'Mosul Question, Lausanne 1922-1923 and after - Papers, despatches, speeches - Hotel de la Mer at Lausanne - Correspondence about oil' [‎68v] (138/501)

4
'Assembly as demanding that the Kurds of Southern Kurdistan (among others) should
be united with Turkey. Since it is obvious that no elections to the Angora Assembly
were ever held in Southern Kurdistan, the opinion quoted has no value in respect of
the Sulaimaniyeh cc liwa.” In any case, it is open to anyone to form an independent
judgment as to whether the Southern Kurds would prefer to accept an arrangement
which, while connecting them with their market and supply centre, Bagdad, leaves
them free to use their own language, to be governed bv their own tribal leaders and
officials, and to develop their native institutions, or to be placed under a Government
whose representatives can find nothing to say to their national demands except that
all Kurds are Turks.
3. Historical.
The British memorandum dealt very briefly with this consideration on the
ground that “the argument from history .... would justify the demand by any
country for any city or province of which it had been deprived as the consequence of
defeat in war." But if—for the sake of argument—the Turkish delegation’s
historical survey is accepted, it only supports the British case. The Turkish delega
tion will not deny that Mosul was built by Arabs and was an Arab town when the
“ Turkish " rulers first occupied it; and the claim is made that the Kurds were in
possession of Kurdistan long before that date. Then followed, it is said, eleven
centuries of Turkish domination. This domination was removed a few years ago,
and it was found that the population was mainly, as it had been eleven centuries
before, Arab and Kurdish, that it had neither been replaced by Turks nor assimilated
to the Turks either in race or in language. A more striking proof of the artificial
character of the connection of the Mosul Vilayet with the Turkish Empire it would
be hard to find.
4. Geographical.
This argument, now raised by the Turkish delegation for the first time, leads
nowdiere. The Mosul plain, with its long, hot, rainless summer, its snowless winter,
and only 13 inches of rain in the year, differs more from Anatolia Peninsula that forms most of modern-day Turkey. proper than it
does from Bagdad. But it would be possible to prove or to disprove anything by
assuming that Anatolia Peninsula that forms most of modern-day Turkey. , parts of which are many feet deep in snow for some months
of the year while others are so hot that cotton can be grown, is a single geographical
unit.
5. Economic.
It is a matter for regret that this important aspect of the case, which was
treated in great detail in the earlier British memorandum, should have been dealt
with by the Turkish delegation in so inadequate a fashion.
The British memorandum stated that the possession of the Mosul Vilayet is
essential for the food supply of Bagdad. The Turkish memorandum does not
contradict this statement, but adds that Bagdad needs grain from Diarbekr as well
as from Mosul. The British delegation does not propose to draw from this argument
the logical conclusion that Diarbekr as well as Mosul should be included in Irak.
It is satisfied with pointing out that the extension of agriculture in Irak since the
British occupation enables Irak to dispense more and more with Diarbekr grain,
so long as the grain-growing areas of Mosul are included in her borders.
One important argument which was advanced in the British memorandum is
admirably supported by the Turkish delegation. The latter lays stress on the
possible importance to Mosul, in the future, of the Mediterranean ports. The British
delegation is prepared to admit that the trade of Mosul with Bagdad and Basra may
diminish, and its trade with Alexandretta, Beirut and Haifa increase. The British
delegation recognises that the Irak State should enter into the closest economic and
commercial relations with the two neighbouring States of Palestine and Syria, and
has already pointed out the importance of the cross-desert trade between Syria and
Mosul. The transfer of Mosul to Turkey would cut it off not only from Irak but
from Syria as well, and would interfere seriously with communications in general
between Syria on the one side and Irak and Persia on the other. In fact, three
countries would be sacrificed in order to give unimportant economic advantages
to one.
It is difficult to decide whether the Turkish case is more seriously damaged bv
the arguments which they advance or by the British arguments which they ignore.
They quote as grounds for the retrocession of the Mosul Vilayet to Turkey the trade

'Mosul Question, Lausanne 1922-1923 and after - Papers, despatches, speeches - Hotel de la Mer at Lausanne - Correspondence about oil' [‎68v] (138/501)

Transcription

About this item

Copyright: How to use this content

'Mosul Question, Lausanne 1922-1923 and after - Papers, despatches, speeches - Hotel de la Mer at Lausanne - Correspondence about oil' [‎68v] (138/501)

Transcription

About this item

Use and share this item

Copyright: How to use this content