Anglo-French Railway Agreements over Syria 1909-1910

As the first decade of the 20th Century drew to a close, much of the world had been divided by the great powers, notably Great Britain, France and Germany, into formal colonies or informal spheres of influence.  The major area lying outside of these spheres was the Ottoman-controlled Middle East.  As the great powers struggles amongst themselves to gain influence in this area, their primary tool was the railroad.  By establishing a railway contract within a Middle Eastern area the great power nation could gain political and economic power over the affairs of that area.

In 1909-1910 Britain and France entered into a prolonged struggle over the railway concessions in Syria.  Both nations knew that by gaining permission to build railroads in Syria they would be gaining influence in the country as well as the ability to restrict the activity of the other nation within Syria.

The leaders of the Ottoman Empire were aware both of the importance of railroads in the establishing and maintaining of influence in a region and of the imperialistic designs of the European powers upon areas under Ottoman control.  Therefore they supported the building railroads that would consolidate Ottoman control and stave off advances by the European powers.  Two such railways were the Hijaz Railway, connecting southern Syria, the Hijaz and the Yemen to the rest of the Empire, and the planned Baghdad Railway, which would do the same for southeastern Anatolia, northern Syria and Mesopotamia.  Britain and France were not particularly interested in promoting Ottoman interest but they were willing to appease the Turks when it furthered their goals.

This struggle over influence in Syria marked the beginnings of the Anglo-French partition of the Middle East that would be facilitated through the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 and would come to fruition following WWI.  These railway agreements divided the Middle East into British and French spheres of influence, with the French gaining exclusive access to Syria and the British to Mesopotamia.  These same divisions would form the basis for the future Sykes-Picot Agreement.  Not until 1918 would the British seriously challenge French dominance in Syria but during the intervening years the British would become increasingly aware of Syria’s significance in any attempt to defend Egypt and the Suez Canal from Eastern invasion (Khalidi, 1980, 113-186).

The Sykes-Picot Agreement contained a section specifically addressing the importance of railways in the governing and control of the Middle East:

"That in area (a) the Baghdad railway shall not be extended southwards beyond Mosul, and in area (b) northwards beyond Samarra, until a railway connecting Baghdad and Aleppo via the Euphrates valley has been completed, and then only with the concurrence of the two governments.

That Great Britain has the right to build, administer, and be sole owner of a railway connecting Haifa with area (b), and shall have a perpetual right to transport troops along such a line at all times. It is to be understood by both governments that this railway is to facilitate the connection of Baghdad with Haifa by rail, and it is further understood that, if the engineering difficulties and expense entailed by keeping this connecting line in the brown area only make the project unfeasible, that the French government shall be prepared to consider that the line in question may also traverse the Polgon Banias Keis Marib Salkhad tell Otsda Mesmie before reaching area (b)." - terms of the Sykes-Picot Agreement, 1916

click here to view the map to which the statement refers