'Mosul Question, Lausanne 1922-1923 and after - Papers, despatches, speeches - Hotel de la Mer at Lausanne - Correspondence about oil' [‎71r] (143/501)

historical or other evidenced anvV^ ls , e t nou ^) 1 ^ 3a 7 tllat for this theory there is no
selves would reject with scorn ^ wei & ht ’ and that it is one which the Kurds them-
memorandum, that the^nk^dcnlonf m ! uatains the claim put forward in its previous
can be said to be connected wltT^ the population of the Mosul Vilayet which
Turkoman, which numbers only otffitTthe tetTpopuiltLT 1 ^ " the
2. Political.
Vilayel would wv. the . 8ma H “ T " rkish ” "*“ority of the Mosul
advantages the ifritish , ewV° ‘u® rU 6 under whl , ch they en J°y ed 80 m a n y unfair
any other element Thp v... ° ^i de S! es . cat( -‘gorioally that this view is shared by
that no furth^r aVnn ® 1 ® ::^ the Christians and the Yaz.dis are so well knowii
delegation not onll reMats^h^ tlT' 11 !, ' S re< l ulred - to the Ar «bs, the British
Irak k f m y repeats that these have unanimously voted for inclusion in the
the settmg’ up oH”S StaV fl^ °l 4 d -ing the war and
would hesitate tv,r a '? tate m Irak with an Arab King at its head, no Arab
than return to a rule w'hiVh , preferrln g to remain a subject of that State rather
language dld n0t eVen recognise the Arab tongue as an official
whic^the'^British^delep-aHnn "/f tK 1 dele P tlon has misinterpreted certain admissions
if • delegation, m the desire to be pertectlv iust and fair inolndprl in
vote^rriuSntaT- Wl! 10 ^ ^ ,aiman ' yeh ^ not S %
were not asked to vote K l, n vote regarding the Emir Feisal was taken, they
a comnaef honi f because, as the previous British memorandum stated, “bein^-
separate trea?ment ' P Tfn 0t difi ' er , ent race - ^ey obviously ’required
fate is bound uu with h ? ve aIwa y s recognised that their
T1 e sta emete that ‘‘ nl ff d ’ WhlCh 18 Poetically their sole economic outlet.
t , ,, 6 s 1 tat ® meI ? t tha t only the minorities of the town of Mosul voted for
Irak, whether it purports to be based on the British memorandum' or on other
information, is without any foundation in fact. As the British statement on this
pomt has been disregarded, it is desirable to repeat it in greater detail The proposal
under thfrulerlh p^f fhe 'f ^ the r6St ° f Irak and should be P^ced
AP <nl - p, /V P i ^ F f lsal as Kin ^ was supported by the whole of the
fj° iv-f • a • ( Zakbo ’ T)ohuk and Agrah included), by the Erbil ‘ £ liwa ” and bv
the Kifn portion of the Kirkuk “liwa.” The amount of ‘‘ pressure- brought to
ear may be estimated from the well-known fact that a deputation from Kirkuk
which visited Bagdad could elicit from the High Commissioner no replv to their
»r^ as t0 thQ wishes of Hls Majesty’s Government regarding thf plebiscite
except the unvarying statement that they were free to do as they wished a statement
which the people of Kirkuk acted upon with absolute freedom 7 it may be admitted
however, that there is good foundation for the contention that many of those of the
inhabi ants of the ^ Vllayet who voted for delusion in Irak were actuated by
sdf-mterest It is the basis of the British case that it is to the advantage of ever'v
inhabitant of the Mosul Vilayet to find himself within the boundaries of the
mandatory area, rather than to be united to a race which from the time when the
wd^ dG ° yed the ancient irrigation system of Babylon has never done Irak
In regard to the Kurdish element, the Turkish delegation puts forward- a
number of arguments. Perhaps the most curious is its representation of the bombing
of Rowanduz and other places to which Turkish troops had penetrated as an attempt
to weaken the attachment of the population to Turkey. On the other hand the
turkish delegation passes over m silence the two important considerations adduced
m the previous British memorandum, viz., (1) that in point of fact the Turkish
Government was rarely or never in effective control of Southern Kurdistan, and
(2) that the Kurds of Southern Kurdistan gave the Turkish Government no help
during the great war. If such general considerations as those now adduced by the
! urkish delegation are to be admitted, it is legitimate to recall that the Turkish
Government had constant trouble with the Kurds in the Dersim and other areas-
that in 1914 there was a serious Kurdish revolution in Bitlis, which was put down
with difficulty; and that many Kurdish chiefs and their sons were exiled to
Constantinople for years at a time lest the spirit of Kurdish nationalism should
concentrate around them and break out in revolt against Turkish rule.
The Turkish delegation quotes the Kurdish representatives in the Ana-ora
[197 ee—1] B 2

'Mosul Question, Lausanne 1922-1923 and after - Papers, despatches, speeches - Hotel de la Mer at Lausanne - Correspondence about oil' [‎71r] (143/501)

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' [‎71r] (143/501)

Transcription

About this item

Use and share this item

Copyright: How to use this content