Mesopotamia were provisionally recognized as states which would be given Mandatory assistance, Palestine would instead be administered by the Mandatory under an obligation to implement the Balfour Declaration and Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.
San Remo Resolution – 25 April 1920
It was agreed –
(a) To accept the terms of the Mandates Article as given below with reference to Palestine, on the understanding that there was inserted in the procès-verbal an undertaking by the Mandatory Power that this would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine; this undertaking not to refer to the question of the religious protectorate of France, which had been settled earlier in the previous afternoon by the undertaking given by the French Government that they recognized this protectorate as being at an end.
(b) that the terms of the Mandates Article should be as follows:
The High Contracting Parties agree that Syria and Mesopotamia shall, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 22, Part I (Covenant of the League of Nations), be provisionally recognized as independent States, subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The boundaries of the said States will be determined, and the selection of the Mandatories made, by the Principal Allied Powers.
The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory, to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on the 8th November, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
La Puissance mandataire s’engage à nommer dans le plus bref delai une Commission speciale pour etudier toute question et toute reclamation concernant les differentes communautes religieuses et en etablir le reglement. Il sera tenu compte dans la composition de cette Commission des interets religieux en jeu. Le President de la Commission sera nommé par le Conseil de la Societé des Nations.
The terms of the mandates in respect of the above territories will be formulated by the Principal Allied Powers and submitted to the Council of the League of Nations for approval.
Turkey hereby undertakes, in accordance with the provisions of Article to accept any decisions which may be taken in this connection.
(c) Les mandataires choisis par les principales Puissances alliés sont: la France pour la Syrie, et la Grande Bretagne pour la Mesopotamie, et la Palestine.
In reference to the above decision the Supreme Council took note of the following reservation of the Italian Delegation:
La Delegation Italienne en consideration des grands interêts economiques que l’Italie en tant que puissance exclusivement mediterranéenne possède en Asie Mineure, reserve son approbation à la presente resolution, jusqu’au reglement des interêts italiens en Turquie d’Asie.
Subsequent events
See also: Mandate for PalestineWhile Transjordan was not mentioned during the discussions, three months later, in July 1920, the French defeat of the Arab Kingdom of Syria state precipitated the British need to know 'what is the "Syria" for which the French received a mandate at San Remo?' and "does it include Transjordania?" – it subsequently decided to pursue a policy of associating Transjordan with the mandated area of Palestine but not to apply the special provisions which were intended to provide a national home for the Jewish people West of the Jordan – and the French proclaimed Greater Lebanon and other component states of its Syrian mandate on 31 August 1920. For France, the San Remo decision meant that most of its claims in Syria were internationally recognized and relations with Faisal were now subject to French military and economic considerations. The ability of Great Britain to limit French action was also significantly diminished. France issued an ultimatum and intervened militarily at the Battle of Maysalun in July 1920, deposing the Arab government and removing King Faisal from Damascus in August 1920. In 1920, Great Britain appointed Herbert Samuel, 1st Viscount Samuel as high commissioner and established a mandatory government in Palestine that remained in power until 1948.
Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant, which contained the general rules to be applied to all Mandated Territories, was written two months before the signing of the Versaille Peace Treaty. It was not known at that time to which territories paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 would relate. The territories which came under the regime set up by this article were three former parts of the Ottoman Empire and seven former overseas possessions of Germany referred to in Part IV, Section I, of the treaty of peace. Those 10 territorial areas were originally administered under 15 mandates.
See also
Notes
- Quigley (2010, p. 29) "The provision on Palestine thus read differently from the provision on Syria and Mesopotamia and omitted reference to any provisional recognition of Palestine as an independent state. The provision on Palestine read differently for the apparent reason that the mandatory would administer, hence the thrust of the provision was to make that point clear. In any event, the understanding of the resolution was that all the Class A mandates were states. Before leaving San Remo, Curzon telegraphed a memorandum to the Foreign Office in London to explain the San Remo decisions. In explaining to the Foreign Office how the boundaries between the mandate territories would he fixed, Curzon wrote that "he boundaries of these States will not be included in the Peace Treaty but are also to be determined by the principal Allied Powers."
- Karsh & Karsh (2001) A telegram from Earl Curzon to Sir Herbert Samuel, dated 6 August 1920 stated: "I suggest that you should let it be known forthwith that in the area south of the Sykes-Picot line, we will not admit French authority and that our policy for this area to be independent but in closest relations with Palestine;" (in Rohan Butler et al., Documents of British Foreign Policy, 1919–1939, first series volume XIII London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1963, p. 331.) Karsh writes that at the same time Curzon wrote to Vansittart, stating: "His Majesty's Government are already treating 'Trans-Jordania' as separate from the Damascus State, while at the same time avoiding any definite connection between it and Palestine, thus leaving the way open for the establishment there, should it become advisable, of some form of independent Arab government, perhaps by arrangement with King Hussein or other Arab chiefs concerned."
- Wilson (1988, p. 44) Since the end of the war the territory north of Ma'an had been ruled by Damascus as a province of Faysal's Kingdom of Syria. Although it fell within the British zone according to the Sykes-Picot agreement, Britain was content with the arrangement because it favoured Arab rule in the interior and Faysal was, after all, British protege. However, when France occupied Damascus the picture changed dramatically. Britain did not want to see France extend its control southward to the borders of Palestine and closer to the Suez Canal.... It suddenly became important to know 'what is the "Syria" for which the French received a mandate at San Remo?' and 'does it include Transjordania?'... The British foreign secretary, Lord Curzon, decided that it did not and that Britain henceforth would regard the area as independent, but in 'closest relation' with Palestine.
- Wilson (1988, pp. 46–48) Samuel then organised a meeting of Transjordanian leaders at Salt on 21 August, at which he would announce British plans... On 20 August Samuel and a few political officers left Jerusalem by car, headed for the Jordan river, the frontier of British territory at that time. ‘It is an entirely irregular proceeding,’ he noted, ‘my going outside my own jurisdiction into a country which was Faisal's, and is still being administered by the Damascus Government, now under French influence. But it is equally irregular for a government under French influence to be exercising functions in territory which is agreed to be within the British sphere: and of the two irregularities I prefer mine.’... The meeting, held in the courtyard of the Catholic church, was attended by about 600 people..... Sentence by sentence his speech describing British policy was translated into Arabic: political officers would be stationed in towns to help organise local governments; Transjordan would not come under Palestinian administration; there would be no conscription and no disarmament......On balance, Samuel's statement of policy was unobjectionable. Three things feared by the Arabs of Transjordan – conscription, disarmament, and annexation by Palestine – were abjured.... The presence of a few British agents, unsupported by troops, seemed a small concession in return for the protection Britain's presence would afford against the French, who, it was feared, might press their occupation southward... Samuel returned to Jerusalem well pleased with the success of his mission. He left behind several officers to see to the administration of Transjordan and the maintenance of British influence.
- Wasserstein (2003, pp. 105–106) "Palestine, therefore, was not partitioned in 1921–1922. Transjordan was not excised but, on the contrary, added to the mandatory area. Zionism was barred from seeking to expand there – but the Balfour Declaration had never previously applied to the area east of the Jordan. Why is this important? Because the myth of Palestine's 'first partition' has become part of the concept of 'Greater Israel' and of the ideology of Jabotinsky's Revisionist movement."
References
- George 2005, p. 6.
- "FRUS: Papers relating to the foreign relations of the United States, The Paris Peace Conference, 1919: The Council of Four: minutes of meetings March 20 to May 24, 1919". digicoll.library.wisc.edu.
- Baker 1979, p. 161.
- Paris 2003, p. 69.
- King, William C. (24 April 1922). King's Complete History of the World War ...: 1914–1918. Europe's War with Bolshevism 1919–1920. War of the Turkish Partition 1920–1921. Warfare in Ireland, India, Egypt, Far East 1916–1921. Epochal Events Thruout the Civilized World from Ferdinand's Assassination to Disarmament Conference. History Associates. ISBN 9780598443120 – via Google Books.
- "San Remo Peace Conference Minutes". Office For Israeli Constitutional Law. 25 April 1920. Archived from the original on 28 July 2019. Retrieved 23 April 2018.
- ^ Olson, James Stuart (24 April 1991). Historical Dictionary of European Imperialism. Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 9780313262579 – via Google Books.
- Büssow, Johann (11 August 2011). Hamidian Palestine: Politics and Society in the District of Jerusalem 1872–1908. BRILL. p. 5. ISBN 978-90-04-20569-7. Retrieved 17 May 2013.
- The 1915 Filastin Risalesi ("Palestine Document") is a country survey of the VIII Corps of the Ottoman Army, which identified Palestine as a region including the sanjaqs of Akka (the Galilee), the Sanjaq of Nablus, and the Sanjaq of Jerusalem (Kudus Sherif), see Ottoman Conceptions of Palestine-Part 2: Ethnography and Cartography, Salim Tamari
- "Annex III – Ottoman Administrative Districts – Map". UN. 1915.
- The two-fold aims of the Mandate granted to Britain were reflected in the final text of Palestine Mandate granted to Britain by the League of Nations in 1922 . It preamble stated that the purpose of the Mandate was both "giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations" and "putting into effect the declaration issued by the British govenemnt on November 2, 1917" (i.e. the Balfour Declaration". Article 2 stated that "The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home" but also "the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion".
- Arnulf Becker Lorca (2014). Mestizo International Law. Cambridge University Press. pp. 296–. ISBN 978-0-521-76338-7.
- Malcolm Evans (24 June 2010). International Law. OUP Oxford. pp. 214–. ISBN 978-0-19-956566-5.
- Blakeslee, George Hubbard; Hall, Granville Stanley; Barnes, Harry Elmer (24 April 1921). "The Journal of International Relations". Clark University – via Google Books.
- Quigley 2010, p. 29.
- San Remo Resolution-Palestine Mandate 1920, MidEastWeb
- Biger 2004, p. 173.
- Hubert Young to Ambassador Hardinge (Paris), 27 July 1920, FO 371/5254, cited in Wilson (1988, p. 44)
- "France in Syria: the abolition of the Sharifian government, April–July 1920. Middle Eastern Studies | HighBeam Research". 27 February 2011. Archived from the original on 27 February 2011.
- Wasserstein, Bernard (1 October 1976). "Herbert Samuel and the Palestine problem". The English Historical Review. XCI (CCCLXI): 753–775. doi:10.1093/ehr/XCI.CCCLXI.753 – via academic.oup.com.
- "FRUS: Papers relating to the foreign relations of the United States, The Paris Peace Conference, 1919: I: The treaty of peace between the Allied and Associated Powers and Germany, signed at Versailles, June 28, 1919". digicoll.library.wisc.edu.
Sources
- Baker, Randall (1979). King Husain and the Kingdom of Hejaz. Oleander. ISBN 978-0900891489.
- Biger, Gideon (2004). The Boundaries of Modern Palestine, 1840–1947. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-135-76652-8.
- George, Alan (2005). Jordan: Living in the Crossfire. Zed Books. ISBN 978-1842774717.
- Karsh, Efraim; Karsh, Inari (2001). Empires of the Sand: The Struggle for Mastery in the Middle East, 1789–1923. Harvard UP. ISBN 978-0674005419.
- Paris, Timothy J (2003). Britain, the Hashemites and Arab Rule, 1920–1925. Routledge. ISBN 978-0714654515.
- Quigley, John (2010). The Statehood of Palestine: International Law in the Middle East Conflict. CUP. ISBN 978-1139491242.
- Wasserstein, Bernard (2003). Israelis and Palestinians : Why do they fight? Can they stop?. Yale UP. ISBN 978-0300101720.
- Wilson, Mary Christina (1988). King Abdullah, Britain and the Making of Jordan. (Cambridge Middle East Library). CUP. ISBN 978-0521324212.
Further reading
- Fromkin, David (1989). A Peace to End All Peace. New York: Henry Holt.
- Stein, Leonard (1961). The Balfour Declaration. London: Valentine Mitchell.
- "Conferees Depart from San Remo", New York Times, 28 April 1920, Wednesday. "CONFEREES DEPART FROM SAN REMO; Millerand Receives Ovation from Italians on His Homeward Journey. RESULTS PLEASE GERMANS; Berlin Liberal Papers Rejoice at Decision to Invite Chancellor to Spa Conference."
External links
- August 1920 Treaty of Sèvres, articles 94 and 95 recapitulating the San Remo Resolution
- July 1922 text of the Palestine Mandate Archived 18 May 2006 at the Wayback Machine
- 90th anniversary events in San Remo
Paris Peace Conference (1919–1920) | |
---|---|
League of Nations | |
Treaty of Versailles | |
Subsequent treaties | |
Treaty of Sèvres | |
Other | |
Paintings |
- 1920 conferences
- 1920 in Europe
- 1920 in international relations
- 1920 in Italy
- 20th-century diplomatic conferences
- World War I conferences
- Aftermath of World War I
- Borders of Israel
- Borders of the State of Palestine
- Diplomatic conferences in Italy
- History of Zionism
- Liguria
- Sanremo
- Zionism
- Documents of Mandatory Palestine
- April 1920 events