Introduction: The Villa Devachan and the New World Order

On April 19, 1920, the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers convened at the Villa Devachan, an ornate Edwardian residence in the Italian resort town of San Remo. The setting was tranquil, overlooking the Mediterranean Riviera, but the business at hand was the definitive partition of the Middle East. For eighteen months following the Armistice of Mudros in October 1918, the fate of the Ottoman EmpireOttoman Empire ottoman-empire The Islamic empire centred on Istanbul that ruled Anatolia, the Arab Middle East, North Africa, and southeastern Europe from the fourteenth century to its dissolution after the First World War. Its collapse created the modern states of the Middle East, Turkey, and the Balkans in ways that continue to shape regional politics. At its peak in the sixteenth century, the Ottoman Empire encompassed an enormous territory from Hungary to Yemen, from Algeria to the borders of Persia. It was a multi-ethnic, multi-religious state governed through the millet system, which granted non-Muslim communities (Christians, Jews) significant autonomy in their internal affairs in exchange for taxes and political loyalty. The nineteenth century brought simultaneous challenges: nationalist movements among the Balkan populations — Serbs, Greeks, Bulgarians, Romanians — used the language of national self-determination to carve independent states from Ottoman territory, with Russian and Western support; the empire lost more than a third of its European territory in the 1877–78 war with Russia. Attempts at modernisation and reform — the Tanzimat reforms, the Young Turk Revolution of 1908 — failed to arrest the decline and produced new tensions between Turkish nationalist modernisers and the empire’s Arab, Armenian, and Kurdish populations. The First World War was catastrophic: the empire entered on the German side, suffered the Armenian Genocide (1915–23), lost the Arab provinces to British-led forces, and was dissolved by the Treaty of Sèvres (1920) — replaced by the Turkish Republic under Ataturk, whose territorial integrity was established by the Treaty of Lausanne (1923). The Ottoman Empire’s collapse created the modern Middle East in ways that are still unfolding. The borders drawn by the Sykes-Picot Agreement and the subsequent mandates reflected French and British strategic priorities rather than the population distributions, administrative traditions, or political aspirations of the peoples concerned. The result was a set of states whose internal social compositions were incompatible with the nation-state model imposed on them: Iraq with its Sunni-Shia-Kurdish divisions, Lebanon with its confessional arithmetic, Syria with its minority-dominated military, Israel-Palestine with its overlapping claims. These incompatibilities were not caused by the Ottoman Empire — which governed diverse populations through systems of autonomous administration — but by the particular form of its destruction and replacement. The ongoing instability of the region reflects, in significant part, the unresolved consequences of those decisions made in London and Paris between 1916 and 1920.’s Arab provinces had existed in a state of suspended animation. British and French armies occupied the terrain from the Levant to Mesopotamia, but the legal status of these territories remained undefined.

The San Remo Conference marked the transition from the secret, provisional diplomacy of the war years—typified by the 1916 Sykes-Picot AgreementSykes-Picot Agreement Full Description:The 1916 secret pact between Britain and France that partitioned the Ottoman Empire’s Arab provinces into colonial zones of influence. Exposed by the Bolsheviks in 1917, formalized by the San Remo Conference in 1920, and implemented through the League of Nations Mandate system, its borders—drawn without local knowledge or consent—became the boundaries of modern Syria, Iraq, Jordan, and Lebanon. The agreement’s contradictory promises (McMahon-Hussein, Balfour Declaration) created overlapping claims that have fueled conflict for over a century. Critical Perspective:Sykes-Picot is not the sole cause of every Middle Eastern conflict, but it is the original wound. Before 1916, the Arab world was an imperfect Ottoman space—multiethnic, religiously diverse, and pre-nationalist. After 1920, it became a collection of artificial states designed for imperial convenience: Sunni-led Iraq containing a Shia majority; Greater Syria chopped into competing sectarian fragments; Palestine turned into a demographic time bomb; and the Kurds erased entirely. The agreement’s defenders argue that post-colonial states could have reformed these borders; they did not. The Islamic State’s 2014 declaration that “Sykes-Picot is finished” was propaganda, but it resonated because millions feel those borders are prisons. A century later, the line drawn by two imperial bureaucrats continues to bleed. The Middle East will not be stable until it can either live with those borders—or transcend them—on its own terms. Neither process has begun.
Read more—to the formal international law of the post-war era. It was here that the Great Powers operationalized the “Mandate SystemMandate System Full Description:A mechanism established by the League of Nations after World War I to administer former Ottoman and German territories. “Class A” Mandates—Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, and Transjordan—were considered nearly ready for independence but placed under temporary control of France or Britain until they could “stand alone.” In reality, Mandates were colonies by another name. Critical Perspective:The Mandate System was hypocrisy institutionalized. The same powers that carved up the Middle East for their own advantage claimed they were acting as benevolent trustees. No timetable for independence was set; “readiness” was defined by the mandatory power. Iraq was granted nominal independence in 1932, but with a British client king and treaty that preserved British military bases and oil control. The Mandate was not the road to freedom but the road to neocolonialism.
Read more,” a novel concept in international relations designed to reconcile the imperial ambitions of the victors with the Wilsonian idealism that had permeated the Paris Peace Conference.

While historical narratives often focus on the Sykes-Picot map, that agreement was merely a statement of wartime intent, partially rendered obsolete by the war’s end. San Remo was the execution. It was the moment where political aspirations were codified into international agreements. The resolutions adopted at San Remo dismantled the Ottoman Empire legally, allocated the mandates for what would become Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine, and incorporated the Balfour Declaration into the framework of the settlement.

This article provides a detailed analysis of the San Remo Conference. It examines the geopolitical vacuum that necessitated the meeting, the application of Article 22 of the League of NationsLeague of Nations Full Description:The first worldwide intergovernmental organisation whose principal mission was to maintain world peace. Its spectacular failure to prevent the aggression of the Axis powers provided the negative blueprint for the United Nations, influencing the decision to prioritize enforcement power over pure idealism. The League of Nations was the precursor to the UN, established after the First World War. Founded on the principle of collective security, it relied on moral persuasion and unanimous voting. It ultimately collapsed because it lacked an armed force and, crucially, the United States never joined, rendering it toothless in the face of expansionist empires. Critical Perspective:The shadow of the League looms over the UN. The founders of the UN viewed the League as “too democratic” and ineffective because it treated all nations as relatively equal. Consequently, the UN was designed specifically to correct this “error” by empowering the Great Powers (via the Security Council) to police the world, effectively sacrificing sovereign equality for the sake of stability.
Read more Covenant, the specific diplomatic negotiations between David Lloyd George and Alexandre Millerand regarding oil and territory, and the immediate, violent reaction the conference triggered across the Arab world.

The Geopolitical Vacuum: 1918–1920

To understand the specific decisions made at San Remo, one must first analyze the uncertain interregnum that followed the end of World War I. When the Ottoman Empire surrendered in October 1918, the strategic map did not align with the political agreements made during the war.

Great Britain found itself in a position of overwhelming dominance. British imperial forces occupied Baghdad, Basra, and Mosul in Mesopotamia. In the Levant, General Edmund Allenby’s Egyptian Expeditionary Force controlled Palestine and the Syrian coast. By contrast, France, exhausted by the carnage on the Western Front, had a limited military footprint in the region.

However, the political landscape had been complicated by two new factors: the entry of the United States into the war and the rise of Arab nationalism.

President Woodrow Wilson’s “Fourteen Points,” delivered in January 1918, challenged the “old diplomacy” of secret treaties and annexation. Point XII stated that the non-Turkish nationalities of the Ottoman Empire should be assured an “absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development.” This rhetoric captured the imagination of the Arab public. In Damascus, Emir Faisal bin Hussein, the military leader of the Arab Revolt, had established an Arab administration under the auspices of the British military, believing that Britain would honor its wartime pledges to support Arab independence.

By the spring of 1920, this status quo was untenable. The United States, following the Senate’s rejection of the Treaty of VersaillesTreaty of Versailles Full Description The peace settlement signed on 28 June 1919 that ended the state of war between Germany and the Allied powers. Its most controversial provisions included the “war guilt clause” (Article 231), which assigned responsibility for the war to Germany and formed the legal basis for reparations; the transfer of German territories including Alsace-Lorraine, Posen, and parts of Silesia; and strict limits on the German military. Germany received no negotiating role and signed under protest. Critical Perspective The Versailles settlement has been blamed for causing the Second World War, but this is an oversimplification that owes more to Nazi propaganda than historical analysis. Margaret MacMillan and others have argued that the treaty was harsh but not crippling — Germany retained its industrial capacity and its borders with major powers remained intact. The real failure was in implementation: reparations were inconsistently enforced, and no Allied power was willing to use force to uphold the settlement when Germany began to rearm. in November 1919, was retreating into isolationism. This removed a primary check on British and French colonial ambitions. With Wilson effectively out of the picture, London and Paris were free to revert to traditional imperial bargaining, albeit dressed in new legal language. The British government, led by Prime Minister David Lloyd George, realized it could not hold the entire Middle East alone; the cost of occupation was too high, and friction with France was threatening the alliance in Europe. A formal settlement was required to regularize the occupation and distribute the spoils.

The Mandate System: Article 22 in Practice

The mechanism chosen to resolve the tension between colonial ambition and Wilsonian self-determinationSelf-Determination Full Description:Self-Determination became the rallying cry for anti-colonial movements worldwide. While enshrined in the UN Charter, its application was initially fiercely contested. Colonial powers argued it did not apply to their imperial possessions, while independence movements used the UN’s own language to demand the end of empire. Critical Perspective:There is a fundamental tension in the UN’s history regarding this term. While the organization theoretically supported freedom, its most powerful members were often actively fighting brutal wars to suppress self-determination movements in their colonies. The realization of this right was not granted by the UN, but seized by colonized peoples through struggle. was the “Mandate.” Conceptually developed by General Jan Smuts of South Africa, the mandate system was enshrined in Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.

Article 22 represented a shift in the theory of international law. In the 19th century, a conquered territory became a colony, possessed by the sovereign power. Under the Mandate system, the territory was theoretically held in trust on behalf of the League of Nations. The “Mandatory” power was not a sovereign owner but a tutor, tasked with providing “administrative advice and assistance” until the population was ready for self-rule.

The former Ottoman territories were designated as Class A Mandates, a category reserved for nations considered to have reached a relatively high stage of development. The text of Article 22 noted that the existence of these communities as independent nations could be “provisionally recognized” subject to the administrative advice and assistance of a Mandatory. Crucially, the article stated that the “wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.”

The San Remo Conference was convened to operationalize this article. However, the proceedings revealed that the “wishes of these communities” clause was largely bypassed. The King-Crane Commission, an American inquiry sent to the Levant in 1919 to ascertain local preferences, had reported that the population overwhelmingly rejected French rule and preferred a single united Syrian state. This report did not shape the Allied decisions at San Remo. Instead, the allocation of mandates proceeded based on the strategic and economic requirements of Britain and France.

The Supreme Council: Personnel and Agendas

The San Remo Conference was an exclusive affair, conducted by the “Supreme Council” of the Allied powers. The key participants were British Prime Minister David Lloyd George, French Premier Alexandre Millerand, and Italian Premier Francesco Nitti. Japan was represented by Ambassador Matsui Keishirō. The United States sent Robert Underwood Johnson, the Ambassador to Italy, but only as an observer with no voting rights.

The dynamic of the conference was defined by the bilateral negotiation between Lloyd George and Millerand. Relations between the two allies were strained. France was deeply suspicious that Britain intended to renege on the Sykes-Picot Agreement and use Faisal’s Arab government in Damascus as a proxy to exclude France from Syria.

Lloyd George, a pragmatic imperialist, recognized that British overreach in the Middle East was dangerous. He needed French support in Europe to enforce the Treaty of Versailles against Germany. Therefore, his strategy at San Remo involved a complex negotiation often described as a diplomatic trade-off. Britain would withdraw its support for Faisal and recognize France’s mandate over Syria. In exchange, France would agree to concessions regarding the Mosul vilayet (transferring it to the British sphere) and abandon claims to Palestine, allowing Britain to take the mandate for the territory west of the Jordan River.

The Partition of the Levant and the Fate of Faisal

The most immediate political consequence of San Remo was the delegitimization of the Arab Kingdom of Syria. Since October 1918, Faisal bin Hussein had ruled Damascus as a de facto monarch. He had attended the Paris Peace Conference, arguing for Arab independence based on the British promises made to his father, Sharif Hussein, in the McMahon-Hussein CorrespondenceMcMahon-Hussein Correspondence Full Description:A series of ten letters exchanged from July 1915 to March 1916 between Sir Henry McMahon, British High Commissioner in Egypt, and Sharif Hussein bin Ali of Mecca. In these letters, Britain promised to recognize and support Arab independence in exchange for an Arab revolt against the Ottoman Empire. The territorial scope excluded certain areas, but the language was deliberately vague. Critical Perspective:The Correspondence is a masterclass in diplomatic weasel-wording. Britain later claimed that Palestine had been excluded from the promise; Hussein insisted it was included. The ambiguity was intentional. McMahon and the British Foreign Office wanted Arab support without making a binding commitment that would conflict with Sykes-Picot or the Balfour Declaration. The result was a promise made in bad faith—the original betrayal that poisoned Arab-Western relations for generations.
Read more.

At San Remo, the Supreme Council formally assigned the mandate for Syria and Lebanon to France. By doing so, the international community stripped Faisal’s government of its standing. The resolution implied that the territory was awaiting French “tutelage” rather than existing as a sovereign state.

This decision was a calculated realpolitik maneuver. Lloyd George effectively washed his hands of the Hashemite cause in Syria. The British army, which had been the guarantor of Faisal’s position, prepared to withdraw from the Syrian littoral to make way for French troops.

The San Remo Resolution gave France the international sanction it required to assert control. General Henri Gouraud, the French High Commissioner in the Levant, used the mandate as justification to issue an ultimatum demanding the dissolution of the Arab army. This trajectory, set at San Remo, led directly to the Battle of Maysalun in July 1920, the defeat of the Arab forces, and the expulsion of Faisal from Damascus.

The Palestine Mandate and the Balfour Declaration

A significant legacy of San Remo was its treatment of Palestine. In 1917, British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour had issued a letter expressing sympathy for Zionist aspirations—the Balfour Declaration. Until 1920, this was a statement of British policy; it had not yet been enshrined in a binding international treaty.

At San Remo, the British delegation ensured that the principles of the Balfour Declaration were incorporated into the resolution regarding the Palestine mandate. The French were initially skeptical, and the Italians concerned about religious sites, but the final resolution included the obligation for the Mandatory power to put into effect the declaration in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, with the understanding that the civil and religious rights of non-Jewish communities would not be prejudiced.

This clause transformed the declaration from a political promise into an international legal obligation for the Mandatory power. It differentiated the Palestine Mandate from the others. While the mandates for Iraq and Syria were broadly focused on administrative assistance leading to independence, the Palestine Mandate included this specific dual obligation.

The conference also confirmed that Britain would hold the mandate for Palestine, replacing the international administration proposed in the 1916 Sykes-Picot plan. This secured a strategic buffer for the Suez Canal, a long-standing British objective.

Oil and the Mosul Question

While the diplomats discussed political boundaries, a parallel negotiation addressed the region’s economic future. On April 24, 1920, British and French representatives signed an oil agreement that resolved the dispute over the Mosul vilayet.

Geologists and oil executives, particularly those from the Turkish Petroleum Company (TPC), had identified Mosul as a likely source of significant oil reserves. In 1916, Sykes and Picot had assigned Mosul to the French sphere of influence. By 1920, the strategic importance of oil made British control of Mosul a priority.

The agreement codified at San Remo facilitated the transfer of Mosul to the British sphere of influence (later incorporated into the Iraq mandate). In exchange, France was granted a 25% share in the TPC (later the Iraq Petroleum Company) and rights to transport oil via pipelines through the French mandateFrench Mandate The League of Nations mandate over Syria and Lebanon administered by France from 1920 to 1946. The Mandate created the modern borders of Syria and Lebanon, pursued a policy of divide and rule along religious and ethnic lines, and produced the political and institutional structures that shaped Syrian and Lebanese politics for the rest of the century. France had claimed a sphere of influence in Greater Syria — covering modern Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Israel-Palestine — since the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916. When Faisal I attempted to establish an independent Arab kingdom with Damascus as its capital, French forces defeated him at the Battle of Maysalun in July 1920 and established the Mandate. The French administration divided the territory into five separate entities — State of Damascus, State of Aleppo, Alawite State, Jabal Druze, and Greater Lebanon — pursuing the classic colonial strategy of empowering minorities against the Sunni Arab majority that dominated the nationalist movement. The most consequential decision was the recruitment policy for the troupes spéciales: France disproportionately recruited Alawites, Druze, and Circassians into its auxiliary forces, creating a military tradition and institutional pathway that would allow Alawite officers to dominate Syria’s Ba’athist military after independence. The Great Syrian Revolt of 1925–27 demonstrated the capacity for mass anti-colonial mobilisation; the French response — bombarding Damascus and dividing the nationalist movement through negotiation with compliant sectors — foreshadowed the tactics that successive Syrian governments would use against their own populations. Lebanon was permanently separated from Syria, enlarged to include Muslim-majority coastal regions and the Bekaa Valley that Syrian nationalists regarded as historically theirs — creating the Lebanese demographic balance that would generate civil war in 1975. The French Mandate’s legacy is visible in virtually every Lebanese and Syrian political crisis of the subsequent century. The Lebanese sectarian system — its power-sharing arrangements, its politically organised communities, its structural inability to build a nonsectarian state — was not simply the product of ancient religious divisions but of administrative choices made by French officials trying to manage a diverse population in the interests of imperial order. The Alawite domination of Syrian security services that produced both Hafez al-Assad’s dictatorship and the particular ferocity of the civil war was not inevitable; it was the downstream consequence of French recruitment policies designed to prevent a unified Sunni nationalist challenge to colonial rule. Colonialism does not end when the troops leave; it ends, if it ends, when its institutional consequences have been unwound — a process that, in Syria and Lebanon, remains unfinished. of Syria to the Mediterranean. This arrangement underscores how economic imperatives—specifically oil and transit routes—shaped the territorial configuration of the new mandates, influencing the eventual borders of Iraq.

The Regional Reaction: 1920

The decisions taken at San Remo were not received passively in the Middle East. The publication of the resolution sparked a wave of violence and insurrection across the region in 1920.

The Iraqi Revolt

In Mesopotamia, the announcement that Britain had been awarded the mandate shattered the hopes of Iraqi nationalists who had expected independence. The mandate was viewed by many as a synonym for colonization. In the summer of 1920, mass protests in Baghdad coalesced with tribal uprisings in the mid-Euphrates region. The “Great Iraqi Revolt” (Thawrat al-Ishrin) united Sunni and Shia communities in an insurgency against the British administration. Britain suppressed the revolt using air power and military force, but the violence forced London to rethink its method of control, leading to the installation of a client monarchy the following year.

The Syrian Crisis

In Damascus, King Faisal rejected the San Remo decision, but his position was militarily untenable. The French Army of the Levant used the mandate to enforce its authority. The resulting invasion and the occupation of Damascus in July 1920 marked the beginning of the French mandate period, which would be characterized by frequent unrest.

The Turkish National Movement

To the north, the San Remo conference set the stage for the Treaty of Sèvres (August 1920), which attempted to partition Anatolia. This galvanized the Turkish National Movement under Mustafa Kemal (Atatürk). The rejection of the Allied partition plans by the Turkish nationalists led to the Turkish War of Independence and the eventual annulment of Sèvres, resulting in the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923.

Conclusion: The Framework of the Modern Middle East

The San Remo Conference was a pivotal event in the political history of the Middle East. It translated the wartime aspirations of the Allied powers into a concrete administrative framework. The decisions made at the Villa Devachan in April 1920 established the mandate system that would govern the region for decades.

The conference solidified the division of the Arab provinces into separate spheres of British and French administration. Iraq was formed under British supervision; Syria and Lebanon were placed under French control; and Palestine was established as a separate British mandate incorporating the Zionist pledge.

Critically, San Remo highlighted the tension between the new international norms of self-determination and the persistence of imperial interests. By allocating mandates based on strategic necessity rather than local consent, the conference established a political order that lacked legitimacy in the eyes of many of its subjects. The Mandate system, intended as a “sacred trust,” was frequently experienced as a continuation of colonial rule by other means, setting the stage for the nationalist struggles that would define the region’s mid-20th-century history.