| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| The Kurdish resistance to Southern Kurdistan annexing with Iraq - A History Lesson |
| 2006-04-15 |
| “In the steep hill of victory ahead of us, I expect unity from you and sacrifice from me.” - Sheikh Mahmud Barzanji, the King of Kurdistan: from a speech on 18 November 1918 in the presence of the British administrator Major Noel arrived in Sulaimaniya The Mandate Years saw the establishment of the first independent Kurdish ‘government’ led by Malik Sheikh Mahmoud Barzanji in the region of Sulaimaniya (aka Sulemani) in 1919. This progression was short-lived: Barzanji was eventually arrested and exiled to India; South Kurdistan was then forcibly annexed to Iraq. As the result, throughout its history Iraq has never enjoyed full territorial integrity. Parts of Kurdistan have always been controlled by the Kurds, albeit through de facto and self-imposed administrations, particularly since the start of the armed Kurdish National Movement in 1961, and after the first Gulf War in 1991. Kurds learned the lesson of betrayal and, to this day, remain doubtful of the intentions of the West on the Kurdish issue. Now, as Iraq goes through a transitional stage in its history, and its government is overshadowed by the insurgents, the Kurdistan Regional Government is perhaps the only functional government in Iraq. Almost a hundred years since the start of the British Mandate, Kurds find themselves with yet another opportunity to break away from Iraq to form an independent nation. History has repeated itself. What should not be repeated, however, is a betrayal of the Kurds by US-British forces in the 21st century. During World War I, the British occupied the Basra and Baghdad Willayets. Britain did not occupy the Willayet of Mosul or main regions of Southern Kurdistan. They did, however, send political officers to encourage the Kurds to rise up against the Ottoman Empire. Colonel Sir Arnold Wilson, the British Civil Commissioner in Iraq, declared that Britain’s intention was the formation of a Kurdish independent state in Southern Kurdistan under the tutelage of the British. [1] On the 1st November 1918, Wilson convened a meeting of Kurdish tribal leaders and the influential personalities. He appointed Sheikh Mahmud Barzanji as the governor of Suleimaniya on behalf of the British. All tribal leaders, except a section of the Jaff tribe and Babakir Selim Agha from Pizhdar tribe, accepted his leadership.[2] One month later, Bazanji presented Wilson with a document signed by 40 tribal chiefs demanding the granting of certain rights to the Kurdish people. However, concerned that the British were not serious about the formation of a Kurdish State but only gaining time, Sheikh Mahmoud bypassed them to announce the independence of Southern Kurdistan. He led the first Kurdish revolt in May 1919, pushing the British forces out of Suleimaniya, its surroundings, and the town of Halabja. An army of 1,500 Kurds engaged in a fierce battle with British forces in the Baziyan region, near Sulaimaniya. "Shari Darbandi Baziyan" is a national pride in the Kurdish history. Unsurprisingly, Kurdish forces were defeated by the superior numbers and technology of the British force, and ‘The great Sheikh was injured and arrested; he was then exiled to India.’ [3] This treatment of a religious leader was seen as a great insult to the Muslim Kurds, and left a deep mistrust between Kurds and Britain for generations to come. A new policy was formed to safeguard Kurdish cultural rights within the boundaries of the Iraqi state. This policy was designed to win the support of the Kurds and to overcome some difficult situations. They were quickly forgotten. [4] For example, on 18 November 1918, Major Noel arrived in Sulaimaniya. The day after his arrival he gave a public speech to the population of the province, including the tribal leaders, in the presence of Sheikh Mahmud Barzinji, stating in Farsi: “I address you in the name of the British Government and the British Governor General. You have been freed from slavery. Now you are free and independent. Sheikh Mahmud Barzinji is the Governor of Kurdistan. I deliver you this news on behalf of the British Governor General in Baghdad.” [5] He lied. The Kurds refused to become part of Iraq, boycotting the July 1921 referendum to choose Faisal as monarch of Iraq. Kurdish parliamentarians in Baghdad refused to attend Faisal’s coronation ceremony in the August of that year. In 1922 the brother of Mahmoud Barzanji, Sheikh Qadyir, gained Turkish support to attack British forces occupying the South Kurdish regions of Amedi (aka Amediye) and Koy Sanjaq (aka Koye). In October of that year, fearing that Kurdistan – particularly the Mosul Willayet – might fall into the hands of the Turks, the British reappointed Sheikh Mahmoud as the governor of Sulaimaniya. Upon his arrival, Barzanji declared the formation of a Kurdish state, with the town of Sulaimaniya as its capital city. He introduced a cabinet of eight ministers: - Abdulkarim Alaka, Christian Kurd - Finance Minister - Ahmed Bagy Fatah Bag - Customs Minister - Hajy Mala Saeed Karkukli - Justice Minister - Hema Abdullah Agha - Labour Minister - Mustafa Pasha Yamolki- Education Minister - Shaikh Qadir Hafeed - Prime Minister - Shekh Mohammed Gharib - Interior Minister - Zaky Sahibqran - Defence Minister of the Kurdish National Army A month later, on 18 November 1922, he once again defied British rule, declaring himself the King of Kurdistan (Maliki Kurdistan).[6] The Kurdish newspaper “Roji Kurdistan” , referring to Kurdistan as separate to Iraq. [7] Once again, the Kurds were suppressed by the British forces. A combined Royal Air Force (RAF) and British ground forced Malik to escape to Persia and disperse his army. [8] The 24 December 1922 Declaration gave little satisfaction to the province of Sulaimaniya, which had no desire to come under the authority of King Faisal of Iraq and sought to pursue the struggle for a free and united Kurdistan. In 1924 after the British ground troops disappeared, Sheikh Mahmud returned again to start his struggle for a Kurdish state. The RAF bombed his personal headquarters in Suleimaniya. Once again Mahmud escaped. [9] The British hoped that this would end Barzanji’s struggle, however, once more in 1930 he led his forces through Persian borders in hoping to detach Southern Kurdistan from Iraq. On the 26 March 1931 the Iraqi government formally asked the British high commissioner for air-action against those villages sheltering the rebel Kurdish army. Later, aerial reconnaissance located Sheikh Mahmoud. The RAF then conducted autonomous operations against his rebel force, with the Iraqi army supporting the operation by re-establishing government authority. Subjected to continuous aerial attack and unable to re-supply his guerrillas, Barzanji retreated into Persia and surrendered on 13 May 1931. Soon after this Sheikh Mahmud was captured and was taken into a prison in South Iraq. From this day South Iraqi became exile for Kurds. When the Baath Party came to power in 1968, South Iraq became a place of mass graves of Kurdish civilians. Iraqi political parties state, ‘The Kurdish-Arabic partnership is rooted in history.’ Perhaps it is more accurate to say it is rotten in history. Referendum Modern Iraq was born in the aftermath of World War I, as the great colonial powers dealt with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. It was carved out of three former Ottoman provinces — a Kurdish-dominated region in the north and two Arab regions to the south. Artificial boundaries were drawn to suit the colonial masters' administrative needs, not the logic of the local terrain. The British installed a monarchy under the Hashemite King Emir Faisal (1885-1933) at the Cairo Conference of 1921, "legitimizing" the appointment by presenting Iraqis with a dubious, one-question referendum that the new king won with a 96 percent favorable vote. The Provinces of Mosul and Arbil (aka Hewler) voted in favour, and Kirkuk voted to delay its decision (later voting in favour of Faisal’s Iraq in 1923). Interestingly, the Kurds asked for a separate Kurdish province but only on condition that they were not incorporated with the Kurds of Sulaimaniya. Only the population of the latter voted unconditionally against Faisal or any inclusion in Iraq. In his official report to the Commission of the League of Nations’ Mandated Territories, Sir Percy Cox noted that:[10] “…the Kurds feared for their interests if Baghdad should hold the reins of industry and the economy in Iraq. They assumed they would be cheated. The Suleimaniya region decided not to participate in the election of the King of Iraq. In Kirkuk the Emir’s candidacy was rejected and the Kurds demanded a Government of their own race . . . Suleimaniya was almost unanimous in rejecting outright any form of inclusion under Iraqi Government.” Arguably, the concept by which Iraq was created was a colonial carve up and the division of these Middle Eastern region, based on post-WWI colonial divisions, is out of date in light of the modern world’s structure. The emergence of new nation-states has proven this. Conclusions The actions of the British Royal Air Force played an undoubtedly important role in the suppression of Sheikh Mahmoud’s followers and in the future military history of the Iraqi regions. In the first occasion of the RAF being employed outside of the British Empire, the repeated bombardments by the RAF on Sulaimaniya and other rebel Kurdish towns not only caused civilian causalities but were, on some occasions, in violation of international military law. For instance, use of Delayed Action Bombs was in violation of The Hague Convention of 1907, and the British Manual of Military Law of 1914. The single-question referendum to crown Prince Emir Faisal as King of Iraq, in 1922, took two years to complete. It is questionable as to whether this referendum asked the right question; for why ask whether to establish a former Saudi Prince, forced from Syria, as King of Iraq without first establishing whether or not a people – who had never seen Baghdad, and never taken part in a referendum and were struggling against the British to form their own state – in fact wished to be part of Iraq? Britain was determined to annex South Kurdistan to the State of Iraq in order to balance between the Sunni and the Shiia populations, as most Kurds are Sunni Kurds. Discovery of oil in the Kurdish city of Kirkuk can also be seen as a determining factor in annexing South Kurdistan to Iraq. Some experts assume that the Kurds did not establish their own state to development of Kurdish nationalism; however the ceaseless struggle during the defining of Iraq to establish an independent state could not have succeeded quickly against such larger and better equipped military forces as that of the British. The Arab, Turkish and Persian nationalists fiercely defend the territorial integrity of Iraq as much as they fight the "Imperialist powers", discarding the original and flexible forging of Iraq’s territory and its construction at the hands of "imperialist powers" in favour of fighting for their land. Yet, the Kurdish aspiration and struggle for their own nation-state was brutally oppressed by the established superpowers in the area, such as British Mandate. This brief but rather important time in defining the Middle East is an important part of Kurdish history, but a nation such as the Kurds can only do so much in order to avoid oppression. |
| Posted by:phil_b |
| #6 Turks mess up, we are not Britain and if Iraq won't cooperate we will give the Kurds their own country and Turks can pound sand. |
| Posted by: djohn66 2006-04-15 22:23 |
| #5 If the Brits had tried to boost the Kurds, they would have been facing the Turks, who still view the Kurds as vermin. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2006-04-15 21:46 |
| #4 I've never understood why the Britts didn't elevate the Kurds as a way to help control Iraq. Much as they did with the Sikhs in India. Kurds have been great fighters since Saladin while the Arabs have been great posturers and pretenders for far longer. With British support the Kurds could hve kept control of the region. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2006-04-15 21:01 |
| #3 sure, but moose's point is still the key: the whole deck could be reshuffled. You could argue endlessly about most likely outcomes, but the fact is it is impossible to predict how it would play out. It is finally becoming clear to the Arab/Islamic world that if they poke us with that stick just a little bit harder, then we are all in for a bloody world war. They used to think we would back away, but now they are starting to get a clue. Mr. Sistiani, would you like to take home your winnings or go for what's behind those doors - |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-04-15 13:03 |
| #2 Or the Shia portion of Iran, Iraq and Saudi could form into the mega oil state of Shiarabia and let the rump of Iraq join the rump of Syria as a Snuuniarabia or as provinces of the Hashemite kingdom and let the Persians be Persia. This would be an outcome Sistani would buy into. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-04-15 12:21 |
| #1 As I've mentioned here before, if there are hostilities with Iran, the whole deck could be reshuffled. A still-contentious Iraq could find Kurdistan becoming independent after joining with Iranian Kurdistan. And though Iraq itself could enlarge with the southwestern Arab lands of Iran, both Syria and Turkey would have cause to sweat bullets with a unified Kurdistan. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-04-15 11:50 |