F Research Title: Britain’s Policy Towards The Kurdish Question, 1915-1923 Research Student: Saad Basheer Eskander Thesis Degree: PhD Institute:The London School Of Economics And Political Science The end of the First World War in 1918 signalled the downfall of the old order in the Middle East by the virtual death of the Ottoman Empire, with its ancient social, economic and political system. The consolidation of Britain’s strategic, economic and political position in that region was bound to affect Kurdistan’s political future, given its determination to re-construct a new regional order. Indeed, by virtue of its control over most of the former Ottoman territories, Bri­ tain was able to play a leading part in the formation process of the modern Middle East, which witnessed the emergence of the so-called national states in Mesopotamia and Palestine. The main objective of this thesis is to understand Britain’s role in the re-partitioning of Kurdistan between Mesopotamia, Syria and Turkey by examining the evolution of its Kurdish policy and the various factors that re-shaped it. Three major conclusions can be derived from the evolution of Britain’s position on the Kurdish question. The first conclusion is the supremacy of strategic considerations over eco­ nomic ones as the principal driving force behind Britain’s policy towards Kurdistan’s future. The second conclusion is that certain British officials on the ground played an important part in influencing the future of Kurdistan after the war. Between 1918 and 1920, Colon*J Wilson, in his capacity as the Civil Commissioner, and Major Noel, in his capacity as the most important British expert on Kurdish affairs, played a crucial part not only in colouring London’s views on the Kurdish question, but also in influencing the direction of political developments in South­ ern Kurdistan. In the following period, 1921-1923, Percy Cox, the new High Commissioner, played a crucial part in Southern Kurdistan’s incorporation into Iraq. Lastly, examination of Brit­ ish policy reveals that in none of its historical phases were Britain’s strategic interests compat- ible with the nationalist aspirations of the Kurds, unlike those of the ZionistySharifian national­ ist movements. There was always a clear contradiction between the requirements of a suc­ cessful British policy towards Turkey and Persia, and the political objectives of the Kurdish nationalist movement. 1 UMI Number: U615574 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI U615574 Published by ProQuest LLC 2014. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 Maps 5 A Note On Transliteration 6 Glossary Of Political & Administrative Terms 6 Guide To Abbreviations In Citations 7 Introduction 8 Chapter One From British Wartime Partition Schemes To British Occupation Of Southern Parts Of Ottoman Kurdistan 2 3 -Historical Background: The Position Of Kurdistan In Britain’s Ottoman And Persian Policies Before The First World War 2 4 -The Position Of Kurdistan In Britain’s Imperial Schemes: From The 1915 Bunsen Committee T o The 1916 Sykes-Picot (T ripartite) Agreement 3 1 -The British Occupation Of Southern Kurdistan, 1917-1918 4 3 -Conclusion 5 3 Chapter Two British Policy In Southern Kurdistan: October 1918 - August 1920 5 5 -Indirect British Control And The Establishment Of An Autonomous Kurdish State In Southern Kurdistan: Circumstances And Objectives 5 5 -The End Of The Autonomous Kurdish State: Circumstance And Objectives 6 1 -The Imposition Of Direct British Rule And Its Impact On The Political Situation In Southern Kurdistan 6 9 - London’s Attitudes Towards The Affairs Of Southern Kurdistan 7 4 -The Consequences Of The Imposition Of Direct British Rule In Southern Kurdistan I For The Kurdish Question 7 8 -Conclusion 81 Chapter Three The Attitudes Of British Officials On The Ground Towards The Kurdish Question Between 1918 And 1920: Effects And Reactions 8 4 -Colonel Wilson’s Attitudes Towards The Kurdish Question Between 1918 and 1920 8 4 -Major Noel’s Approach To The Kurdish Question, 1918-1920 9 1 -The Reactions Of British Authorities In The Middle East To The Views Of Wilson And Noel On Kurdistan’s Future 101 2 -Conclusion 106 Chapter Four Regional Dimensions Of Britain’s Kurdish Policy, 1918>1920 108 -Kurdish Nationalists, Britain And The Turkish Peace Settlement, 1919-1920 108 -The Development Of Britain’s Kurdish Policy In Light Of The Political Aspirations Of The Armenians And Other Christians, 1918-1920 115 -The Sharifian-Mesopotamian Factor And The British Policy Towards Southern Kurdistan, 1918-1920 129 -Conclusion 13 7 Chapter Five British Policy Towards Kurdistan At The San Remo Peace Conf­ erence: The Terms Of The Sevres Treaty (August 1920) 139 -Kurdistan’s Geopolitical And Economic Value And The Limits Of Britain’s Direct And Indirect Interest 13 9 -The Crystallisation Of British Objectives in Kurdistan 14 2 -The Implications Of The Sevres Terms In Light Of British Motives 14 8 -French Imperial Interests And Britain’s Kurdish Policy 15 2 -Persian Territorial Ambitions And Britain’s Kurdish Policy 15 7 -Conclusion 161 Chapter Six Southern Kurdistan Under Britain’s Mesopotamian Mandate: From Separation To Incorporation, Autumn 1920- Autumn 1923 163 | -The Emergence Of Two British Policy Alternatives At The 1921 Cairo | Conference: Separate Entities Versus Unitary State 164 -Cox’s Kurdish Policy In The Wake of The Cairo Conference 167 -Churchill’s Approach To The Question Of Southern Kurdistan’s Future 171 -The Establishment Of The Second Kurdish Government In Autumn 1922: Circumstances And Objectives 17 4 -Cox And The Formation Of The Second Kurdish Government 17 8 -The Reversal Of The British Policy From Separation To Incorporation 18 2 -Conclusion 188 Chapter Seven The Formation Of The Arab State In Mesopotamia And Its Effects On Britain’s Post-Sevres Policy Towards Southern Kurdistan 19 0 -Arab Territorial Ambitions Versus Kurdish Nationalist Aspirations 190 -The Establishment Of The Iraqi State And Its Political Implications For The Future Of Southern Kurdistan 19 6 -The Incorporation Of Southern Kurdistan Into The Newly Established Iraqi 3 State: Oil-Economic Considerations 2 0 4 -The Incorporation Of Southern Kurdistan Into The Newly Established Iraqi State: Strategic Considerations 2 0 8 -Conclusion 2 1 3 Chapter Eight British Kurdish Policy: Post-Sevres & The Lausanne Conference 215 -Kurdish Nationalists, Britain And The Kurdish Situation Immediately After Sevres 2 1 5 -Defensive Versus Offensive Approach To Northern Kurdistan: Britain And The Containment Of The Kemalist Threat 221 -International And Regional Considerations Influencing British Attitudes Towards The Kurdish Question, 1921-1923 231 -Conclusion 24 0 Concluding Remarks 24 2 Bibliography 24 8 4 Introduction I - The Administrative Division Of Ottoman & Qajar Kurdistan. 18 Chapter One 2- Baghdad Railway Line. 30 3- Bunsen Committee: First Scheme Of Annexation In Ottoman Kurdistan. 34 4- Bunsen Committee: Second Scheme Of Annexation In Ottoman Kurdistan. 35 5- Bunsen Committee: Zones Of Interest In Ottoman Kurdistan. 36 6- Bunsen Committee: Devolutionary Scheme For The Ottoman Empire. 38 7- Sharif Hussein Territorial Claims In Ottoman Kurdistan, 1915-1916. 39 8- Partition Of Ottoman Kurdistan Among The Allies According To The Sykes-Picot (Tripartite) Agreement Of 1916. 41 Chapter Two 9- The Advance Of British Forces In Southern Kurdistan During The War. 56 10- The Autonomous Kurdish State. 58 Chapter Three II - Noel’s Map Of Ottoman And Qajar Kurdistan, 1919. 92 12- Noel’s Scheme For The Future Of The Six Non-Turkish Wilayets , 1919. 100 Chapter Four 13- Kurdish Nationalists’ Definition Of Kurdistan’s Frontiers in 1919. " 111 14- Armenians’ Claims To Kurdish Areas According To Their Proposed Map Of Armenia At The Paris Peace Conference In 1919. 117 15- Assyrians’ Claimed National Homeland In Kurdistan After The First World War. 119 16- Kurdish Areas Included In The British Proposed Boundaries Of Armenia In 1919. 120 17- Kurdish Areas Included In The American Proposed Boundaries Of Armenia In 1919. 121 Chapter Five 18- The Partition Of Ottoman Kurdistan Under The Terms Of The 1920 Sevres Treaty. 151 5 A ©on Tmin)@ 99!dm39®ffi With as much consistency as possible, I have used the system of transliteration adopted by the Inter­ national Journal of Middle East Studies for Arabic and Turkish. The only exceptions are those words which have become standard, such is ‘Sheikh’ and ‘Hussein’. The plural of Arabic words has been marked by an additional ‘s’ to the singular. Eastern Kurdistan Iran’s Kurdistan Northern Kurdistan Turkey’s Kurdistan Southern Kurdistan Iraq’s Kurdistan Western Kurdistan Syria’s Kurdistan Amir: Prince (An Arab Term) Hakim-i-Shar’ In charge Of Qadha (A Kurdish Term) Hukmdar: Governor (A Kurdish Term) Levies: Troops Of Assyrian Soldiers Led By British Officers (Later Included Arabs And Kurds) Liwa: Largest Unit Of Local Administration In Iraq (Division) Mudirliq: Sub-district Mudir: Administrator Of A Mudirliq (Nahiah) Mutassarif: Administrator Of A Liwa Nahiya: Smallest Unit In Local Administration In Iraq (Mudirliq=Sub-district) Qada: An Administrative Unit Between A Nahiah And A Liwa (District) Qaimmaqam: Administrator Of A Qada Senjaq: Largest Administrative Unit within A Wilayet (Liwa) Wilayet: Main Administrative Unit In The Ottoman Empire (Province) Wali: Administrator Of A Wilayet 6 M dli> T© AlbforevHafflQns lira OMn©©! CAB Cabinet Records, Public Record Office, (PRO) Kew Capt.