“If they implement the Duhok agreement between the KNR and [PYD], they will open the border and send everything,” he said. In his doctoral dissertation, Gibson discusses the role that oil then played in British strategic thinking and mentions Mosul Vilayet as the largest potential oil field and France`s 1918 agreement to accept its adherence to Iraq`s mandate (the Clemenceau Lloyd George Agreement) in exchange for a “share of british oil and support elsewhere.”  Several power-sharing agreements between the PYD and the KNR have failed, including the latest agreement reached in Duhok, Iraq, on October 22, 2014. As a result, the PYD does not participate in the Geneva talks, while the KNR participates in the talks as a member of the Syrian opposition. At present, however, both the Syrian opposition and the government oppose any form of Kurdish autonomy. Last month, many Kurds mourned the centenary of the Sykes-Picot Agreement, signed on May 16, 1916, which laid the foundations for today`s nation-states in the Middle East. No ethnic group despises this agreement more than the Kurds, who often see it as a moratorium on an independent Kurdish state by the world superpowers of the time. An independent Kurdistan formed in the early twentieth century would have saved millions of lives and helped reduce the risk of violence that is now visible in nation-states that have formed themselves as by-products of the Sykes-Picot agreement. For me, Sykes-Picot`s historic decisions have had serious personal consequences. Like most Kurds, I suffered the consequences of the Sykes-Picot agreement. I was a refugee 3 times when I was 11 years old. My town of Halabja was gassed by the former Iraqi government, during which I lost many of my family members, as well as the thousands more who perished.
In addition to the Halabja attack, an estimated 180,000 other Kurds were buried alive in the Iraqi deserts in the 1980s, 8,000 Kurds massacred in the Barzan region and about 4,000 Kurdish villages were massacred. On the eve of Sykes-Picot`s centenary in 2016, the media and science generated great interest in the long-term effects of the agreement. The agreement is often referred to as an “artificial” border in the Middle East, “without taking into account ethnic or sectarian characteristics, [which] has led to endless conflicts.”  The question of the extent to which Sykes-Picot actually marked the borders of the modern Middle East is controversial.   It is significant that the secret agreement concluded by Sykes with his French colleague François Georges-Picot divided the Kurdish part of the Ottoman Empire, but did so in a totally different way from the current borders. A brief overview of the initial Sykes-Picot map shows that, in the original plan, many of the Kurdish regions currently living in Syria and Turkey would have landed under French control, while the area east of Kirkuk would have landed under British control and the southeasternmost region of today`s Turkey would have been admitted to a new Armenian state. (Meanwhile, the status of the Kurds living in Persia would not have changed.) Europe`s Kurds were protesting last week against the deal in Germany, which divided the Kurds and demanded Kurdish independence, amid plans to hold a referendum before October led by Iraqi-Kurdish President Massoud Barzani to create a sovereign state for Iraq`s Kurds. The agreement effectively divided the Ottoman provinces outside the Arabian Peninsula into areas of British and French control and influence. The countries under British and French control were divided by the Sykes-Picot line.
 The agreement transferred to Britain control of what is now southern Israel and Palestine, Jordan and southern Iraq, as well as a small additional area including the ports of Haifa and Akkon to allow access to the Mediterranean.    France should control southeastern Turkey, northern Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.  Many sources claim that Sykes-Picot was in conflict with the Hussein McMahon correspondence of 1915-1916 and that the publication of the agreement in November 1917 caused the resignation of Sir Henry McMahon.  There were several differences, the most obvious being Iraq in the British Red Zone and less obvious the idea that british and French advisers would have control of the area designated for an Arab state. . . .