أوراق المؤتمر بين الإدارات حول شؤون الشرق الأوسط [و‎‎١‎٢‎٠] (٢٩٠/٢٣٩)

9
at all, but because he was still less anxious for His Majesty’s Govern
ment to be committed to political or military responsibilities in
Kurdish areas. No useful purpose would be served by M. Berthelot
and himself* making an imaginary Kurdistan on the map unless there
were some prospect of the inhabitants being put in a position to
realise their independence. Another serious question which would
have to be considered in determining the future of Kurdistan was the
protection of the Christian minorities.
Mr. Vansittart said that he had suggested a meeting of the
Conference to discuss the future of Kurdistan in view of the
approaching visit of General Cherif Pasha to London. Cherif Pasha
proposed to demand an opportunity of stating his case before the
Peace Conference. If he did so it was clearly desirable that the
British Delegation should form some idea of the replv which
should be made to him so far as His Majesty’s Government was
concerned.
Cherif Pasha had lived for many years in Paris and was not a
very good representative for the Kurds ; but he had recentlv come
into prominence as the signatory of an agreement with BoghosNubar
Pasha as representing the Armenians, and he appeared to be gaining
a greater amount of support from Kurdish elements in Constantinople
and elsewhere. At the same time, he thought that Cherif Pasha
should not be regarded as the sole representative of the Kurds, if it
were possible to invite other Kurdish representatives to come to
London and co-operate with him.
Mr. Shuckburgh said that Cherif Pasha had no valid claim to
represent the Kurds of Kurdistan, however he might be regarded
by the Kurdish Club in Constantinople. He understood that
Cherif Pasha had been first encouraged to come forward as Kurdish
representative as a result of his interviews with the late ISir Mark
Sykes and with Sir Percy Cox.
Mr. Garbett said that he had interviewed Cherif Pasha some
time ago and had asked him straight out whether he would be
recognised as the representative of Kurdish opinion by such chieftains
as Sayed Taha and Simko. Cherif Pasha had been somewhat non
plussed at this question, and had promised to make enquiries. At a
more recent interview he had stated that a reference to Constanti
nople had elicited the fact that the names of Sayed Taha and Simko
were duly entered on the list of his supporters.
Replying to a question by the Chairman, he suggested that if
the Civil Commissioner, Bagdad, were asked for his views on the
question of Kurdish representation he would probably reply that
there was no such political unit as Kurdistan, and that it would be
impossible to collect representatives of the various smaller tribes of
which the country was composed.
Mr. Shuckburgh pointed out that the India Office had already
stated their views on the future of Kurdistan at length in a letter
addressed to the Foreign Office. He did not know whether the India
Office were to expect a reply to this letter.
The Chairman said that the India Office letter had been fully
discussed at the last meeting of the Conference on the question of
Kurdistan, and it had been decided that the India Office proposals,
which were no more than a modification of Colonel Wilson’s views,
should be rejected.
He was rather doubtful of the advisability of leaving Cherif
Pasha to present the Kurdish case to the Peace Conference. It was
with considerable reluctance that he had abandoned the view that
Cherif Pasha carried no weight as a Kurdish representative, and had
agreed to his coming to London.