'File 23/15, 19 I (D 89) Mesopotamia - General' [‎50v] (116/455)

letter to the Colonial Otlice No. S. 5070/43/93 dated lOth May 1921. in
which it is statefl that the terms of the Treaty ot Sevres regarding the northern
boundary of 'Iraq "were drawn after full consultation with the British
authorities in Mesopotamia." The views of the Acting Civil Commissioner
for Mesopotamia on this subject are contained in his telegram Xo. 10852
dated 8th December 1918, to the Secretary of State for India in reply to a
telegram asking him to telegraph in words suitable for insertion in the draft
Treaty a definition of the frontiers of 'Iraq. The relevant paragraph in the
Civil Commissioner's telegram is as follows: —
"Amadiyah is a big Kurdish centre which it is essential to control if wa.
are to repatriate Assyrians, Armenians, etc. now on our hands. It cannot
be controlled from the north as roads are blocked in winter by snow and in
spring by the flooded state of the valleys. Proposed frontier brings Amadiyah
into 'Iraq: also the Hakki (HarkiP) tribe whom 1 imagine no one else
w 7 ants."
(2). I would also refer to Map No. 2 attached to the text of the Treaty
of Sevres. It will be seen that the former northern boundary of the Mosul
Wilayat is marked by a chain-dotted line and that this chain-dotted line has
been mainly adopted as the basis of the Treaty boundary, it being stated iu
Part II, Article 27, Section II, Clause (3) of the Treaty that the frontier shall
follow "the northern boundary of the Mosul Wilayat." The text continues
"modified however, so as to pass south of Amadiyah." It will be observed
that the chain-dotted line on the map attached to the Treaty does in fact pass
south of Amadiyah and, if this line was accepted as correctly defining the
Wilayat boundary, the modification quoted above, as it appears in the text,
seems meaningless. In view of the many considerations already cited which
emphasize the importance of retaining Amadiyah within the 'Iraq boundary
and of the circumstances noticed above, I feel bound to draw your attention
to the possibility of an error having arisen in the text of the Treaty and to
suggest that the clause in question should have read;—"The northern
boundary of the Wilayat of Mosul, modified, however, so as to pass north
of Amadiyah." * x
(3). A further complication arises from the fact that the chain-dotted
line, purporting to define the boundary of the Mosul Wilayat in the map
attached to the text of* the Treaty, is incorrect. The origin of the error
appears to date back to a period some twenty years ago when Amadiyah was
temporarily excluded from the Mosul Wilayat; after a two years' trial the
an-angement was found to be unworkable and was accordingly cancelled by
the Turkish Government. Whether or no an error is contained in the text
of the Treaty, it would appear highly probable that the incorrect cbr>in-
dotted line has influenced the actual delineation of the frontier. The
boundary of the- Mosul Division as now administered is shown by a irr^ew
line in the mao enclosed with this despatch (Appendix IV). The boundarv
represents, as nearly as it is possible to ascertain, the original boundary of
the Mosul Wilayat wiith one exception, namely that Faishkhabur and a
small corner between the Khabur and the Tigris originally belonged to
Jazirah. The return of Faishkhabur, where 900 Christians were massacred
during the war, is unthinkable. It will be seen that the correct Wilayat
boundary line differs considerably from the chain-dotted line and from the
red line marking the Treaty frontier. It would therefore appear that the
frontier as defined on the map attached to the Treaty does not in fact
correspond with the frontier as defined in the text of the Treaty, and may
therefore under Article 20 be ignored.
(4). It would accordingly seem advisable, if and when negotiations are
re-opened with the Ottoman Government, to reconsider the boundarv ques
tion as a whole with a view to remodellins* tl<e frontier as defined on the
Treaty map (hereinafter referred to as the Treaty Frontier) in the light of the
facts of the local situation and with special reference to the Assyrian ques
tion.
IV.—PRESENTATION OF THE CASE TO THE OTTOMAN
GOVERNMENT.
Before proceeding to give my proposals in detai'l. I Venture to sum
marise the considerations that mi>ht be urged by His Mjai'estv's Government
in the event of negotiations on this subject being opened with the Ottoman
Government vix : —
1 • The Treaty Frontier, cutting as it does across geocraphical and
tribal divisions, must make foi continual friction and unrest among the
frontier tribes.
Such friction and unrest is likelv to be increased by the presence
within and adjacent to the Turkish frontier of a large and necessarily dis
affected Christian population and would prove a constant source of
embarrassment k) the Ottoman Government.