Thursday, November 26, 2015

Arkansas Focus: Why We Do It

My name is Walter Davis AKA Demanding Justice I am an advocate for citizens all over the world. 

We are going to STOP judges, law enforcement and CPS/DCFS workers in Arkansas who feel that they can get away with putting children into the hands of abusers. 

We are mustering INTERNATIONAL ATTENTION TO THEIR CRIMES AND WE ARE GOING TO EXPOSE THEM...then move on to other criminals in the Injustice system.

We are asking for your help.

Together, we can defeat these criminals that are supposed to be protecting us and our children. We are simply not going to take it and be quiet.

I know you have your own issues. We need to win these cases a few at at time, build momentum and make the NATION aware of the criminal action in our courts.

Most people do not find out until it is too late, when they are broken and broke. It takes TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS to simply FILE appeals....even if you GET A PRO BONO ATTORNEY.

Do not wait. Get involved. Listen to this and other shows that we have produced.

Help us fight back!

Make a $6 monthly donation to help us pay for our expenses, filing fees, media at I am currently paying out of my own pocket and it is overwhelming...I am answering phones, scheduling shows, paying for my air time...coordinating guests.....I need your help! Your donations will be divided by the Foundation for Child Victims of the Family Court, The Law Project and Optin, and our media services.
Why should you care and support us?

Look at these success stories:
After our coverage of Irina Vikotorovna Vinogradova in New Caledonia, France 24 and Russia Today television picked up the story. Donations came in and Irina escaped to Russia and an abusive husband.

Success stories of Attorney Allison Folmar, Jill Jones Soderman and Attorney Zena Crenshaw.

See how our heros are helping people worldwide.
Allison won Marianne Goldoboldo’s landmark case in Michigan, changing the laws for that state so that officials can no longer FORCE kids to take psychotropic drugs.

Jill Jones Soderman has an excellent track history of getting kids back from abusers as founder of the Foundation for Child Victims of the Family Court.

Attorney Zena Crenshaw founded The Law Project and she has programs that are helping and have the potential to help parents and other citizens worldwide.

Zena has also started OPT-In USA see her recent posting.

Opt IN USA is a grassroots U.S. foreign policy reform campaign.  Our goal is U.S. ratification of provisions (known as Optional Protocols) that would empower Americans to seek international review of human rights violations by U.S. government officials.  

At present the U.S. is a party to key human rights and anti-torture treaties that Americans cannot enforce against U.S. officials.  The predicament is particularly troubling for targets of The Third Degree (TTD), a distinct pattern of persecution and mental torture imposed through U.S. legal system abuse.  TTD aligns with complete failures of judicial oversight in America. 

Not everyone subjected to persistent U.S. legal system abuse becomes a target of TTD. For example,
some people are so incapacitated by child protective services (CPS) and/or family court abuses that persecuting or torturing them via TTD becomes unnecessary.  TTD is generally reserved for persistent U.S. legal/judicial system critics. 
However, the U.S. likely violates its human rights and/or anti-torture treaty obligations by failing to adequately curb any form or degree of entrenched legal system abuse. 
Legislative outreach through Opt IN USA is set up so participants can focus on relevant personal, local, state-wide, national, and/or internationalconcerns.  No matter their testament, it is packaged (through Opt IN USA hand-outs) as an international human rights crisis.  That approach circumvents the resistance legislators tend to have in response to the legal difficulties of their constituents, particularly family court matters.
Should you and your network of parent, child, and family rights activists deliver Opt IN USA congressional packages through meetings that my office coordinates, Opt IN USA will layer this new, effective message on their domestic quests for relief:America's failure to reasonably address the profit motive and child-trafficking inducements of its CPS funding as well as the notorious, rampant abuses of its Family Court Industrial Complex has precipitated numerous treaty violations and an international human rights crisis.
Here is the wonderful Catch 22 that Opt IN USA creates:   Any notion that we lack political clout or that there is no political will for the investigations and reforms we seek through Opt IN USA only affirms the need for average Americans to have the full protection of U.S. human rights treaties. 
Please learn more by visiting and particularly the site's tab for Opt IN USA.  Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments.  I look forward to starting with U.S. district office meetings and moving to state legislature, U.S. District Attorney, House Judiciary Committee, U.S. Senate, and United Nations outreach with you and your colleagues. 

Judge Maggio was removed from the bench in Arkansas after it was discovered that he was a pedophile and putting kids into the hands of abusers. His case is a now a model for removing other corrupt officials in Arkansas. Kathryn Hudson is one of our heros that is working on removing other corrupt judges.

Attorney Shawn McMillian wins in Orange County California against corrupt CPS workers. Proof that we are highlighting and working with good attorneys. He is an attorney that we refer to constantly and we hope to cover extensively in the future.

Judge Mark Ciaverella in Pennsylvania was sentenced to 28 years in prison for his cash for kids program. His case is now a model for winning other cases nationwide.

Check out our other stories at

Injustice in Puerto Rico - Democracy Now

Alabama Girl Medically Kidnapped and Forced on Drugs: Parents Facing Jail for Failure to Pay State Child Support

Alabama Girl Medically Kidnapped and Forced on Drugs: Parents Facing Jail for Failure to Pay State Child Support

Makayla sunglasses
Makayla. Photo courtesy Norris family
by Health Impact News/ Staff
Laine Norris of Alabama had good reason to refuse permission for her 15 year old daughter to be taken to DeKalb County Mental Health Center and be put on anti-depressants, as demanded by Child Protective Services. Both of Laine’s parents had been prescribed anti-depressants by that very facility – her mother at the age of 22, and her father at age 54, one year prior to the social worker’s demand. Both of her parents subsequently committed suicide after taking the medications.
Guardianship of her daughter Makayla was seized when Laine told them that she had made an appointment with the family’s doctor, instead. She reports that she told the social worker:
I went along with what y’all wanted me to do, but I’m drawing the line [at taking her to Dekalb County Mental Health Center]. I want my daughter back.

Original Report Result of Teenager Upset Over Cell Phone Being Taken

Makayla had been taken from her home the previous week in August of 2014 when she accused her mother of slapping her to a teacher at school. The incident was reported by the teacher but despite Makayla later recanting, the state didn’t believe her.
Her mother was told that the removal was temporary, just for Makayla to “cool down.” Laine said that the social worker gave her the choice of allowing Makayla to spend the night somewhere “for a night or two,” or they would take both Makayla and her younger brother, now 12, and place them into foster care. Then the reunification process would take at least 6 months. Laine did not believe she had any choice.
Under Alabama law child abuse is defined as “harm or threatened harm to a child’s health or welfare which can occur through nonaccidental physical or mental injury; sexual abuse or attempted sexual abuse; sexual exploitation or attempted sexual exploitation.” (See here.)
According to Laine she never slapped her daughter and Makayla admitted she lied about it. Makayla was upset about losing her phone for misbehaving.
Makayla and Laine
Laine and Makayla in happier times. Photo courtesy Norris family.

Not Notified About Hearing, Excessive Services Demanded

The Department of Human Resources (DHR) oversees child welfare in Alabama. They filed a petition against Laine in August of 2014, but allegedly never served Laine with it and never notified her of the hearing on it.
The hearing took place on August 28, 2014. Present at the hearing were Patrick L. Tate, attorney for DHR, Tommy French, Guardian Ad Litem, for the minor child, and Ellen Morrow, investigator for DHR. The court “granted protective supervision” over the minor child, and ordered the mother to comply with the services recommended by the department.
Laine was allegedly not present at the hearing and never agreed to their service plan, which contains many demands that she considers unreasonable and intrusive.
She voluntarily obtained parenting classes, counseling, and a psychological evaluation on her own; however, those were not deemed sufficient by DHR, who demanded that she utilize those services with their providers.
Even though Laine has never been accused of, or has any history of drugs, DHR wanted her to participate in a drug testing program that requires participants to call in each day. If they tell the participant that they must come in that day, she would be required to give a urine sample, with someone watching her the whole time. If she were to miss for any reason, she could be charged as guilty and jailed.
Also, included on the service plan that Laine did not sign were allegedly orders to have social workers come into her home, which she owned – debt-free – and teach classes on how to budget, shop, cook, and clean. She was to quit her job and get a different job, as well as get a different home. They reportedly wanted her to have a mental health assessment at the Dekalb Couny Mental Health Center, and agree to take any medications they may prescribe.
DHR states the mother is “extremely difficult to communicate with and is uncooperative.” It is important to note that the list of people listed as present at the petition hearing does not include an attorney for the mother, suggesting that she was never served with the petition, because her attorney would have been present.

Custody Given to People Family Believes Are Dangerous

Laine Norris and Joe Cason, engaged to be married, are struggling to pay the child support ordered by the court for Laine’s daughter who is now in the custody of Joe’s estranged sister and brother-in-law, Micky and Jacky Mashburn. The court has given Laine until November 30 to come up with almost $5,000. If she fails, they will put her in jail.
Recently, the foster mom, Mickey Mashburn, allegedly assaulted Laine’s son Wayne, a 12 year old boy. The assault was videotaped and law enforcement was called. DeKalb County sheriff’s office confirmed that procedurally they make the victim of crimes take the police reports they generate after a call of any incident to the district attorney’s (DA) office themselves and request prosecution. The sheriff told Laine to take it to the DA and try to press charges, but when they tried to show the video to the DA, Robert James, he allegedly refused to watch it. There were no charges brought against Mickey Mashburn for battery assault. The DA’s office was reportedly uncooperative in answering questions from Health Impact News as to what their reason would be for not watching the video.
According to Laine, her daughter was given to Mickey and Jacky Mashburn, because they already had custody of their two biological granddaughters, for whom they are collecting disability, food stamps, and other financial assistance. She had requested that DHR allow Makayla to go to Joe’s mother’s home instead, but was denied. DHR wanted her to go to the Mashburns instead, because they were already in the system.
Jacky is a former federal prison guard in the state of Alabama. Jacky is named in several lawsuits by prisoners for unfair practices against inmates. (See one case here.)
In December of 2014, DHR won custody of Makayla at a hearing where Laine was not present again. This time she failed to appear because the alternator in her car died and she had no transportation. She called Joe to come back to take her, but by the time he arrived, it was too late. She called her lawyer and was told it was “too late.” There were no taxis in Dekalb County, Alabama, in December of 2014. The current taxi company, Wolf’s Run Taxi, opened for business in 2015. Today the cost of that taxi ride would be approximately $40 each way. There were no trains, or buses to get there. Laine requested that the court send someone to get her, but they refused.
Laine says she was never served with the original petition for protection, nor was she informed of the hearing that took place on August 30, 2014, and therefore was denied due process. In her response to the petition, she demanded proof of any wrong doing.  No proof of child abuse has ever been given. Her rights have not been terminated; however, the Mashburns refuse to allow her to see her daughter.

Teenager Put on Anti-Depressants, Against Her Mother’s Will

According to Laine, without her approval, the state and the Mashburns now have her daughter Makayla on several medications that she did not approve, including anti-depressants. Makayla had never been depressed before and never needed medication for depression before. Laine is fearful for her daughter’s safety, due to her family history with anti-depressants, and the fact that the FDA has issued a black-box warning label on anti-depressants for use in adolescents.
Makayla at falls
Makayla at Noccalula Falls. Photo courtesy Norris family.
An abstract titled “Future Neurology: Antidepressants and Adolescent Brain Development” published in Medscape 2011, concludes:
Given the malleability of the adolescent brain to environmental stimuli, exposure to psychotropic drugs during this developmental period can have unexpected short-term and enduring neural consequences.
They have also put her daughter on birth control without her mother’s consent.

Is Alabama Running a Debtor’s Prison in Dekalb County?

Laine Norris is due to go to jail on November 30th, 2015, unless she comes up with almost $5,000 in child support and interest. This includes a lump sum of “back child support” that was awarded to the Mashburns dating to the date that DHR placed Makayla in their custody. At that time, Laine reports that she was giving the Mashburns money for food and buying clothes for her daughter, outside of the court system.
Laine has only seen her daughter Makayla four times in the last year and a half. She is not allowed any visitation and has essentially lost her parental rights, except for the right to pay child support to the Mashburns. She notes the irony:
He has not paid one penny of child support for his first child, but yet he is suing me and I will go to jail on the 30th for not paying child support.
Debtors’ Prisons Are Back. This Is The Fight To Get Rid Of Them.
In January of 2015, Laine filed a “Motion to Set Aside or in the alternative notice of Appeal and Request of Certification of Adequacy of Juvenile Court Record.” This motion declared that she was denied due process, that the court declared that she failed to appear when in fact she was late but was told it was too late, that the court erred in awarding Makayla to a nonparent, and asked for a new trial. Her motion was denied.

Warrant For Joe’s Arrest – They Are Terrified

It is Thanksgiving this week, his step-daughter’s 17th birthday is today, November 25, 2015, and the county wants him in jail.
Laine and Joe 2
Laine and Joe. Photo courtesy Norris family.
On November 10, 2015, DeKalb County Alabama Sheriff’s department issued a warrant for the arrest of Joe Cason, Laine’s fiance, Makayla’s step-father-to-be. He is charged with harassment, and his bond is set at $500. Joe discovered the warrant on the sheriff’s website. He has no idea what the charges are for.
The Norris’ are worried that if they both go to jail, DHR will take away Laine’s younger son Wayne as well. They believe that this action is in retaliation for attempting to have the DA prosecute Mickey Mashburn for battery assault. Joe Cason is planning to turn himself into the sheriff’s office this morning, November 25, 2015, Makayla’s seventeenth birthday. Due to rumors of corruption and violence in DeKalb County jail, Laine is terrified for Joe’s well-being if he goes to jail.
According to Chief Deputy Michael Edmondson, any citizen can go to the county clerk, Pam Simpson, and present evidence requesting an arrest warrant. The clerk is the magistrate and has the power to decide whether or not sufficient evidence exists. The clerk also decides how much a bond should be. This position is an elected position that has a six year term.
Governor Robert Bentley’s office may be reached at 334-242-7100, or contacted here.
The family’s Senator is Clay Scofield. He may be reached at 334-242-7876, and contacted here.
Representative Becky Nordgren is their Congressman, and may be reached at 334-353-9032, and contacted here.
- See more at:

Tuesday, November 24, 2015

The Foundation for the Child Victims of the Family Courts - Complaint Against Chris Lohman of Howard County Police Department

              The Foundation For The Child Victims Of The Family Courts

                                         275 Madison Ave.
                                                 6th Flr.
                                New York, New York 10175
                                       866 – 553 - 6931

To - Governor Larry Hogan

Complaint against:

Detective Chris Lohman of the Howard County Police Department
3410 Court House Drive
Elicott, City, Maryland 21043

Phone - 410 - 313 – 2681

CC – Chief of Police
          Gary Gardner

 To -   Howard County Executive,
          Allen Kittleman

Detective Lohman along with Assistant State Attorney Lisa Broten have failed to protect the basic rights to safety and protection from physical abuse while in the custody of an alleged physically and sexually abusive parent.

The twelve year old autistic, mute child came to the attention of the police after having been treated at a hospital emergency room for a severe hematoma.  The physical location of the injury was in the left groin, in the area of the left femoral artery. The injury was the size of an adult human hand. The injury was sustained  while in the care of his father. The injury was fresh. The child was taken to an emergency room where the injury was described and photographed.

I spoke with Detective Lohman just after he denied protection of this child  because “the child was not able to communicate”. The child is able to communicate and has rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The child was denied his due process rights by Detective Lohman and ASA Broten.

This episode occurred Sept. 20th, 2015.

Further, having placed this child in jeopardy because a police investigation failed to take appropriate action, Detective Lohman is now providing information to a court in Pa. testifying on the father's behalf, as the mother is seeking a protective order based on extensive evidence  of harm to two children. The father is seeking to have the witness to his son's abuse, the child's sister who is 14 years old and an abuse victim herself, institutionalized. The father is attempting to have both children institutionalized, removed from the mother, whom the father wishes to have absolutely no contact with her permanently since abuse has been reported. As a result of Detective Lohman's
 inaccurate statements and incomplete investigation the child was allowed to resume unsupervised weekend visitation with the father. Detective Lohman along with Bobbi Feher of Howard County Child Protective Services, have made a number of false allegations against the children's mother, alleging coaching and false allegations being filed against the father.

The lives of these two children are in grave danger.

As you will note from the articles attached, this is not the first time that I have come across the reckless, merciless, callous actions of the Howard County Police Department/Courts in conjunction with Howard County Department of Social Services. Their actions and inactions have been nothing if not brutal, barbaric, vicious. These agencies have been allowed to function with impunity and immunity but not without notice.

I refer you to the case of Jase Bouma written about extensively on USWHISTLEBl.OWER.ORG.

There are  hundreds if not thousands of cases that have been subject to the multiple malfeasances of a profoundly dysfunctional system, as per my direct experience and ongoing information and observation as indicated in my articles, dealing with Howard County Maryland Courts, Court Actors, Police and Department of Social Service. Communications with your State Attorney Dario Broccolino have met with the most frustrating, ignorant, useless inaction.

I hope that your office will give these matters the attention that these victims deserve and that you will get back to me with word of your thoughts and intentions in this regard.

Jill Jones-Soderman, PhD, MSW, MSHS
Executive Director – FCVFC (FCVFC.ORG)


Monday, November 23, 2015

Psychiatry: The Marketing of Madness: Are We All Insane?

Psychiatry in the Military: The Hidden Enemy—Full Documentary

Amercan Mothers of Lost Children - Ratify the 19th Amendment

New post on American Mothers of Lost Children

Want Mothers Rights Ratify the 19th Amendment

by M Barnett
You want Equal Rights in Court and protection for your children, Ratify the Equal Rights Amendment!  Please join the campaign to ratify the EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT!  WE NEED 3 OUT OF 15 TO RATIFY THE 19TH AMENDMENT, IT IS WITHIN OUR GRASPS –
Join the efforts of Mothers demanding Equality in the courts and in the Funding.  "I want my"
Mothers Rights International is working on Gender Bias Funding
Mothers Civil Liberties Union - Rights for Natural Mothers
M Barnett | November 21, 2015 at 9:51 pm | Categories: Failures of the American Justice System | URL:

Wednesday, November 18, 2015

French Flag on Your Profile? Have You Heard of Sykes-Picot?

Imagine, someone taking a pencil and drawing a line between the A in Alabama and the L in Los Angeles and making that line the northern frontier of America on a map. Then extending this line down to the M in Mexico City and then back up to the last A in Alabama and making this the United States. Canada would come down to this line. ...and...the person doing this also designed the flag for each country.

The hillbilly culture of Alabama, Texas combined into one state with the Southern California population. Would this cause problems?

Southern states STILL have not given up on their claims to a legitimate hold on the Confederacy. They STILL want to fly their flag despite being defeated by the British in the British Civil War and and again by the Yanks in the American Civil War.

Do you think they would give up when a foreign power carved up their land and combined it with totally different tribes and GAVE them another flag to substitute their confederate AND U.S. you think that people would take that well...?

Of course not.

So, with all the fervor over France being bombed by terrorists, in a HORRENDOUS ACT...I must also ask you to look at the reasons why.

How many people putting a French flag on thier profiles have heard of the Sykes-Picot Agreement?

I had not know about this until two years ago and I am an avid student of history.

A French and British diplomat took colored pencils and divided up the middle east for their imperial powers and even designed the flags for Middle Eastern countries during World War I.

No respect for soverienty.

No respect for ancient boundaries.

No respect for tribal laws.

No respect for the people there or their wishes.

No respect for families.

No respect for children.

No respect for their leaders, laws or religions.

The people of The Middle East have been suffering under this miscarrage of justice for more than one hundred years.

They are striking back in the only ways that they can against ruthless superpowers.

Now, I am not advocating violence against Americans, Europeans or any one in the west.

I am not on the side of fanatics that want to distribute indiscriminate violence against innocent people.

I do want to look at both sides of this and to encourage love, compassion and an effort to seek justice.

I want to present the side of the people of The Middle East and their plight instead of the one sided, mass, lame stream media view.

Middle Eastern people are being lynched in France now and in other parts of the western world.

Black people should be particularly sensitive to this.

During a trip to film a documentary in North Dakota about five years ago, I learned that German citizens in the United States were arrested when neighbors reported them playing German music too loud. They were arrested and put into the Snow Prison at Fort Lincoln. This was a SERIOUS thing. They were still on parole as long as 1957. Many of the one's I interviewed had fought against the Nazis in Germany and escaped to American ...only to be put into prison for playing German music! The same happened to the Japanese who were also held at Fort Lincoln (the fort that Custer was based at when he participate in the genocide of native Americans)....and Crystal City, Texas (the same place the many Latinos are being held today when they are FLEEING drug lords (put into place by U.S. drug laws)...who want to put them into prostitution, kill them and or enslave them and their kids.

Please stop, take a look and realize that we have all be indoctrinated, not educated.

Putting that flag on your profile suggests that you are part of the imperial outlook (I know that most of you are just want to support the fine people of France...I  do too)....I realize that France helped us defeat the British in the Revolutionary War, they allowed Black people to fly in their air force during WWI. They treated people of color with better freedom and dignity that this country did and does.

That does not assuage the things that were done wrong by the west....the people of The Middle East certainly cannot escape the damage. The face it everyday and continue to be tortured by actions promoted by greed and ignorance.

Please contemplate this post. Please share it. Absorb the information. A Smithsonian article is included along with a Wikipedia story....documenting the crimes of the west..specifically the French and the British.

The Origins of the Sykes-Picot Agreement | History | Smithsonian

The Origins of the World War I Agreement That Carved Up the Middle East

How Great Britain and France secretly negotiated the Sykes-Picot Agreement


4 4 0 0 0 0 43 

Even before the final outcome of the Great War has been determined, Great Britain, France, and Russia secretly discussed how they would carve up the Middle East into "spheres of influence" once World War I had ended. The Ottoman Empire had been in decline for centuries prior to the war, so the Allied Powers already had given some thought to how they would divide up the considerable spoils in the likely event they defeated the Turks. Britain and France already had some significant interests in the region between the Mediterranean Sea and Persian Gulf, but a victory offered a great deal more. Russia as well hungered for a piece.
From November 1915 to March 1916, representatives of Britain and France negotiated an agreement, with Russia offering its assent. The secret treaty, known as the Sykes–Picot Agreement, was named after its lead negotiators, the aristocrats Sir Mark Sykes of England and François Georges-Picot of France. Its terms were set out in a letter from British foreign secretary Sir Edward Grey to Paul Cambon, France's ambassador to Great Britain, on May 16, 1916.
The color-coded partition map and text provided that Britain ("B") would receive control over the red area, known today as Jordan, southern Iraq and Haifa in Israel; France ("A") would obtain the blue area, which covers modern-day Syria, Lebanon, northern Iraq, Mosul and southeastern Turkey, including Kurdistan; and the brown area of Palestine, excluding Haifa and Acre, would become subject to international administration, "the form of which is to be decided upon after consultation with Russia, and subsequently in consultation with the other allies, and the representatives of [Sayyid Hussein bin Ali, sharif of Mecca]." Besides carving the region into British and French "spheres of influence," the arrangement specified various commercial relations and other understandings between them for the Arab lands.
Russia's change of status, brought on by the revolution and the nation's withdrawal from the war, removed it from inclusion. But when marauding Bolsheviks uncovered documents about the plans in government archives in 1917, the contents of the secret treaty were publicly revealed. The exposé embarrassed the British, since it contradicted their existing claims through T. E. Lawrence that Arabs would receive sovereignty over Arab lands in exchange for supporting the Allies in the war. Indeed, the treaty set aside the establishment of an independent Arab state or confederation of Arab states, contrary to what had previously been promised, giving France and Britain the rights to set boundaries within their spheres of influence, "as they may think fit."
After the war ended as planned, the terms were affirmed by the San Remo Conference of 1920 and ratified by the League of Nations in 1922. Although Sykes-Picot was intended to draw new borders according to sectarian lines, its simple straight lines also failed to take into account the actual tribal and ethnic configurations in a deeply divided region. Sykes-Picot has affected Arab-Western relations to this day.
This article is excerpted from Scott Christianson's "100 Documents That Changed The World," available November 10.

Read more:
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12!
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

Sykes–Picot Agreement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sykes–Picot Agreement
MPK1-426 Sykes Picot Agreement Map signed 8 May 1916.jpg
Sykes Picot Agreement Map. It was an enclosure in Paul Cambon's letter to Sir Edward Grey, 9 May 1916.
CreatedMay 1916
Author(s)Mark Sykes and François Georges-Picot
SignatoriesEdward Grey and Paul Cambon
PurposeDefining proposed spheres of influence and control in theMiddle East should the Triple Entente succeed in defeating theOttoman Empire

Excerpt from the Manchester Guardian, Monday, November 26, 1917, This was the first English-language reference to what became known as the Sykes Picot Agreement.
The Sykes–Picot Agreement, officially known as the Asia Minor Agreement, was a secret agreement between the governments of the United Kingdom and France,[1]with the assent of Russia, defining their proposed spheres of influence and control in the Middle East should the Triple Entente succeed in defeating the Ottoman Empireduring World War I. The negotiation of the treaty occurred between November 1915 and March 1916.[2] The agreement was concluded on 16 May 1916.[3]
The agreement effectively divided the Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire outside the Arabian peninsula into areas of future British and French control or influence.[4]An "international administration" was proposed for Palestine.[5] The terms were negotiated by the French diplomat François Georges-Picot and Briton Sir Mark Sykes. The Russian Tsarist government was a minor party to the Sykes–Picot agreement, and when, following the Russian Revolution of October 1917, the Bolsheviks exposed the agreement, "the British were embarrassed, the Arabs dismayed and the Turks delighted."[6]

Territorial allocations[edit]

Britain was allocated control of areas roughly comprising the coastal strip between the sea and River JordanJordan, southern Iraq, and a small area including the ports of Haifa and Acre, to allow access to the Mediterranean.[7] France was allocated control of south-eastern Turkey, northern IraqSyria and Lebanon.[7] Russia was to getIstanbul, the Turkish Straits and the Ottoman Armenian vilayets.[7] The controlling powers were left free to decide on state boundaries within these areas.[7] Further negotiation was expected to determine international administration pending consultations with Russia and other powers, including the Sharif of Mecca.[7]

British–Zionist discussions during the negotiations[edit]

Following the outbreak of World War IZionism was first discussed at a British Cabinet level on 9 November 1914, four days after Britain's declaration of war on the Ottoman Empire. At a Cabinet meeting David Lloyd GeorgeChancellor of the Exchequer, "referred to the ultimate destiny of Palestine."[8][9] Lloyd George's law firm Lloyd George, Roberts and Co had been engaged a decade before by the Zionists to work on the Uganda Scheme.[10] In a discussion after the meeting with fellow Zionist Herbert Samuel, who had a seat in the Cabinet as President of the Local Government Board, Lloyd George assured him that "he was very keen to see a Jewish state established in Palestine."[8][11] Samuel then outlined the Zionist position more fully in a conversation with Foreign Secretary Edward Grey. He spoke of Zionist aspirations for the establishment in Palestine of a Jewish state, and of the importance of its geographical position to the British Empire. Samuel's memoirs state: "I mentioned that two things would be essential—that the state should be neutralized, since it could not be large enough to defend itself, and that the free access of Christian pilgrims should be guaranteed. ... I also said it would be a great advantage if the remainder of Syria were annexed by France, as it would be far better for the state to have a European power as neighbour than the Turk"[8][12] The same evening, Prime Minister H. H. Asquith announced that the dismemberment of the Turkish Empire had become a war aim in a speech for the Lord Mayor's Banquet at the Mansion House, "It is the Ottoman Government, and not we who have rung the death knell of Ottoman dominion not only in Europe but in Asia."[13]
In January 1915, Samuel submitted a Zionist memorandum entitled The Future of Palestine to the Cabinet after discussions with Weizmann and Lloyd George. On 5 February 1915, Samuel had another discussion with Grey: "When I asked him what his solution was he said it might be possible to neutralize the country under international guarantee ... and to vest the government of the country in some kind of Council to be established by the Jews"[14][15] After further conversations with Lloyd George and Grey, Samuel circulated a revised text to the Cabinet in mid-March 1915.
Zionism or the Jewish question were not considered by the report of the De Bunsen Committee, prepared to determine British wartime policy toward the Ottoman Empire, submitted in June 1915.[11]
Prior to Sykes's departure to meet Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Sazonov in Petrograd on 27 February 1916, Sykes was approached with a plan by Samuel. The plan Samuel put forward was in the form of a memorandum which Sykes thought prudent to commit to memory and then destroy.[citation needed] Commenting on it, Sykes wrote to Samuel suggesting that if Belgium should assume the administration of Palestine it might be more acceptable to France as an alternative to the international administration which she wanted and the Zionists did not. Of the boundaries marked on a map attached to the memorandum he wrote:[8]
"By excluding Hebron and the East of the Jordan there is less to discuss with the Moslems, as the Mosque of Omar then becomes the only matter of vital importance to discuss with them and further does away with any contact with the bedouins, who never cross the river except on business. I imagine that the principal object of Zionism is the realization of the ideal of an existing centre of nationality rather than boundaries or extent of territory. The moment I return I will let you know how things stand at Pd."[16]

Conflicting promises[edit]

Lord Curzon said the Great Powers were still committed to the Reglement Organique Agreement regarding the Lebanon Vilayet of June 1861 and September 1864, and that the rights granted to France in the blue area under the Sykes–Picot Agreement were not compatible with that agreement.[17] The Reglement Organique was an international agreement regarding governance and non-intervention in the affairs of the MaroniteOrthodox ChristianDruze, and Muslim communities.
In May 1917, W. Ormsby-Gore wrote
"French intentions in Syria are surely incompatible with the war aims of the Allies as defined to the Russian Government. If the self-determination of nationalities is to be the principle, the interference of France in the selection of advisers by the Arab Government and the suggestion by France of the Emirs to be selected by the Arabs in Mosul, Aleppo, and Damascus would seem utterly incompatible with our ideas of liberating the Arab nation and of establishing a free and independent Arab State. The British Government, in authorising the letters despatched to King Hussein [Sharif of Mecca] before the outbreak of the revolt by Sir Henry McMahon, would seem to raise a doubt as to whether our pledges to King Hussein as head of the Arab nation are consistent with French intentions to make not only Syria but Upper Mesopotamia another Tunis. If our support of King Hussein and the other Arabian leaders of less distinguished origin and prestige means anything it means that we are prepared to recognise the full sovereign independence of the Arabs of Arabia and Syria. It would seem time to acquaint the French Government with our detailed pledges to King Hussein, and to make it clear to the latter whether he or someone else is to be the ruler of Damascus, which is the one possible capital for an Arab State, which could command the obedience of the other Arabian Emirs."[18]
Many sources report that this agreement conflicted with the Hussein–McMahon Correspondence of 1915–1916. It has also been reported that the publication of the Sykes–Picot Agreement caused the resignation of Sir Henry McMahon.[19] However the Sykes–Picot plan itself described how France and Great Britain were prepared to recognize and protect an independent Arab State, or Confederation of Arab States, under the suzerainty of an Arab chief within the zones marked A. and B. on the map.[20] Nothing in the plan precluded rule through an Arab suzerainty in the remaining areas. The conflicts were a consequence of the private, post-war, Anglo-French Settlement of 1–4 December 1918. It was negotiated between British Prime Minister Lloyd George and French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau and rendered many of the guarantees in the Hussein–McMahon agreement invalid. That settlement was not part of the Sykes–Picot Agreement.[21] Sykes was not affiliated with the Cairo office that had been corresponding with Sherif Hussein bin Ali, but Picot and Sykes visited the Hejaz in 1917 to discuss the agreement with Hussein.[22] That same year he and a representative of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs delivered a public address to the Central Syrian Congress in Paris on the non-Turkish elements of the Ottoman Empire, including liberated Jerusalem. He stated that the accomplished fact of the independence of the Hejaz rendered it almost impossible that an effective and real autonomy should be refused to Syria.[23]
The greatest source of conflict was the Balfour Declaration, 1917 Lord Balfour wrote a memorandum from the Paris Peace Conference in which he asserted Britain's rights suggested that other allies had implicitly rejected the Sykes–Picot agreement by adopting the system of mandates. It allowed for no annexations, trade preferences, or other advantages. He also stated that the Allies were committed to Zionism and had no intention of honoring their promises to the Arabs.[24]
Eighty-five years later, in a 2002 interview with The New Statesman, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw observed "A lot of the problems we are having to deal with now, I have to deal with now, are a consequence of our colonial past. ... The Balfour Declaration and the contradictory assurances which were being given to Palestinians in private at the same time as they were being given to the Israelis—again, an interesting history for us but not an entirely honourable one."[25]

Events after public disclosure of the plan[edit]

Russian claims in the Ottoman Empire were denied following the Bolshevik Revolution and the Bolsheviks released a copy of the Sykes–Picot Agreement (as well as other treaties). They revealed full texts in Izvestiaand Pravda on 23 November 1917; subsequently, the Manchester Guardian printed the texts on November 26, 1917.[26] This caused great embarrassment between the allies and growing distrust between them and the Arabs. The Zionists were similarly upset,[citation needed] with the Sykes–Picot Agreement becoming public only three weeks after the Balfour Declaration.
The Anglo-French Declaration of November 1918 pledged that Great Britain and France would "assist in the establishment of indigenous Governments and administrations in Syria and Mesopotamia by "setting up of national governments and administrations deriving their authority from the free exercise of the initiative and choice of the indigenous populations". The French had reluctantly agreed to issue the declaration at the insistence of the British. Minutes of a British War Cabinet meeting reveal that the British had cited the laws of conquest and military occupation to avoid sharing the administration with the French under a civilian regime. The British stressed that the terms of the Anglo-French declaration had superseded the Sykes–Picot Agreement in order to justify fresh negotiations over the allocation of the territories of Syria, Mesopotamia, and Palestine.[27]
On 30 September 1918, supporters of the Arab Revolt in Damascus declared a government loyal to the Sharif of Mecca. He had been declared 'King of the Arabs' by a handful of religious leaders and other notables in Mecca.[28] On 6 January 1920 Faisal initialed an agreement with Clemenceau which acknowledged 'the right of Syrians to unite to govern themselves as an independent nation'.[29] A Pan-Syrian Congress meeting in Damascus had declared an independent state of Syria on the 8th of March 1920. The new state included portions of Syria, Palestine, and northern Mesopotamia. King Faisal was declared the head of State. At the same time Prince Zeid, Faisal's brother, was declared Regent of Mesopotamia.
The San Remo conference was hastily convened. Great Britain and France and Belgium all agreed to recognize the provisional independence of Syria and Mesopotamia, while claiming mandates for their administration. Palestine was composed of the Ottoman administrative districts of southern Syria. Under customary 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 due to the lack of any League of Nations sanction for the mandates.[30] In any event, its provisional independence was not mentioned, although it continued to be designated as a Class A Mandate.
France had decided to govern Syria directly, and took action to enforce the French Mandate of Syria before the terms had been accepted by the Council of the League of Nations. The French issued an ultimatum and intervened militarily at the Battle of Maysalun in June 1920. They deposed the indigenous Arab government, and removed King Faisal from Damascus in August 1920. Great Britain also appointed a High Commissioner and established their own mandatory regime in Palestine, without first obtaining approval from the Council of the League of Nations, or obtaining the formal cession of the territory from the former sovereign, Turkey.
Attempts to explain the conduct of the Allies were made at the San Remo conference and in the Churchill White Paper of 1922. The White Paper stated the British position that Palestine was part of the excluded areas of "Syria lying to the west of the District of Damascus".

Release of classified records[edit]

Lord Grey had been the Foreign Secretary during the McMahon–Hussein negotiations. Speaking in the House of Lords on 27 March 1923, he made it clear that, for his part, he entertained serious doubts as to the validity of the British Government's (Churchill's) interpretation of the pledges which he, as Foreign Secretary, had caused to be given to the Sharif Hussein in 1915. He called for all of the secret engagements regarding Palestine to be made public.[31]
Many of the relevant documents in the National Archives were later declassified and published. Among them were various assurances of Arab independence provided by Secretary of War, Lord Kitchener, the Viceroy of India, and others in the War Cabinet. The minutes of a Cabinet Eastern Committee meeting, chaired by Lord Curzon, held on 5 December 1918 to discuss the various Palestine undertakings makes it clear that Palestine had not been excluded from the agreement with Hussein. General Jan Smuts, Lord Balfour, Lord Robert Cecil, General Sir Henry Wilson, Chief of the Imperial General Staff, and representatives of the Foreign Office, the India Office, the Admiralty, the War Office, and the Treasury were present. T. E. Lawrence also attended. According to the minutes Lord Curzon explained:
"The Palestine position is this. If we deal with our commitments, there is first the general pledge to Hussein in October 1915, under which Palestine was included in the areas as to which Great Britain pledged itself that they should be Arab and independent in the future ... Great Britain and France – Italy subsequently agreeing—committed themselves to an international administration of Palestine in consultation with Russia, who was an ally at that time ... A new feature was brought into the case in November 1917, when Mr Balfour, with the authority of the War Cabinet, issued his famous declaration to the Zionists that Palestine 'should be the national home of the Jewish people, but that nothing should be done—and this, of course, was a most important proviso—to prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine. Those, as far as I know, are the only actual engagements into which we entered with regard to Palestine."[32]
On 17 April 1964, The Times of London published excerpts from a secret memorandum that had been prepared by the Political Intelligence Department of the British Foreign Office for the British delegation to the Paris peace conference. The reference to Palestine said:
"With regard to Palestine, H.M.G. are committed by Sir Henry McMahon's letter to the Sherif on October 24, 1915, to its inclusion in the boundaries of Arab independence ... but they have stated their policy regarding the Palestine Holy Place and Zionist colonization in their message to him of January 4, 1918."
Another document, which was a draft statement for submission to the peace conference, but never submitted, noted:
"The whole of Palestine ... lies within the limits which H.M.G. have pledged themselves to Sherif Husain that they will recognize and uphold the independence of the Arabs."[33][34]

Lloyd George's explanation[edit]

Zones of French (blue), British (red) and Russian (green) influence and control established by the Sykes–Picot Agreement. At a Downing Street meeting of 16 December 1915 Sykes had declared "I should like to draw a line from the e in Acre to the last k inKirkuk."[35]
The British Notes taken during a 'Council of Four Conference Held in the Prime Minister's Flat at 23 Rue Nitot, Paris, on Thursday, March 20, 1919, at 3 p.m.'[36]shed further light on the matter. Lord Balfour was in attendance, when Lloyd George explained the history behind the agreements. The notes revealed that:
  • '[T]he blue area in which France was "allowed to establish such direct or indirect administration or control as they may desire and as they may think fit to arrange with the Arab State or Confederation of Arab States" did not include Damascus, Homs, Hama, or Aleppo. In area A. France was "prepared to recognise and uphold an independent Arab State or Confederation of Arab States'.[37]
  • Since the Sykes–Picot Agreement of 1916, the whole mandatory system had been adopted. If a mandate were granted by the League of Nations over these territories, all that France asked was that France should have that part put aside for her.
  • Lloyd George said that he could not do that. The League of Nations could not be used for putting aside our bargain with King Hussein. He asked if M. Pichonintended to occupy Damascus with French troops. If he did, it would clearly be a violation of the Treaty with the Arabs. M. Pichon said that France had no convention with King Hussein. Lloyd George said that the whole of the agreement of 1916 (Sykes–Picot), was based on a letter from Sir Henry McMahon' to King Hussein.[38]
  • Lloyd George, continuing, said that it was on the basis of the above quoted letter that King Hussein had put all his resources into the field which had helped us most materially to win the victory. France had for practical purposes accepted our undertaking to King Hussein in signing the 1916 agreement. This had not been M. Pichon, but his predecessors. He was bound to say that if the British Government now agreed that Damascus, Homs, Hama, and Aleppo should be included in the sphere of direct French influence, they would be breaking faith with the Arabs, and they could not face this.
Lloyd George was particularly anxious for M. Clemenceau to follow this. The agreement of 1916 had been signed subsequent to the letter to King Hussein. In the following extract from the agreement of 1916 France recognised Arab independence: "It is accordingly understood between the French and British Governments.-(1) That France and Great Britain are prepared to recognise and uphold an independent Arab State or Confederation of Arab States in the areas A. and B. marked on the annexed map under the suzerainty of an Arab Chief." Hence France, by this act, practically recognised our agreement with King Hussein by excluding Damascus, Homs, Hama, and Aleppo from the blue zone of direct administration, for the map attached to the agreement showed that Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo were included, not in the zone of direct administration, but in the independent Arab State. M. Pichon said that this had never been contested, but how could France be bound by an agreement the very existence of which was unknown to her at the time when the 1916 agreement was signed? In the 1916 agreement France had not in any way recognised the Hejaz. She had undertaken to uphold "an independent Arab State or Confederation of Arab States", but not the Kingdom of Hejaz. If France was promised a mandate for Syria, she would undertake to do nothing except in agreement with the Arab State or Confederation of States. This is the role which France demanded in Syria. If Great Britain would only promise her good offices, he believed that France could reach an understanding with Feisal.'[39]

Consequences of the agreement[edit]

The agreement is seen by many as a turning point in WesternArab relations. It negated the promises made to Arabs[40] through Colonel T. E. Lawrence for a national Arab homeland in the area of Greater Syria, in exchange for their siding with British forces against the Ottoman Empire.
The agreement's principal terms were reaffirmed by the inter-Allied San Remo Conference of 19–26 April 1920 and the ratification of the resulting League of Nations mandates by the Council of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922.
The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) claims one of the goals of its insurgency is to reverse the effects of the Sykes–Picot Agreement.[41][42][43] "This is not the first border we will break, we will break other borders," a jihadist from the ISIL warned in the video called End of Sykes-Picot.[44] ISIL's leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in a July 2014 speech at the Great Mosque of al-Nuri in Mosul vowed that "this blessed advance will not stop until we hit the last nail in the coffin of the Sykes–Picot conspiracy".[45][46]
The Franco-German geographer Christophe Neff wrote that the geopolitical architecture founded by the Sykes–Picot Agreement has disappeared in July 2014 and with it the relative protection of religious and ethnic minorities in the Middle East.[47] He claims furthermore that Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant has in some way restructured the geopolitical structure of the Middle East in summer 2014, particularly in Syria and Iraq.[48] The former French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin has presented a similar geopolitical analysis in an editorial contribution for the French newspaper Le Monde.[49]

See also[edit]


  1. Jump up^ Fromkin, David (1989). A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East. New York: Owl. pp. 286, 288. ISBN 0-8050-6884-8.
  2. Jump up^ The Middle East in the twentieth century, Martin Sicker
  3. Jump up^ 8.
  4. Jump up^ Peter Mansfield, British Empire magazine, Time-Life Books, no 75, p. 2078
  5. Jump up^ Eugene Rogan, The Fall of the Ottomans, p.286
  6. Jump up^ Peter MansfieldThe British Empire magazine, no. 75, Time-Life Books, 1973
  7. Jump up to:a b c d e Text of the Sykes–Picot Agreement at the WWI Document Archive
  8. Jump up to:a b c d Grooves Of Change: A Book Of Memoirs, Herbert Samuel
  9. Jump up^ Britain's Moment in the Middle East, 1914-1956, Elizabeth Monroe, p26
  10. Jump up^ Conservative Party attitudes to Jews, 1900–1950, Harry Defries
  11. Jump up to:a b A Broken Trust: Sir Herbert Samuel, Zionism and the Palestinians, Sarah Huneidi, p261 Cite error: Invalid <ref>tag; name "Huneidi" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  12. Jump up^ Samuel, Grooves of Change, p174
  13. Jump up^ J Schneers, "Balfour Declaration" (London 2012)[this quote needs a citation]
  14. Jump up^ Samuel, Grooves of Change, p176
  15. Jump up^ In the Anglo-Arab Labyrinth, Elie Kedourie
  16. Jump up^ The high walls of Jerusalem: a history of the Balfour Declaration and the birth of the British mandate for Palestine, 1984, p346
  17. Jump up^ CAB 27/24, E.C. 41 War Cabinet Eastern Committee Minutes, December 5, 1918
  18. Jump up^ See UK National Archives CAB/24/143, Eastern Report, No. XVIII, May 31, 1917
  19. Jump up^ See CAB 24/271, Cabinet Paper 203(37)
  20. Jump up^ see paragraph 1 of The Sykes–Picot Agreement
  21. Jump up^ Allenby and British Strategy in the Middle East, 1917–1919, Matthew Hughes, Taylor & Francis, 1999, ISBN 0-7146-4473-0, pages 122–124
  22. Jump up^ Isaiah Friedman, Palestine, a Twice-promised Land?: The British, the Arabs & Zionism, 1915–1920 (Transaction Publishers 2000), ISBN 1-56000-391-X, p.166
  23. Jump up^ Foreign Relations of the United States, 1918. Supplement 1, The World War Volume I, Part I: The continuation and conclusion of the war—participation of the United States, p.243
  24. Jump up^ Document 242, Memorandum by Mr.Balfour (Paris) respecting Syria, Palestine, and Mesopotamia, 11 August 1919, in E.L.Woodward and Rohan Butler, Documents on British Foreign Policy, 1919–1939. (London: HM Stationery Office, 1952), ISBN 0-11-591554-0, p.340–348, [1]
  25. Jump up^ New Statesman Interview – Jack Straw
  26. Jump up^ 9.
  27. Jump up^ See Allenby and General Strategy in the Middle East, 1917–1919, By Matthew Hughes, Taylor & Francis, 1999, ISBN 0-7146-4473-0, 113-118
  28. Jump up^ Jordan: Living in the Crossfire, Alan George, Zed Books, 2005, ISBN 1-84277-471-9, page 6
  29. Jump up^ Britain, the Hashemites and Arab Rule, 1920–1925, by Timothy J. Paris, Routledge, 2003, ISBN 0-7146-5451-5, page 69
  30. Jump up^ see for example International Law, Papers of Hersch Lauterpacht, edited by Elihu Lauterpacht, CUP Archive, 1970, ISBN 0-521-21207-3, page 116 and Statehood and the Law of Self-determination, D. Raič, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2002, ISBN 90-411-1890-X, page 95
  31. Jump up^ Report of a Committee Set Up To Consider Certain Correspondence Between Sir Henry McMahon and The Sharif of Mecca
  32. Jump up^ cited in "Palestine Papers, 1917–1922", Doreen Ingrams, page 48 from the UK Archive files PRO CAB 27/24.
  33. Jump up^ "Light on Britain's Palestine Promise". The Times. April 17, 1964. pp. 15–16.
  34. Jump up^ Elie Kedourie (April 23, 1964). "Promises on Palestine (letter)". The Times. p. 13.
  35. Jump up^ A Line in the Sand, James Barr, p.12
  36. Jump up^ 'The Council of Four: minutes of meetings March 20 to May 24, 1919, page 1'
  37. Jump up^ 'The Council of Four: minutes of meetings March 20 to May 24, 1919, page 6'
  38. Jump up^ The Council of Four: minutes of meetings March 20 to May 24, 1919, Page 7
  39. Jump up^ The Council of Four: minutes of meetings March 20 to May 24, 1919, Page 8
  40. Jump up^ Hawes, Director James (21 October 2003). Lawrence of Arabia: The Battle for the Arab World. PBS Home Video. Interview with Kamal Abu Jaber, former Foreign Minister of Jordan.
  41. Jump up^ "This is not the first border we will break, we will break other borders," a jihadist from ...]"www.theguardian.comThe Guardian. Retrieved 30 May 2014.
  42. Jump up^ "Watch this English-speaking ISIS fighter explain how a 98-year-old colonial map created today’s conflict"LA Daily News. 7 February 2014. Retrieved July 3, 2014.
  43. Jump up^ Phillips, David L. "Extremists in Iraq need a history lesson"CNBC.
  44. Jump up^ Tran, Mark and Weaver, Matthew (30 June 2014). "Isis announces Islamic caliphate in area straddling Iraq and Syria"The Guardian. Retrieved 11 August 2014.
  45. Jump up^ "Exclusive: First Appearance of ISIS Caliph in Iraq Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi (English Subtitles)" 5 July 2014. Retrieved11 August 2014.
  46. Jump up^ Zen, Eretz. "Is Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi the Man in the Recent ISIL Video?"YouTube.comWe have now trespassed the borders that were drawn by the malicious hands in lands of Islam in order to limit our movements and confine us inside them. And we are working, Allah permitting, to eliminate them (borders). And this blessed advance will not stop until we hit the last nail in the coffin of the Sykes-Picot conspiracy.(transl.)
  47. Jump up^ "Bientôt le souvenir de l’église catholique chaldéenne et des églises syriaques (orthodoxes & catholiques) sera plus qu’un souffle de vent chaud dans le désert (In French)". paysages in Retrieved August 10, 2014.
  48. Jump up^ "Yazidis d’Irak – le cri d’angoisse d’une députée du parlement irakien (In French)". paysages in Retrieved August 10, 2014.
  49. Jump up^ "" Ne laissons pas le Moyen-Orient à la barbarie ! " par Dominique de Villepin (In French)". Retrieved August 10, 2014.