"Southern Kurdistan under Britain's Mesopotamian Mandate: From Separation to Incorporation, 1920-23 - Middle Eastern Studies". Retrieved 2007-08-21.
Southern Kurdistan under Britain's Mesopotamian Mandate: From Separation to Incorporation, 1920-23
Author: S. Eskander
DOI: 10.1080/714004389
Publication Frequency: 6 issues per year
Published in: Middle Eastern Studies, Volume 37, Issue 2 April 2001 , pages 153 - 180
Subjects: Asian Studies; Middle East Studies;
Formats available: PDF (English)
Purchase Article: US$25.00 - buy now add to cart [ show other buying options ]
Sign In Online Sample
Abstract
In October 1918, the British forces entered Southern Kurdistan, where its Kurdish inhabitants warmly welcomed them. In the absence of a well-defined British policy towards the long-term future of Kurdistan, the British authorities in Baghdad experimented with the idea of Kurdish self-government. In June 1919, British officials on the ground ended Kurdish self-government, after suppressing an armed revolt led by the head of the Kurdish government, Sheikh Mahmud. From that period onwards, political conditions steadily deteriorated, as a direct consequence of the imposition of direct British rule in Southern Kurdistan. In 1920, two new factors came into play, which directly influenced the future of Southern Kurdistan. Firstly, at the San Remo Conference (April 1920), the Allies agreed to allow Southern Kurds to join a future Kurdish state, if it was established in Northern Kurdistan (Turkish Kurdistan). Secondly, London decided to end British direct rule in Mesopotamia by forming an Arab state under British supervision. These were the principal developments that preceded the differences between the Colonial Office and the British High Commission in Baghdad regarding Southern Kurdistan's political future. Between the mid-1921 and the late 1922, the former called for the reestablishment of Kurdish self-government under British supervision, whereas the latter advocated the immediate incorporation of Southern Kurdistan into the Arab Iraqi state. Eventually, the British High Commission succeeded in persuading the new Conservative Government in London to incorporate Southern Kurdistan into Iraq, despite the opposition of the vast majority of the Kurds.
Keywords: Southern Kurdistan; Sheikh Mahmud; Imperialism; San Remo Conference; Mesopotamia; Self- government; Iraq
get it from the free trial at highbeam; questia?
https://www.highbeam.com/reg/reg1.aspx?full=yes&origurl=/doc/1G1-75564180.html
An urgent need emerged in late 1920 for the winding up of the system of divided control between the Foreign, India and War Offices in the Middle East. This was a direct consequence of both the failure of direct British control in the mandated regions such as Mesopotamia, where a bloody rising broke out in mid-1920, and the huge financial cost of the administration and defence of the mandated regions in the Middle East. ....
create highbeam article!
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1353-0194(200011)27%3A2%3C139%3ABPISKT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-8
The end of the First World War and the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in 1918 signalled the downfall of the old order in the Middle East. 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. In the absence of a well-defined British policy towards Kurdistan's future certain British officials on the ground were able to play an important part in influencing the political situation in southern Kurdistan, which came under British political control. Therefore, the examination of Britain's policy on the ground through the concepts of indirect and direct control is central to any understanding of the reasons for the establishment and the subsequent termination of the first Kurdish government in the period 1918-1919.
Britain's Policy in Southern Kurdistan: The Formation and the Termination of the First Kurdish Government, 1918- 1919 Saad Eskander British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Nov., 2000), pp. 139-163