KURDISTAN AND LEAGUE OF NATIONS
By Mufid Abdulla
Kurdish Media, UK
Feb 8 2007
How far was the creation of the League of Nations the logical
consequence of previous experiments in international cooperation and
how far a radical departure from past experience?
The League of Nations was founded 25 January, 1919 at the end of the
First World War and was formally wound up at the end of the Second
World War. The time span then was twenty-six years from the first
meeting 15 November, 1920 which was held in Geneva up until the last
on 8 April 1946.
The world had been through conferences and congresses to set up
agreements over their disputes but had not previously had a systematic
arrangement and, at that time, the superpowers were reluctant to
embark on a unified process. These small conferences and congresses
were a remedy for that time and that stage in political history and
world co-operation.
The birth of the League was the result of a new co-operation between
nation states as it recognized that it was because of the consequences
of disagreements and disputes that the First World War had begun.
That war had been an expensive lesson both in terms of human life
and monetary, but the world had still more to learn.
The Second World War brought further disaster which caused the League
of Nations to revise their covenants and gather more superpowers;
but under a different name: one of the main objectives was to attract
the United States of America who had chosen to isolate themselves
from the organisation, the consequence of which absence was to pay
a very heavy price.
Before the establishment of the League, the world had been dominated by
conferences and congresses. Small countries were rarely admitted to the
meetings of the great nations and those that had been were a spasmodic
phenomenon with no permanent existence, however it is significant
that, on occasions, the fact that an agreement was reached on the
calling of conference was regarded as a setback for those nations who
endeavoured to maintain a prominent position rather than a nation
of equal significance. Thus it was that little progress was made
towards a more continuous and cohesive international organisation:
this view, according to Henig [1], was made clear in ‘1878 by Russia
at one of the most famous international gatherings of the nineteenth
century when the Congress of Berlin reversed the Tsar’s treaty of
San Stephano with Turkey in the same year.
As a rule, congresses and conferences tended to be called on one of
three sorts of situations: firstly, at the end of a war to draw up a
peace treaty; secondly, to help some sudden emergency; and thirdly,
to deal with some question which had been germinating over a period.’
In the congress and conferencing system, the unanimity rule was
normal in matters of substance, in accordance with the time honoured
principle that a sovereign state cannot be legally bound without its
express consent. On 24th August 1898 Nicholas II of Russia started to
lead the world of officialdom by proposing a general international
conference to consider two – – subjects: (i) Disarmament and; (ii)
peaceful settlement of international disputes. In fact the aim and goal
of that conference was for peace, and the outcomes of that conference
were (i) the spelling out of general rules or arbitration and (ii),
the formation of a permanent Court of Arbitration.
In the same year, the Congress of Berlin reversed that Tsar’s Treaty
of San Stephano with Turkey: this revised the treaty of the Congress
of Paris (1856) which had ended the war between the Ottoman Empire
and Russia consequently giving Russia more powers and influence over
the area of SE Europe.
As a rule, congresses and conferences tended to be called on for three
main purposes: (i) the end of a war to draw up a peace treaty, (ii)
to provide assistance in an emergency e.g. a national or environmental
disaster, or (iii) to determine a solution to long standing questions.
The System of Congresses and Conferences
In this system, the unanimity rule was normal in matters of
substance that is, that in accordance with the time honoured
principle, a sovereign state could not be legally bound without its
express consent. On 24th August 1898, Nicolas II of Russia began his
leadership in world by proposing a general international conference
to consider to specific subjects: (i) Disarmament and (ii) peaceful
settlement of international disputes: the intention to create a
solution for peace. Other things came out of that conference however:
(i) the spelling out of the general rules of arbitration, and (ii)
the formation of a permanent Court of Arbitration.
The Second World Conference was held in Prague in 1907 and was attended
by 44 states. Their first steps were tentative as they strove towards a
legislative process to be employed within an International System. Due
to the Alliance, peace in Europe still held and in this Conference the
rules of war and international arbitration processes were extended
even though, at the same time, imperial rivalries, adverse trade
practices and an escalating arms race was prevalent .[2] The 19th
century of Congresses and Conferences, through which it expressed
itself intermittently, produced agreements which enjoyed the status
of International Law, however there were limitations encountered. When
disagreements arose between member states about some issue in law, or
other item, there were devices put in place which could be resorted
to in order to reach settlement: there was a national process of
diplomacy, sometimes supplemented by a meeting of two ministers of
two different states who were elected to discuss and report back,
thus creating a sub-committee. At that time, the separation of world
politics from the world of business characterised the international
system before 1914. [3]
In another way, the principle of European power which runs along the
lines of a diplomatic system, is a well established practice in which
to transact international business collectives with representatives
of several, or perhaps with all great powers present: spokesmen from
other member states would attend by invitation should the conference
leaders believe there participation would be beneficial to discussions.
A Congress was so called when the representatives were heads of states
or governments; or their chief ministers. The concert of Europe
succeeded in surviving recurring tensions between its partners and
remained operative until the outbreak of the First World War.
The World in Continuous Cooperation
The Congress of Vienna was the first in a series of international
conferences which played an important part in the nineteenth century
and which initiated the system known as the Concert of Europe. It
was foreshadowed by the Great Alliance of 1815 (this is sometimes
referred to as the Holy Alliance or the Grand Alliance) in which
Britain, Prussia, Austria, Russia and France participated, the main
purpose of which was the preservation of the European status quo. [4]
The Great Alliance contributed to the later conceptual development
of international organisations in three important aspects:
i. Cooperation among states ii. Meetings to be attended by
representatives of major powers were expected to take place from time
to time iii. The idea that peace should be encouraged to prevail in
Europe as well as the rest of the world
In consequence, there emerged better cooperation between international
states however; the Congress was unable to check the advance
of liberal ideals and of nationalism among the smaller European
nations .[5] Two conferences that contributed to the growth of
international organisations were The Hague Peace Conferences of 1899
and 1907. Its main focus was the establishing of a permanent Court of
Arbitration. The Court was formally structured with a list of qualified
jurists (legal experts) and employed the services of a mediator to be
called upon by governments to give binding decisions on international
disputes: principles which still underlie modern international bodies.
Universal membership provided a basis for the 1899 conference and, in
1907 included for the first time, representatives from Latin America.
Due to the situation during WW1, the third Hague Conference was
cancelled.
A multitude of private international associations or unions were formed
during the latter part of the 19th century and their spread covered
a wide variety of field which paved the way for the establishment of
a number of intergovernmental organisations.
After War and New Era
As the First World War became the well documented blood bath that it
was, minds turned towards the formation of some effective machinery to
prevent a repeat of the holocaust. The League of Nations was born in
1919 out of this need: its work to promote international cooperation
and achieve World peace and security by ensuring respect for all
treaty obligations in dealing and interaction with organised groups
and people. This was established in Paris and the covenant was to
become known as the Versailles Peace Settlement, however the League
did not attain a truly universal character: its membership being
mainly confined to European states and it proved powerless in the
face of Italian, German, and Japanese expansionism .[6]
Originally the brainchild of President Woodrow Wilson of the United
States of America, who said, "A general association of the nations must
be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of the affording
mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity
to great and small states alike." [7] but the League was gravely
prejudiced by the non-participation of the USA.
Nevertheless, due to the influences of both isolationist and Utopian
tendencies, the US senate refused to approve the Treaty of Versailles,
thus the possibly most major power did not join. The most important
powers, though only for brief periods: Japan although a founding
member, withdrew in 1933 due to their intention to occupy the Asian
countries.
Many factors influenced the nature of the League:
i. The War constituted a revolutionary situation which permitted
statesmen to embark on radical courses of action ii. The new
organisation, revolutionary though it was in the sweep of its
conception, and many of its details, was therefore constructed along
the lines dictated by past experience iii. Whilst the imaginative
thinking and constructive statesmanship made an important contribution
through the introduction of new ideas, the further development of old
practices and the integration of old and new elements into a world
system: it would therefore be entirely erroneous to view the League as
something wholly, or even largely, created out of previous experience.
The League of the Covenant was a voluntary association of states that
had, as their primary purpose, the maintenance of international peace
and security on the basis of law and justice. Fundamentally however,
it was the failure of the US to join which brought into question
the inadequacy of the League to achieve the purposes as set out in
the Covenant.
The Corfu incident of 31st August 1923 (the naval bombing and
subsequent occupation of Corfu by Italian troops), was the first
occasion it became clear that the League could not operate successfully
without the agreement of all great powers as their inability to deal
with the crisis raised serious doubts about the strength and influence
of the League. [8] It was the combined efforts of Britain and France
that eventually saw the Italian troops withdrawn.
Another issue that dominated the League’s Council was the question of
Danzig, the great German port on the Baltic. Under Article 101 of the
Versailles Treaty, the port and its hinterlands were established as
a free city under League protection which changed the map of Germany
and assisted in successfully solving disputes between Finland and
Sweden. Britain referred the case to the Council under Article 11
of the Covenant and the disputes were settled through negotiation,
thus achieving the result that the islands should belong to Finland;
Sweden reluctantly agreed.
A further issue with came to the light of the League was the rights of
minorities. This was new discourse for the League. The suffering of the
Armenian Christians at the hands of the Turks was dealt with and, under
the Treaty of Sever, was issued with a state of their own in 1920.
The most prevalent concern for European powers in the 19th century was
the promise to the Kurdish people that they should have a homeland for
their population of 25 million on that time ; however the Treaty was
repudiated by the Turkish parliament. By 1922 the Council had ensured
a League assembly through the Secretary General who had ensured that
the various organisations had participated in the making of guarantees
for minority rights however this was not to be the case for Kurdistan.
Disarmament was another area of issue for the League and this was
addressed by the Permanent Advisory Committee in 1920 with a further
commission set up to monitor the progress of the case. The temporary
mixed commission proposed arms reduction plans to the Council with
variations. The proposed finance for this was a major problem for
the League as, since starting its work, had an average annual cost
of £5.5 million with Britain being the largest contributor.
The Kurds and The League of Nations
The subject of Kurds and Kurdistan came up at meetings of the League
of Nations continuously. Many of Kurdish historian and figures of
importance in Kurdistan sent letters and memoirs to the League: these
were people such us Badir Khan’s family, Hapsa Khan Naqip and others
of equal note. When the British Occupiers imposed the pact of 1930
on the Iraqi people the consequence was a big uprising which took
place on 6 August in which many Kurds lost their lives. This came to
be known as Black August.
Kurdish intellectuals delivered the message of the mass of the people
to the League of Nations and also send it to Geneva but when they came
to discuss the case of Mosul in Iraq, the name of the Kurds came up
only a few times to be heard by the members of League.
One of these incidences happened before the First World War when the
south of Kurdistan was known as Wilaiat Mosul and had been part of
the Ottoman Empire. When the British planned to occupy and remove
from the Ottoman Empire, a ceasefire agreement was made in Modrus.
Unfortunately, this provided the Turks to intervene and make claims
on Mosul. This they did through the League of Nations. This was
strenuously argued against by the Kurds. At the time of this episode
the British Army was only 20 miles away from Mosul which was to be
occupied. The Kurdish people made their views heard very clearly at
that time. This then created a further agenda for discussion and the
subject of Mosul became a major topic of discussion for the League.
In November 1922, The Lausanne Peace Conference began The Turks were
represented by the Kamalist, Ismat Pasha Inunu and the British by
Lord Curzon. The agenda was to settle disputes over the placing of
Mosul. As the Kamalists did not adhere to the 1920 Treaty of Sevres,
it staked its claim for the whole territory of Wilayah of Mosul right
through to Jabel Hamrin in Northern Iraq on four major issues:
~U their first argument was that as the Arab contingent in that
area was very small, they should not be counted as important in the
decision therefore, as Turks and Kurds were not separable racially,
it was natural for it to remain geographically Turkish.
~U The second argument was one of economy: the claim made here by
Turkey was that the majority of trade conducted within the disputed
area was with Anatolia; ~U thirdly they claimed illegal occupation
of the area by the British since the truce of Mudros: this truce had
been agreed between the Allies and the Ottoman Empire.
~U Their fourth and final point was that they claimed that the
inhabitants of Mosul did themselves wish to be part of Turkey.
Britain however argued that there should be a frontier to correspond
with the northern boundary of the Mosul Province and Curzon took each
point separately, contesting them vehemently as follows:
~U On the racial arguments put forward Curzon established that, far
from the Kurds not being separable from the Turks, for the main part
the Kurds were of Indo-European origin which was very different from
the Ural-Altaic Turks ~U On the economic arguments he found that the
majority of trade conducted by Wilayah of Mosul was not with Anatolia,
as claimed by the Turks, but was with Iraq ~U The accusation that
the British had illegally occupied was justified in that mandate had
been granted by the League of Nations over Iraq and was therefore
not illegal ~U The claim that , for the most part, Mosul inhabitants
wished to be counted as Turkish was highly disputable considering
their history of Kurdish revolts throughout the 19th century and,
later, after WW1 the Kurds had again demonstrated their unwillingness
to be such.
Turkey claimed that they were being asked to ‘abandon its sovereign
right’ over the territory whereas Curzon was adamant that the British
government would not surrender the territory to Turkey.
The arguments were bitter as both parties refused to accept the
others claims and, as a solution appeared impossible at that time,
in January 1923, Lord Curzon requested that the matter be placed on
the agenda of the League of Nations. On 4th February it was agreed
between Turkey and the Allied powers that the question of Mosul should
be excluded from the conference agenda until a later time.
There were however other issues that prevented the British from
meeting with the Turkish claims: ~U that it was placed strategically
as a centre for each side to continue with the struggles, it being
the capital of the Ninawa Governorate, on the River Tigress. It was
also linked for transport to other important towns and therefore of
great strategic importance to each side.
The decision was also somewhat influenced by the following political
considerations:
~U the recent fall of the British coalition government in October
1922 had been partially caused by the Kamalist victory over Greece .
~U the newly elected Conservative government had committed themselves
to concentrating on Home issues rather than those abroad and the new
Prime Minister Bonar Law was bent on evacuation from the Mosul area.
This was applauded by both press and public alike as the alternative
was seen to be to go to war over Mosul and, as the French would
not support them in this Britain would be left alone to enforce the
Sevres Treaty.
~U Financially also, it was felt that the money being invested in the
occupation of Iraq and that could be better spent in the Home nation.
Therefore, in the nine month period that followed much research was
undergone by representatives of the League and once again the Kurds
and Kurdistan became prominent as much of the ensuing report became
devoted to the Kurds and their cause.
One chapter is devoted to the Kurds; for example they mention that
the Kurdish freedom fighters killed both Mr Bill and Scotts** near
the Howler mountains in 1919. Furthermore, they indicate that some
prisoners of war had been killed by Kurdish fighters. Although, in
the same report, they further explain the Conference of Cairo and the
British strategy towards the Kurds but despite this attention to the
Kurdish plight there was still no change in British policy towards
the Kurdish people.
Another part of the same report of 1920-1922 there was an outline of
historical facts regarding the progress of the Kurdish movement under
the leadership of Sheik Mahmood and the atrocities claimed to have been
committed then against the British. It also stated that because of that
information, a massive transfer of troops to the area was undertaken
in order to repress the fire of the armed revolutionary Kurds. Again
the same report named many Kurdish leaders: these were, as well as
Sheik Mahmood, Smail Khan Shkak, Mahmood Khan Disle and Abdulrahman
Aga, the leader of the Shrnak clan of those Kurds resident in Turkey.
In general the report is filled with details of the struggle of
the Kurdish people under the leadership of Sheik Mahmood during the
bombarding of Sulaimany and Halabja in 1924.
Reports dated 1927 elaborated on how the demography of the Kurdish
society had been changed as a result of the uprising of the Kurdish
leader Sheil Saeed Piran in Turkey.
Reports dated 1937 frequently refers to Black August 1930 when so many
Kurds lost their lives and they portray this because of the uprising
lead by Sheik Mahmood although they admit to his capture and deport
him later to the southern Iraqi area of Nasiria.
Later, when referring to 5th April 1927, an account of the Battle of
Aubarik, in which the Kurds fought with great strength and courage
against massive air and ground attacks by the British is given.
The 1931 report tells how the British responded to the Shah of Iran
by organising Special Forces to attack Mahmood Khan Disley until they
finally captured him on 31 May and despatched him to Baghdad. The
same report describes ‘successful’ British air strikes on Kurdish
areas and how they had produced a high death toll to Kurdish men
and women. They also, quite amazingly and seemingly out of context,
refer to the fair and humane way in which they treated the Kurdish
freedom fighters when they became prisoners of war.
Judging the content of these reports there would seem not to be any
uniformity. The attitude to and treatment of the Kurdish people by
the League of Nations has been different each time the subject is
addressed. They still did not pronounce any decision as to a solution
for that beleaguered race without a state. It appears clear that they
made many statements but did not substantiate them with actions to
help those same people.
Why the League could not survive
There was a growing realisation that an international organisation,
established along League lines, would be successful unless it possessed
the consensus of the major powers as was formalised in Security of
Council (UN) by the Unanimity Rule of Article 27 of the Charter. Under
that Charter, a negative vote by a permanent member is sufficient to
thwart council action on any substantial issue.
Whilst in Central Europe, German fighting raged on her Eastern borders;
Western Europe: Britain and France quarrelled over the enforcement
of the Treaty. In Geneva, the League was in a quandary, the reason
for which was because the allied powers (Britain, France, Italy and
Japan) had no intention of allowing the League dictate further. Also,
the more immediate effects of the American disasters had caused two
problems with the agreements of: (i) the worldwide network of social
and economic cooperation, and (ii) with regard to the peace enforcement
procedure and machinery.
League activity functioned over a period of approximately two
decades. During the first five years (1920-1925) the dealt with a
number of questions resulting from the war; during the succeeding
five years (1925 -1930) it enjoyed relative peace and tranquillity
as this was a period of general prosperity and cooperative relations
between the major powers (with the exception of the Soviet Union. [9]
The Failure of the League
During the first half of its existence, the League had many members
and relatively few disputes. This includes hostile military sanctions
with were never attempted. In fact, after the resignation of Italy,
the League had little political significance. Three main events
would appear to identify the causes of the demise of the League:
(i) the League failed to check Japanese aggression in Manchuria
which anticipated the rise of Hitler to power in Germany, (ii)
the collapse of the League’s disarmament discussions, and (iii)
the failure of League sanctions against Italy following Mussolini’s
attack on Ethiopia in October 1935.
Not only did it collapse politically but as the League had referred
to itself as having been born through insight into past experience it
failed to demonstrate having learned any such lessons (World before
League). In the first instance, it was unsuccessful in its attempts
to establish international peace and security and, in the second, the
outbreak of the Second World War was tragic testament to this failure.
Wilson has been the chief driving force behind the Leagues creation
however it would not be an exaggeration to state that the failure
to prevent the Second World War, after only two decades of peace,
was probably due more to the absence of the US from its peacekeeping
arrangements than to any other cause.
The world has never stopped searching for machinery to ensure peace
and the firm commitment of the allies to recognise the whole network
of international relations in the post war world on the basis of
friendship, cooperation and equal opportunities for all nations,
was clearly expresses from the early 1940’s: well before the end of
the Second World War; also the principle of the Atlantic Charter of
August 1941, and the joint declaration of the United Nations at War
of January 1942.
Conclusion
Prior to the instigation of the League of Nations, the world was
dominated by conferences and congresses in order to address their
differences. In that system, the unanimity rule was normal in matters
of substance however, the Great Alliance contributed greatly to the
later conceptual development of international organisation on terms
of cooperation in order to achieve world peace and security.
That the major power of the US did not play a part in the League meant
that it did not attain a truly universal character. Although it was
a radical departure from the past in terms of collective decision
making, many important issues never had the opportunity to be aired.
Therefore it can be seen that the League of Nations failed because it
did not have the consensus of all major powers which is the reason
why the League failed to stop the aggressive behaviour of Italy and
Japan. History has shown that communication is all important and this
realisation has been more obvious since the Second World War.
notes
1 HENIG,R.B. 1973, p.19 2 High Beam research: The World Almanac and
Book of Facts 1997 3Leland, N p19 4 (BAIERHR,1991,p6) 5 High Beam
research: The World Almanac and Book of Facts 1997 6 A Dictionary
of World History 2000, originally published by Oxford University
Press 2000.
7 Beahr,1991,p6 8 A Dictionary of World History 2000, originally
published by Oxford University Press 2000
–Boundary_(ID_RrGU1tOEn4PkifQxLtOCCg)–