File 36/1919 Pt 3 ‘KURDISTAN POLICY & SITUATION’ [‎282r] (582/608)

[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Maiestv s Government,
ECOND ADDITIONAL NOTE ON THE SITUATION IN KURDISTAN.
AT the Thirty-first Meeting of the Interdepartmental Conference on Middle-Eastern
Affairs, held on the 17th November, at which Major Noel attended, the whole question
of the policy of His Majesty’s Government with regard to Kurdistan was discussed in
detail, and the Conference decided that, subject to any further remarks which the
Acting Civil Commissioner, Baghdad, might have to offer in response to a telegram in
which he was to be informed of the general tenor of the discussion, it was desirable for
His Majesty s Government to withdraw entirely from the areas inhabited by Kurds
and to stop the construction of the Kifri-Kirkuk railway line.
On the i^nd November, 1919, the India Office The department of the British Government to which the Government of India reported between 1858 and 1947. The successor to the Court of Directors. , in a telegram conveying these [ 157955 ]
decisions to the Acting Civil Commissioner, Baghdad, pointed out that the Conference i.d.c.e. 3799.
had arrived at five main conclusions :—
(i.) That it was desirable both for military and political reasons that the frontier
of Mesopotamia should be as short as possible.
(ii.) That His Majesty’s Government could not contemplate a policy of military
activity upon or beyond this frontier.
(iii.) That His Majesty’s Government would in no circumstances take a mandate
for Kurdistan.
(iv.) That if any Power took a mandate for Armenia it was not likely to extend its
borders down to the frontier of Mesopotamia.
(v.) That the restoration of Turkish sovereignty over Kurdistan could not be
allowed.
From these conclusions it seemed to follow that Kurdistan must be left to its own
devices, and the practical question was how this could be done consistently with peace
and security on the Mesopotamian frontier. They had been advised by Major Noel
that there were three essential conditions :—
(a.) That Turkish authority should be excluded from Kurdistan.
(b.) That Kurdistan should not be partitioned.
(c.) That the frontier should follow as nearly as possible the ethnological frontier
between Kurds and Arabs.
The economical and strategical importance of the Suleimaniyeh region and its
administrative and economic connection with Baghdad in the past were realised, but it
was thought that if the political independence of Kurdistan as a whole were recognised
it should be possible for His Majesty’s Government to obtain all they required by
friendly arrangement with the local Sheikhs.
In a telegram dated the 27th November the Acting Civil Commissioner concurred [157955]
that it was desirable to shorten the frontier of Mesopotamia, and that His Majesty’s i.d.c.e.
Government should not accept a mandate for Kurdistan. He said that he personally
disagreed with the conclusion that the restoration of Turkish sovereignty over Kurdistan
could not be allowed, but that if His Majesty’s Government were determined to bring
this about he had nothing further to say.
Even assuming, however, that the five main conclusions at which the Conference
had arrived were accepted, he disagreed with the three essential conditions postulated
by Major Noel for a settlement of Kurdistan which should be consistent with peace
and security on the Mesopotamian frontier.
1 . As an alternative to the exclusion of Turkish authority from Kurdistan he
reverted to a proposal made by himself in October 1919, which provided for the main
tenance of Turkish sovereignty over the six Armenian vilayets combined with the
grant of a wide measure of local autonomy under the supervision of a mandatory State.
When putting forward this proposal he had expressed the opinion that no Power,
except Great Britain or the United States, would be acceptable or successful asjffie ^
mandatory of Turkey on the above lines, and he had said that he was reluctant to
contemplate the assumption of this responsibility by Great Britain.
[1992] • B
3800.