DOCSLIB.ORG

Constantinople Agreement”, 1915: Between Britain, France and Russia - Initiated by Russia to Assure Rights to Constantinople, Straits of Dardanelles

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Constantinople Agreement”, 1915: Between Britain, France and Russia - Initiated by Russia to Assure Rights to Constantinople, Straits of Dardanelles Studying the Ottomans: Section 2: Ottomans in the Modern World (19th -early 20th C.) WWI and Aftermath. End of Empire, Birth of Modern Turkey (2:) politics of dismemberment -- ‘Secret Agreements’ Nov. 19-23 World War I Pledges to Arabs: - Britain encouraged Sherif of Mecca to organize Arab revolt, undermine Ottoman attempts unity 1915-16 “Hussayn-McMahon” correspondence: - outlined agreement: -Hussayn would rally Arabs in exchange for Arab independence, British alliance (political, economic) [see ‘Additional Readings’] World War I Correspondence ‘Secret’: took place between 14 July – 10 March, 1915 Hussayn made it clear: this was about recogniztion of ‘Arab Caliphate of Islam’ – nation defined by ‘Arabness’ Initially: - claimed Basra, Baghdad as ‘ancient Arab homeland’ - subsequently agreed to ‘temporary’ British authority, as long as Arab interests respected World War I - also wanted Adana and northern region including Alexandretta; wilayets Damascus, Aleppo (approximately) - AND, most significantly: wilayet of Beirut - relinquished claims to former in face of Britain’s response that these areas were ‘not purely Arab’ in population World War I - effectively, British attempted NOT to engage in detailed discussion of boundaries: at first ‘deferred’, then left ambiguities - ultimately: Hussayn agreed to terms - But Which Boundaries? Never Clear…. Map A: interpretation EXCLUDING Beirut Ambiguity of McMahon-Hussayn Correspondence as reflected in conflicting Interpretations, conflicting ‘agreements’ …. Map B: interpretation INCLUDING Beirut I Ambiguity of McMahon-Hussayn Correspondence as reflected in conflicting Interpretations, conflicting ‘agreements’ …. World War I Text on Map A: ---Line west of which Britain said ‘should be exluded from the proposed limits and boundaries of any future independent Arab State (McMahon 25 oct. 1915 (Shaded areas): areas which the Sherif of Mecca declared to be ‘purely Arab provinces’ and wished to see as part of ‘the pure Arab kingdom’ (Hussayn 5 nov. 1915) World War I [from McMahon-Hussayn Correspondence: text Map A] On 25 Oct 1915 the British High Commissioner in Cairo, Sir H McMahon, informed Hussein that Britain was ‘prepared to recognize and support the independence of the Arabs….’. But, he added, the Eastern Mediterranean littoral would have to be ‘entirely excluded from the future Arab State’. World War I In his reply on 5 Nov 1915, Hussein insisted on the inclusion of the Vilayet of Beirut. But made no mention of the Mutassarilik of Jerusalem. But on 14 Dec 1915 McMahon replied that any such inclusion ‘will require careful consideration’. On 1 Jan 1916, Hussein warned McMahon ‘the people of Beirut will decidedly never accept such isolations’. At no point in the correspondence was any mention made of southern Palestine, Jerusalem or the Jews. World War I 1916 Arab revolt launched (as promised): - later given impetus by Col. T E Lawrence “Lawrence of Arabia” [lecture Nov. 26] - aided by Amir Abd al-Aziz Ibn Sa'ud, - married daughter of Imam of Wahhabi movement - formally allied Saud family with Wahhabist movement - also allied with warrior Ikhwan ‘the Brotherhood’, Ikhawan ‘The Brotherhood’ (c.1920s) World War I Ibn Saud: agreed to engage regional pro-Ottoman princes in battle -- ‘switching’ from earlier pro- Turkish position - received loan 20000 Br. Pds, monthly stipend 5000 Pds; 100000 weapons, ammunition - given separate, secret agreement by British to recognize right to area in middle of Arabia (Nejd) also Hasa – access to Persian Gulf Areas promised to Ibn Saud and his Family (Nejd, Hasa) – In return for loyalty to Britain – In perpetuity World War I “Constantinople Agreement”, 1915: between Britain, France and Russia - initiated by Russia to assure rights to Constantinople, Straits of Dardanelles - France expressed desire to annex Syria as well as Gulf of Alexandretta - discussion occurred as to whether that included ‘Palestine’ World War I - confirmed that it did but that Holy Places would not be included (governments to be determined later) - with respect to Iran, spheres of influence between Russia and Britain agreed to “Sir E. Grey points out that it is most desirable that the understanding now arrived at between the Russian, French, and British Governments should remain secret.“ In effect, much of later ‘Sykes-Picot’ agreement already in place World War I “London Agreement”, 1915 (with Italy): - Allies wanted Italy to join the war In Exchange For: - Russia’s agreement to commit certain number troops should Austria-Hungary exert pressure on Italy - ‘just share of the Mediterranean adjacent to the province of Adalia’ (southwestern Anatolia) - share of any indemnity imposed post-war World War I Article 16: ‘ “The present arrangement shall be held secret” [see ‘London Agreement 1915’, ‘Resources’] World War I Greece-British discussions 1916 (not formal agreement): - Allies wanted Greece to enter the war; particularly wanted assistance at Gallipoli - Greece ‘neutral’ initially; internal politics led to change in government, formally entered war June 1917 - wanted parts of western Anatolia with large Greek population; initially promised ‘Asia Minor’ World War I “Sykes-Picot” Accord 1917 (Britain, France and Russia): - added eastern part to the area reserved for Russian annexation - much of south-central Anatolia came under French administration World War I Key ‘issues’: - Palestine divided up into areas of ‘Allied’ influence - Fertile Crescent partitioned - ‘excluded’ territory promised under McMahon correspondence, - effectively established ‘Arab’ state outside of Palestine Sykes – Picot Agreement Sykes-Picot Agreement (r) – ‘Fertile Crescent’ (l) I Map (right) shows overlap of Sykes Picot accord with lands (left) Arabs understood were to be “Arab” World War I Arabs saw themselves as betrayed: - contradictions between their understanding of Hussayn-McMahon correspondence (and that of the British) - conflict between their understanding and Sykes-Picot Agreement World War I Then Came: The Balfour declaration - followed on history of Jewish ‘Zionist’ negotiations with British (with respect to ‘protecting’ Middle East territories) - was not an internationally approved document or even official - only letter expressing intent: at most promise British government would try to facilitate goal World War I - neither more nor less (in terms of status) than letters with Hussayn - yet: British used it to extract ‘homeland’ from the League of Nations, - seen by Arabs as ultimate betrayal [see ‘Balfour Declaration’, ‘Resources’] World War I ‘Declaration’ original part of informal correspondence November 1917: "His Majesty's Government views with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object. It being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.” World War I Finally: compounded by fact that Palestine was declared Mandated Territory for both (new) Jewish settlers and Palestinians (‘Arabs’) - initiated Arab nationalist grievances against British in particular, West in general - issue threefold: - ‘Mandated Territory’ per se -Syria - Jewish ‘issue’ [see ‘Mandate for Palestinian’, ‘Additional Readings’] World War I Point #3: (‘Arab Opposition to Mandate’) “Considering the fact that the Arabs inhabiting the Syrian area are not naturally less gifted than other more advanced races and that they are by no means less developed than the Bulgarians, Serbians, Greeks and Roumainians at the beginning of their independence, we protest against Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations placing us among the nations in their middle stage of development which stand in need of a mandatory power.” World War I AND: President Wilson's Fourteen Points, of which the most controversial and ultimately provocative article was… Article XII. The Turkish portions of the present Ottoman Empire should be assured a secure sovereignty, but the other nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development, … World War I 1) Syria: - rejected ALL claims by and rights granted to France - demanded ‘constitutional monarchy’ under King (Emir) Feisal: in recognition of his “glorious struggle” for Arab independence World War I 2) Jewish ‘commonwealth’: - Opposed ALL ‘pretensions to create a Jewish commonwealth in Palestine’ - Opposed further Jewish migration into ‘Arab’ territory - Respected rights and responsibilities of ‘Jewish compatriots’ [see ‘Arabs Opposition to Mandates’, ‘Additional Readings”] The Secret Partition of Turkey: combining effects of Sykes-Picot and Anglo-Russian Agreements [see ‘Treaty of Lausanne’, ‘Resources’.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Last Phase
    The Eastern Question: THE LAST PHASE A STUDY IN GREEK-TURKISH DIPLOMACY Harry J. Psomiades Queens College and The Graduate School The City University of New York With an Introduction by Van Coufoudakis THE EASTERN QUESTION: THE LAST PHASE A STUDY IN GREEK-TURKISH DIPLOMACY The Eastern Question: The Last Phase A STUDY IN GREEK-TURKISH DIPLOMACY Harry J. Psomiades Queens College and the Graduate School The City University of New York With an Introduction by Van Coufoudakis PELLA PELLA PUBLISHING COMPANY, INC. New York, NY 10018-6401 This book was published for The Center for Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, Queens College of the City University of New York, which bears full editorial responsibility for its contents. MODERN GREEK RESEARCH SERIES, IX, SEPTEMBER 2000 THE EASTERN QUESTION: THE LAST PHASE Second Edition © Copyright 2000 The Center for Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, Queens College of the City University of New York Flushing, NY 11367-0904 All rights reserved Library of Congress Control Number 00-134738 ISBN 0-918618-79-7 PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BY ATHENS PRINTING COMPANY 337 West 36th Street New York, NY 10018-6401 To Kathy and Christine Acknowledgments The Eastern Question: The Last Phase has been out of print for some years, although it has survived the test of time and continues to be widely quoted by scholars dealing with the vital decade of the twenties in Greek-Turkish relations. As a result of continued demand for the book and its usefulness for understanding the present in Greek-Turkish relations, it is being presented here in a second printing, but with a new introduction by Professor Van Coufoudakis, in the Modern Greek Research Series of the Queens College Center for Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies.
    [Show full text]
  • Phoenician Ships: Types, Trends, Trade and Treacherous Trade Routes
    PHOENICIAN SHIPS: TYPES, TRENDS, TRADE AND TREACHEROUS TRADE ROUTES by ANNE MARIE SMITH Submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS In the subject BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY at the UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA SUPERVISOR: PROF. CL vW SCHEEPERS November 2012 Student number: 31063543 I declare that PHOENICIAN SHIPS: TYPES, TRENDS, TRADE AND TREACHEROUS TRADE ROUTES is my own work and that all the sources that I have used or quoted have been indicated and acknowledged by means of complete references. _________________________ ___________________________ SIGNATURE DATE (Mrs) ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ............................................................ ix ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................. xi SUMMARY .................................................................................... xii CHAPTER 1 .................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 1 1.1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 1 1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT ............................................................................... 1 1.3 HYPOTHESIS................................................................................................ 2 1.4 AIM AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY ...................................................... 2 1.5 RESEARCH QUESTIONS ............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Legacies of the Anglo-Hashemite Relationship in Jordan
    Legacies of the Anglo-Hashemite Relationship in Jordan: How this symbiotic alliance established the legitimacy and political longevity of the regime in the process of state-formation, 1914-1946 An Honors Thesis for the Department of Middle Eastern Studies Julie Murray Tufts University, 2018 Acknowledgements The writing of this thesis was not a unilateral effort, and I would be remiss not to acknowledge those who have helped me along the way. First of all, I would like to thank my advisor, Professor Thomas Abowd, for his encouragement of my academic curiosity this past year, and for all his help in first, making this project a reality, and second, shaping it into (what I hope is) a coherent and meaningful project. His class provided me with a new lens through which to examine political history, and gave me with the impetus to start this paper. I must also acknowledge the role my abroad experience played in shaping this thesis. It was a research project conducted with CET that sparked my interest in political stability in Jordan, so thank you to Ines and Dr. Saif, and of course, my classmates, Lensa, Matthew, and Jackie, for first empowering me to explore this topic. I would also like to thank my parents and my brother, Jonathan, for their continuous support. I feel so lucky to have such a caring family that has given me the opportunity to pursue my passions. Finally, a shout-out to the gals that have been my emotional bedrock and inspiration through this process: Annie, Maya, Miranda, Rachel – I love y’all; thanks for listening to me rant about this all year.
    [Show full text]
  • THE GREAT WAR and the TRAGEDY of ANATOLIA ATATURK SUPREME COUNCIL for CULTURE, LANGUAGE and HISTORY PUBLICATIONS of TURKISH HISTORICAL SOCIETY Serial XVI - No
    THE GREAT WAR AND THE TRAGEDY OF ANATOLIA ATATURK SUPREME COUNCIL FOR CULTURE, LANGUAGE AND HISTORY PUBLICATIONS OF TURKISH HISTORICAL SOCIETY Serial XVI - No. 88 THE GREAT WAR AND THE TRAGEDY OF ANATOLIA (TURKS AND ARMENIANS IN THE MAELSTROM OF MAJOR POWERS) SALAHi SONYEL TURKISH HISTORICAL SOCIETY PRINTING HOUSE - ANKARA 2000 CONTENTS Sonyel, Salahi Abbreviations....................................................................................................................... VII The great war and the tragedy of Anatolia (Turks and Note on the Turkish Alphabet and Names.................................................................. VIII Armenians in the maelstrom of major powers) / Salahi Son­ Preface.................................................................................................................................... IX yel.- Ankara: Turkish Historical Society, 2000. x, 221s.; 24cm.~( Atattirk Supreme Council for Culture, Introduction.............................................................................................................................1 Language and History Publications of Turkish Historical Chapter 1 - Genesis of the 'Eastern Q uestion'................................................................ 14 Society; Serial VII - No. 189) Turco- Russian war of 1877-78......................................................................... 14 Bibliyografya ve indeks var. The Congress of B erlin....................................................................................... 17 ISBN 975 - 16
    [Show full text]
  • Cilician Armenia in the Thirteenth Century.[3] Marco Polo, for Example, Set out on His Journey to China from Ayas in 1271
    The Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia (also known as Little Armenia; not to be confused with the Arme- nian Kingdom of Antiquity) was a state formed in the Middle Ages by Armenian refugees fleeing the Seljuk invasion of Armenia. It was located on the Gulf of Alexandretta of the Mediterranean Sea in what is today southern Turkey. The kingdom remained independent from around 1078 to 1375. The Kingdom of Cilicia was founded by the Rubenian dynasty, an offshoot of the larger Bagratid family that at various times held the thrones of Armenia and Georgia. Their capital was Sis. Cilicia was a strong ally of the European Crusaders, and saw itself as a bastion of Christendom in the East. It also served as a focus for Armenian nationalism and culture, since Armenia was under foreign oc- cupation at the time. King Levon I of Armenia helped cultivate Cilicia's economy and commerce as its interaction with European traders grew. Major cities and castles of the kingdom included the port of Korikos, Lam- pron, Partzerpert, Vahka (modern Feke), Hromkla, Tarsus, Anazarbe, Til Hamdoun, Mamistra (modern Misis: the classical Mopsuestia), Adana and the port of Ayas (Aias) which served as a Western terminal to the East. The Pisans, Genoese and Venetians established colonies in Ayas through treaties with Cilician Armenia in the thirteenth century.[3] Marco Polo, for example, set out on his journey to China from Ayas in 1271. For a short time in the 1st century BCE the powerful kingdom of Armenia was able to conquer a vast region in the Levant, including the area of Cilicia.
    [Show full text]
  • Turkey Bird Report 2002–06
    Sandgrouse-080723:Sandgrouse 7/23/2008 12:51 PM Page 166 Turkey Bird Report 2002–06 GUY M KIRWAN, METEHAN ÖZEN & BARBAROS DEMIRCI (COMPILERS) This report, covering the years 2002–06, has been produced jointly by GMK, MÖ and BD, and is the second such to be co- edited by an Anglo- Turkish team, following the last report (Sandgrouse 25: 8–31). The increase in the number of in- country birdwatchers submitting records to the report, first noted in the last compilation, encouragingly has been main- tained, as has the number of records of rarities being documented photographically. In contrast, reports from visiting foreign birdwatchers, although frequently posted on the internet, are now rarely submitted. These latter are still welcome, as some areas of the country (and seasons) are still arguably better covered by visiting, rather than resident, observers. Highlights of the present report include the first records in Turkey of the following 12 species: Lesser Flamingo Phoenicopterus minor, Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos, Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes (one unconfirmed previous record), Namaqua Dove Oena capen- sis, Siberian Accentor Prunella montanella, Blackstart Cercomela melanura, Black- throated Thrush Turdus ruficollis atrogularis, Plain Leaf Warbler Phylloscopus neglectus (apparently breeding in extreme eastern Turkey), Arctic Warbler P. borealis (one unconfirmed previous record), Iraq Babbler Turdoides altirostris (one unconfirmed previous record), Fan- tailed Raven Corvus rhipidurus and Lapland Longspur Calcarius lapponicus (one unconfirmed pre- vious record). The first reports of the following species— Little Shearwater Puffinus assimilis, Cotton Pygmy Goose Nettapus coromandelianus and Oriental Pratincole Glareola maldivarum— were also received, but insufficient documentation is available to advocate their acceptance onto Turkey’s bird list.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Lichen Gonidia Question
    302 NATURE At last it occurrecl to me why they came, and on placing the Remarkable Form of Lightning cage on the floor the onslaught on the contents was a convincing DURING a thunderstorm on Sunday afternoon, August 24, p,-;:iof that A. panthera would _never be naturnlised 3:t St. Pedro. 1873, I saw a flash of lightnino- here exactly answering to Mr. I CJnlcl adduce many other rnstan~es of the _smellm; and the Joule's description of "punctu;tion." The note of the storm in "perception of sound" (to phrase It), but wil~ not mtmde on my diary says:-" Lightning and thunder very frequent but not yom space. E. L_. LAYARD violent. One flash, very nmr, !tad the appeam11ce of a chain of British Consulate, Noumea, -µew Caledorna, April 26 alternate links, and remained visible, I should think, for half a p. S. Since writing the above I named the subject to Pere second, gradually fading out." This persistence was, no doubt, Montrnusier, the celel,rated French naturalist so long. resident in mainly an optical illusion, but it shows the definiteness of the this c.:ilony. He detailed the following experiment that he had form. The flash was from cloud to cloud, anrl followed a very made. He immersed a long-snouted weevil (Octhorinus cru­ sinuous line, as described by Mr. Lawrence. Is not this whnt ciatus) so as to cover it, all but the tip of the antenrn:e, with a old books describe as " chain lightning?" · coatinJ of wax. On presenting to it oil of turpentine it became B.
    [Show full text]
  • The Forgotten Regional Landscape of the Sykes-Picot Agreement
    LOEVY MACRO (DO NOT DELETE) 4/2/2018 10:42 AM RAILWAYS, PORTS, AND IRRIGATION: THE FORGOTTEN REGIONAL LANDSCAPE OF THE SYKES-PICOT AGREEMENT Karin Loevy ABSTRACT What was the geo-political scale of the Sykes-Picot Agreement of May 1916? What did the British and French mid-level officials who drew lines on its maps imagine as the territorial scope of their negotiations? This Article claims that the Sykes-Picot Agreement cannot be understood strictly as the beginning of a story about territorial division in the Middle East, but also as an end to a story of perceived regional potency. Rather than a blueprint for what would later become the post-war division of the region into artificially created independent states, the Sykes-Picot Agreement was still based on a powerful vision of a broad region that is open for a range of developmental possibilities. Part II of this Article outlines the prewar regional landscape of the agreement in ideas and practices of colonial development in Ottoman territories. Part III outlines the agreement’s war-time regional landscape in inter-imperial negotiations and in the more intimate drafting context, and locates the Sykes-Picot Agreement within a “missed” moment of regional development. I. INTRODUCTION: OPENING TERRITORIAL SPACE ............................ 288 A. Preface: December 1915, at 10 Downing Street .................... 288 B. A Forgotten Regional Landscape ........................................... 290 C. The Sykes-Picot Agreement: A Region Opening-Up for Development ........................................................................... 291 II. PRE-WAR HISTORY OF THE SYKES-PICOT AGREEMENT ................. 296 A. The Context of the Agreement in Pre-war Colonial JSD Program Manager, IILJ Visiting Scholar New York University School of Law; 22 Washington Square North, New York, NY 10001, [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • Mavi Vatan, "The Blue Homeland"
    APRIL 2021 Mavi Vatan, the "Blue Homeland" c The Origins, Influences and Limits of an Ambitious Doctrine for Turkey Aurélien DENIZEAU In association with: Ifri is a research center and a forum for debate on major international political and economic issues. Headed by Thierry de Montbrial since its founding in 1979, Ifri is a non-governmental, non-profit organization. As an independent think tank, Ifri sets its own research agenda, publishing its findings regularly for a global audience. Taking an interdisciplinary approach, Ifri brings together political and economic decision-makers, researchers and internationally renowned experts to animate its debate and research activities. Policy Center for the New South, formerly OCP Policy Center, is a Moroccan policy-oriented think tank based in Rabat, Morocco, striving to promote knowledge sharing and to contribute to an enriched reflection on key economic and international relations issues. By offering a southern perspective on major regional and global strategic challenges facing developing and emerging countries, the Policy Center for the New South aims to provide a meaningful policy-making contribution through its four research programs: Agriculture, Environment and Food Security, Economic and Social Development, Commodity Economics and Finance, Geopolitics and International Relations. The opinions expressed in this text are the responsibility of the author alone. This memorandum has been produced as part of a partnership between the Institut français des relations internationales (Ifri) and the Policy Center for the New South. ISBN : 979-10-373-0362-2 © All rights reserved, Ifri, 2021 Cover: © Admiral Cem Gürdeniz How to cite this publication: Aurélien Denizeau, “Mavi Vatan, the ‘Blue Homeland’: The Origins, Influences and Limits of an Ambitious Doctrine for Turkey”, Études de l’Ifri, Ifri, April 2021.
    [Show full text]
  • Journal of Anglo-Turkish Relations Volume 2 Number 2 June 2021
    Journal of Anglo-Turkish Relations Volume 2 Number 2 June 2021 Portraits from War to Peace: Britain and Turkey (1914-1939) Nur Bilge Criss1 Abstract The purpose of this article is threefold. One is to address an age-old foreign policy framework that shaped Anglo-Turkish relations prior to and in the aftermath of World War I (WWI). Namely, how the Eastern Question came to bear on the ideational level and in practice in Anglo-Ottoman/Turkish relations. Secondly, punitive peace conditions were imposed on the Central Powers under the unprecedented demand for unconditional surrender. Victors did not take into consideration the possibility of resistance, let alone armed resistance from the defunct Ottoman Empire whose core territories, including its capital were under Allied occupation. A state of war continued until a negotiated peace was concluded in 1924. Peace-making was formalized in 1920, but mainly in terms dictated by the Allies. Hence, a state of war continued until resistance prevailed in 1924. The third aspect of the saga was peacebuilding. European conjuncture of the 1930s forced London and Ankara, by then the capital of the Republic of Turkey, to mend fences albeit reluctantly for the former, but facilitated by diplomats. Consequently, inspired by the English poet Alexander Pope that “the proper study of mankind is man,”2 this article analyses the politics of war, its aftermath, peace-making, and peacebuilding through portraits of public influencers, decision makers and diplomats who were practitioners of policy. Inherent during this timeframe is how assumptions about their political future resonated on their Turkish interlocutors.
    [Show full text]
  • Mersin Province
    REPUBLIC OF TURKEY MINISTRY OF FORESTRY AND WATER AFFAIRS (Nature Conservation and National Parks) 7th Regional Directorate - Mersin Branch Office MERSİN PROVINCE MEDITERRANEAN MONK SEAL Monachus monachus SPECIES CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN 2014-2018 DECEMBER 2012 / ANKARA Revision Date: April 2014 REPUBLIC OF TURKEY MINISTRY OF FORESTRY AND WATER AFFAIRS (Nature Conservation and National Parks) 7th Regional Directorate - Mersin Branch Office MERSİN PROVINCE MEDITERRANEAN MONK SEAL / Monachus monachus SPECIES CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN 2014 - 2018 DECEMBER 2012 / ANKARA Revision Date: April 2014 Republic of Turkey Ministry of Forestry and Water Affairs (Nature Conservation Name of Project Owner and National Parks) 7th Regional Directorate - Mersin Branch Office Address Yeni Mah. 33191. Sok. No:31 Mezitli / MERSİN Phone: 0 (324) 3570820 Fax: 0 (324)3570823 Phone and Fax Numbers Preparing Species Conservation Action Plan for Mediterranean Monk Seal (Monachus monachus) and Service Project Name Procurement Work Project Location Mersin Province Turunç Peyzaj Tasarım Planlama Uygulama Proje İnşaat Organizasyon ve Danışmanlık Hizm. Reporting Institution Ltd. Şti. Plan Revision: Mersin Branch Office Address GMK Bulvarı Onur İşhanı 12/143 Kızılay Çankaya/ANKARA Phone and Fax Numbers Phone: 0 (312)4183949 Fax: 0 (312)4183949 Report Submittal Date 26 / 12 / 2012 Plan Revision Date: 16 - 17 April 2014 PREFACE Mediterranean monk seal (Monachus monachus) is a species under conservation by international conventions and national legislations. Various methods are utilized in order to conserve and prevent extinction of Mediterranean monk seal, which is referred to as seal by local people, in many countries. Although it does not have any natural predators on our coasts, Mediterranean monk seal population gradually diminishes due to irresponsible and unplanned human activities.
    [Show full text]
  • Mosul Question (1918-1926)
    MOSUL QUESTION (1918-1926) The Institute of Economics and Social Sciences of Bilkent University by ALEV DİLEK AYDIN In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS in THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS BİLKENT UNIVERSITY ANKARA June 2004 I certify that I have read this thesis and I have found that it is fully adequate, in scope and in quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of International Relations. Prof. Stanford J. Shaw Thesis Supervisor I certify that I have read this thesis and I have found that it is fully adequate, in scope and in quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of International Relations. Asst. Prof. Nur Bilge Criss Examining Committee Member I certify that I have read this thesis and I have found that it is fully adequate, in scope and in quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of International Relations. Asst. Prof. Oktay Özel Examining Committee Member Approval of the Institute of Economics and Social Sciences Prof. Kürşat Aydoğan Director MOSUL QUESTION (1918-1926) A Master’s Thesis by ALEV DİLEK AYDIN Department of International Relations Bilkent University Ankara June 2004 ABSTRACT MOSUL QUESTION (1918-1926) AYDIN, ALEV DİLEK MIR in International Relations Supervisor : Prof. Stanford J. Shaw June 2004 This thesis aims to elaborate the Mosul question, which was dispute first between the Great Britain and the Ottoman Empire and later between the Great Britain and Turkey. It attempts to analyze the resolution process of the Mosul question as a result of a very complex process between the years 1918-1926, with various political, diplomatic, military and legal dimensions by taking the fact into consideration that the Great Briatin was the strongest member of the League of Nations, but Turkey was not even a member.
    [Show full text]