'Mosul Question, Lausanne 1922-1923 and after - Papers, despatches, speeches - Hotel de la Mer at Lausanne - Correspondence about oil' [‎69r] (139/501)

5
0
between Southern Anatolia Peninsula that forms most of modern-day Turkey. and Persia, which is quite insignificant, and, in any
-case, finds its easiest route through Bagdad; the export of buffaloes from Mosul,
though buffaloes are bred, not in Mosul, but in Lower Mesopotamia; and the construction
of the Bagdad Railway, which, in point of fact, is useful to Mosul, not because it is a link
with Anatolia Peninsula that forms most of modern-day Turkey. , but because it unites Irak with its neighbour and customer, the Arab
country of Syria. Of the British arguments, which the Turkish delegation has
preferred to pass over in silence, the most important is the incontrovertible fact that
Mosul can never get its principal imports (piece-goods, tea, sugar and coffee) from
Anatolia Peninsula that forms most of modern-day Turkey. .
6. Strategic.
The first argument in this section of the Turkish memorandum appears to be
based on the entirely unfounded assumption that in any case Sulaimaniyeh and
Kirkuk are to be restored to Turkey. The Vilayet of Mosul is indivisible, and the
arguments in this memorandum and in that of the 14th December relate to the
vilayet as a whole. The Turkish claim to Mosul (town) as an essential link between
Sulaimaniyeh and Kirkuk on one hand, and Anatolia Peninsula that forms most of modern-day Turkey. on the other, therefore falls
to the ground.
It is not clear why the possession of Mosul should be necessary for the defence
of Turkey. As a base for an attack on Irak its value is obvious, but it cannot be
seriously argued that Turkey has anything to fear from the new State of Irak, even
if the latter includes Mosul. Moreover, unlike the Jabal Hamrin, which is an
insignificant range of hills of little importance as a barrier, the present boundary
between Irak and Turkey is a serious military obstacle. The western flank is
protected bv a wedge of Syrian territory which both sides are bound to respect, the
eastern by a mass of mountains in which military operations are extremely difficult.
Even if ethnographical, economic and other considerations were not opposed to
the separation of Mosul and Bagdad, the Irak State might be pardoned for wishing
to be separated from its powerful northern neighbour by the existing boundary
rather than by the range of the Jabal Hamrin, which is not only difficult to defend,
but is dangerously near to its capital and its vital communications. This question
must be considered on its merits, and not confused by comparison with, e.q., the
boundary of Eastern Thrace, where many considerations of an entirely different
order haive to be taken into account.
7. The National Pact.
The Turkish delegation ignores the arguments in the British memorandum
which show conclusively that by no stretch of interpretation can the first article of
the National Pact be read as demanding the retrocession of the Mosul Vilayet. The
delegation simply repeat the statement that the National Pact does cover the Mosul
Vilayet. More assertion of this sort does not necessarily carry conviction; nor would
it be a sound innovation in international practice if documents were to be
interpreted, not by what they palpably say. but by what theii authors, years
afterwards claim that they meant but failed to say. fn any case, it may be worth
while to state m the clearest terms what the present claim of the Turkish delegation
really means It means that the Turkish Parliament of February 1920, or the
A no-ora Assembly of December 1922, is to have the right to decide that the Mosul
Vilavet (which is represented in neither body), with its little minority of Turkomans
and its enormous majority of non-Turks, is to be taken away from the victors in
ihe great war and to be returned to the vanquished. All intervening events are to be
ignored The orowth of Arab and Kurdish nationalism; the development of the
mandatory system, and the acceptance by His Majesty’s Government of a mandate
in respect of the three Vilayets of Basra, Bagdad and Mosul; the setting up of an
Arab State with an Arab King; the adhesion of a large part of the population of
ihe Mosul Vilayet to the Arab State; the establishment of an autonomous regime
for the Kurds—-all of these events are to be disregarded merely because the Turkish
delegation chooses to advance this unfounded claim
"The British delegation is unable to deal with the case m this light hearted and
srbitrarv manner Faithful to its obligations to the population of the Mosul
Vilavet, to its allies, and to the League of Nations, the British Government is bound
to reiterate its refusal even to contemplate the surrender of the Mosul Vila) et a d
is unable to see that any advantage can arise from further argument on the subject.

'Mosul Question, Lausanne 1922-1923 and after - Papers, despatches, speeches - Hotel de la Mer at Lausanne - Correspondence about oil' [‎69r] (139/501)

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' [‎69r] (139/501)

Transcription

About this item

Use and share this item

Copyright: How to use this content