Prior to the centenary of Sykes-Picot in 2016, the media[109] and scientists[110] generated strong interest in the long-term effects of the agreement. The agreement is often cited as “artificial” borders in the Middle East, “without regard to ethnic or sectarian characteristics, which has led to endless conflicts.” [111] The question of the extent to which Sykes-Picot has really marked the borders of the modern Middle East is controversial. [112] [113] In May, Clayton Balfour stated that in response to the indication that the agreement had been shaken, Picot had “allowed a substantial revision to be necessary in light of the changes that have taken place in the situation since the development of the agreement”, but that he nevertheless considered that “the agreement is in any case in principle.” It will be necessary to prevent regional actors from trying to narrow the outlines of a proposal in order to place the external powers against each other and leave the region in chaos. It is therefore essential that the United States, Russia and the EU at least reach a comprehensive understanding and/or agreement. Only then will important regional states such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iran and Turkey be introduced. In the third phase, some local players are invited to give their consent. The agreement was officially cancelled by the Allies at the San Remo Conference in April 1920, when the mandate of Palestine was entrusted to Great Britain. US President Woodrow Wilson rejected all secret agreements between allies and encouraged open diplomacy and ideas of self-determination. On November 22, 1917, Leon Trotsky sent a note to the petrograd ambassadors that “contained proposals for a ceasefire and democratic peace without annexation and without compensation based on the principle of nation independence and their right to determine the nature of their own development.” [68] Peace negotiations with the four-year Alliance – Germany, Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria and Turkey – began a month later in Brest-Litovsk. On behalf of the Quadrennial Alliance, Count Czernin replied on 25 December that “the question of the nationality of national groups that do not have the independence of the state should be constitutionally resolved by any state and its peoples independently” and that “the right of minorities is an essential part of the constitutional right of peoples to self-determination”. [69] I also have the honour of declaring that Her Majesty`s Government is proposing to the Russian Government to make the agreement complete, in order to exchange notes that correspond to those exchanged by her and the Government of His Excellency on April 26 last year. Copies of these notes will be communicated to Excellence as soon as they are exchanged.