25

The Affects of The Western World on The Creation of Iraq and its Borders

Daniel R. Allen

History 4725: Readings in the History and Theory of the State

Professor King

April 14, 2014

The creation of the Iraqi border is a complex story and deals with multiple foreign powers. After the fall and withdraw of the Ottoman Empire post World War One, a massive void was left in what is now known as the Middle East or west Asia. Most of the countries that we now know make up the entirety of this area did not exist before the French and British carved up the land among themselves to rule over or control. It is important that I say most and not all because in contrary to common notion, Iran was already a state that had been established and which the Ottomans did not control. For the other countries in the region however, this was not the case. A few of the newly established countries being mentioned here though include Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, Kuwait, and Iraq which was formally known as Mesopotamia. Out of the list of these countries, this paper will focus Primarily on the country of Iraq. The actions of the French, British, and even the United States of America all of the way back in the early to mid 1900s are, at the very least partially, responsible for the massive amount of real-estate Iraq holds in the news sector today. This is in large due to the policies and political actions taken by these three imperial countries. Especially when studying the creation of the Iraqi borders. This paper will exam the socio political and cultural effects of the politics and people, who lived in what is now known as Iraq, from the time of the Ottoman Empire to the creation of the new Iraqi borders along the influences made on these decisions by politicians and Ohioans who were involved in the creation of these borders.Background: Historical background of Ottoman Empire and Mesopotamia. Whenever one is discussing the creation of a new state, it is important to get a good understanding of the historical background of the area being written on. Drawing information from David Fromkins A Peace to End All Peace, this section of the paper will talk about Iraq as Mesopotamia and the Ottoman Empire. As mentioned earlier the modern state of Iraq was historically known as Mesopotamia and this was a region that existed inside the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire actually was made up of a very large area whose capital was Constantinople known now as Istanbul. This empire was created by, Turkish-speaking horsemen who had converted to Islam[footnoteRef:1] and who, over a period of time, moved across the Middle East from the northeastern and central sections of Asia. The lands that the Ottomans once ruled included [1: Fromkin, David. A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the CreationOf the Modern Middle East. New York: H. Holt, 2001. Apple IBooks. 57]

Crimea, east to Baghdad and Basra, south to the coasts of Arabia and the Gulf, west to Egypt and North Africaand into Europe At its peak, in the sixteenth century, the Ottoman Empire included most of the Middle East, North Africa, and what are now the Balkan countries of EuropeGreece, Yugoslavia, Albania, Rumania, and Bulgariaas well as much of Hungary.[footnoteRef:2] [2: Ibid.]

This information is important to have in the back of the mind when attempting to understand the Middle East today and when discussing the creation of Middle Eastern borders including the topic country of this paper, Iraq. The reason this information is so pertinent to this topic is because the people living under the Ottoman Empire were all concurred peoples who did not necessarily share ethnic, religious, or cultural histories in common. This meant that the lands ruled by the Ottomans were fractured and disjunctive in all of the traditional major conjoining factors. This was in stark contrast to the way Europe had come to view itself. Europe was all about nationalism and patriotism. That is what Europe had come to expected from the rest of the world as well. And when the Ottoman Empire dissolved post World War One, this fact is what made it so difficult for the borders of the modern Middle Eastern states to be decided by the French and British.After World War One, a mandate system was used to carve up the Middle East between the British and the French. Each of these superpowers had interests in the Middle East for their own reasons. Because this paper is specifically dealing with Iraq, the British are who will be written about the most given that Mesopotamia fell into the land dedicated to the British, and this is were the story of the creation of Iraq truly begins. Reasons for British Interest in Mesopotamia (Iraq): Political and economic plans for the Middle Eastern area.At the time of the end of World War One, the British already had a quite extensive empire built under it. It owned colonies and ruled over counties across the globe.[footnoteRef:3] These countries represented much more than just authority and power; they were very expensive and ambitious investments as well. India is one such country that they ruled. This section of the paper will focus on the British reasoning for having a stake in the Middle East and will pull from information found in chapter 7 Great Britain and the End of the Ottoman Empire 190023 of the book, The Great Powers and the End of the Ottoman Empire, by Marion Kent. One of the main reasons Britain originally wanted a stake in the Middle East, and in Mesopotamia in particular was India. Now one may ask their self, what did India have to do with the British interest in the Middle East? Well the answer may be simpler than one may realize looking at just this respect. The British were convinced that a stake in the Middle East was the only way to guarantee that their investments in Indie were to be protected. The only way that the British foresaw their authority to be maintained was to keep control over the political happenings, not just the country they were invested in, but also those of which surround it. A good quote that demonstrates this viewpoint is found in Kents book and is quoting Lord Curzon in October of 1903 who was speaking to the sheikhs of the south gulf coast. The quote is as follows: [3: Kent, Marian. "7 Great Britain and the End of the Ottoman Empire 190023." In The GreatPowers and the End of the Ottoman Empire. London: G. Allen & Unwin, 1984.Accessed February 17, 2014. http://gendocs.ru/docs/10/9309/conv_1/file1.pdf. 165.]

We were here before any other Power in modern times had shown its face in these waters. We found strife, and we have created order. It was our commerce as well as your security that was threatened and called for protection. At every port along these coasts the subjects of the King of England still reside and trade. The great Empire of India, which is our duty to defend, lies almost at your gates. We saved you from extinction at the hands of your neighbours. We opened these seas to the ships of all nations, and enabled their flags to fly in peace. We have not seized or held your territory. We have not destroyed your independence but have preserved it. We are not now going to throw away this century of costly and triumphant enterprise. The peace of these waters must still be maintained; your independence will continue to be upheld; and the influence of the British Government must remain supreme.[footnoteRef:4] [4: Ibid.,165. ]

This gives great insight into how the British felt about the area in general and demonstrates what they intended to accomplish. And this proves that even as far back as 1903 the British did indeed intend on, in some way shape or form, have a certain amount of control in the areas around India. The amount of control viewed as necessary increased after the First World War and collapse of the previous ruling power of the Middle East. This was mainly concerning the continuation of a line of communication to Britains eastern empire. A communication pathway was not the only reason the British were so taken by Mesopotamia however. In fact, the next reason is why many people today would guess why Britain wanted this area so badly. One cannot start talking about anything to do with the Middle East in modern day without one word coming to mind; and that word is oil! Oil and other fossil fuels power a large majority of the objects used by most Americans everyday. It is burned in internal combustion engines to propel our automobiles forward. Oil is used in jet engines that allow humans to cross the glob in a matter of hours instead of days, weeks, or months. And a large majority of the oil this world consumes when utilizing these luxuries comes straight out of the Middle East. This section of the paper will be written on the importance of oil in the Middle East and its role in the border and state building process. This information on this topic is drawn from and article written by Rasoul Sorkhabi, Ph.D. and selections from the books The Creation of Iraq, 19141921 and Churchills Folly. It just so happens that the all-important liquid / black gold is in a huge abundance under the Iraqi soil. It has been argued that this is really the only true reason the British wanted this land so bad, and that the other reason mentioned was just to save face. It has been known that the land that is modern day Iraq is saturated with oil since the time of the Old Testament. Oil has literally been seeping out of the ground in this region for thousands of years.[footnoteRef:5] With the Invention of the automobile, the airplane, and the tank, all of which ran on oil in their internal combustion engines, oil was not just being used for heat and light in the form of kerosene anymore. Either having or not having large stockpiles of available oil began to mean that either you had the advantage or disadvantage in war. Oil would become one of the deciding factors in World War Two with Hitlers panzer divisions roaming across Europe and guzzling up fuel. But that is getting outside of the area of the topic. What is meant to come across from that information is that soon after the creation of the Iraqi state, oil was to take the global spotlight and immensely increase in importance. It is important to note that Great Britain did not become a world power and massive imperial force by solely focusing on the past and present. They were constantly looking to the future and that is one of the many reasons they were so successful. But Britain was not the only major world power with their eye on Middle Eastern oil. The Germans, French, and Americas were also extremely interested in the Middle Easts potential as a major oil producer. In fact, Germany, France, and America all had businessmen trying to make deals with the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire and to bid for rights to oil extraction before the outbreak of World War One. So oil was a hot topic in the area. In fact, Middle Eastern oil, and specifically Mesopotamias oil attracted the attention of a couple major United States based oil companies that were originally founded by one of Ohios own. The companies were Jersey Standard and Standard Oil Company of New York who both split from Standard Oil. And the man who made it all possible was named John D. Rockefeller. Yes the same man that built such a massive fortune in the oil industry that his descendants are still trying to spend the money today. Standard Oil sent geologists and businessmen from both their New Jersey and New York branches to investigate and negotiate for Mesopotamia oil between the years of 1912 and 1920.[footnoteRef:6] There were several different organizations all bidding for oil rights. The Germans had the Deutsche Bank; the British had the APOC or the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, and the new kid on the block in 1912, the TCP. The Turkish Petroleum Company. The TCP was made up of share holders from different countries and their ownership was as follows: the Deutsche Bank (25 percent), Royal Dutch/Shell (25 percent) with a controlling 50 percent held by the Turkish National Bank. [footnoteRef:7] referencing the same source. It is extremely important to keep in mind that the Turkish National Bank was not owned and operated by the Ottoman government, but instead was backed and operated by the British government. Which meant that Great Britain had the controlling stake in the company. [5: Sorkhabi, Rasoul, Ph.D. "GEO ExPro - Oil from Babylon to Iraq." Editorial. GEO ExPro, 2009. Accessed March 1, 2014. http://www.geoexpro.com/articles/2009/02/oil-from-babylon-to-iraq.] [6: Ibid.] [7: Simon, Reeva S., and Eleanor Harvey Tejirian. The Creation of Iraq, 1914-1921. New York: Columbia University Press, 2004. Apple IBooks. 151.]

However, the outbreak of war ended the peaceful venture for oil between the British and Germans. When the war was started and the joint venture for oil officially ended, the British started making their move to take control of the oil rich lands.[footnoteRef:8] In fact, decisions of who would get control of what parts of the Ottoman Empire started to transpire as early as 1915. Almost three years before the war ended. [8: Ibid., 152-154]

The British Actions: This section of the paper will reflect on the events leading up to British Control of Mesopotamia.Before World War One had concluded, the French and British were already hard at work carving up the Ottoman lands among themselves. Each country wanted a part of the Middle East of the reasons listed above. Many people would say that these two countries were putting the buggy before the horse by deciding who got what before they had even won the war. In fact the war was still a few years from ending when an agreement was made! The agreement being referred to is known as the Sykes-Picot Agreement. It gets its name from the two major diplomats that sat down and hashed out the details that were included in the agreement. They were Sir Mark Sykes of Britain and Franois Georges-Picot of France.[footnoteRef:9] Under the veil of secrecy, these two men planned out the future of the Middle East. However, it would take a lot more than a secret plan to defeat the Ottomans and control the territory. It would take action! [9: Simon, Reeva S., and Eleanor Harvey Tejirian. The Creation of Iraq, 1914-1921. New York: Columbia University Press, 2004. Apple IBooks.153-158.]

In order to take control of the area, Britain had to demonstrate power and influence.After the retreat by the Ottomans, the British government decided to move in on Mesopotamia for the reasons discussed above. They planned to take complete control and set up a form of organized government that the British could rely on to keep dominance over the area in their position. However, there was a fundamental flaw in what they had planned for Mesopotamia. Gertrude Bell, in a letter to her father, explained it like this, I suppose we have underestimated the fact that this country is really an inchoate mass of tribes which cant as yet be reduced to any system.[footnoteRef:10] That most certainly was the case and coming to that realization, Bell knew that the system that the British government planned on putting in place would not succeed. That is because the plan for Mesopotamia was based heavily on the on Indian Civil Service lines.[footnoteRef:11] The same policies that were used in India were not able to be cross-applied to Mesopotamia due to the tribal structure of the area. Ulrichsen states that there are two fundamental flaws for this plan. One is that the urban/rural divide that underlay the implementation of the judicial codes did not in fact exist.[footnoteRef:12]. The judicial codes being handed down by the British in no way shape or form were molded for a multi tribe based country! Two, is that the tribes could be broken down into a single political entity, which simply was not the case. They thought that the system could be broken down into the urban elite and rural tribesman. Again this comes back to the fact that there was not just a single tribe, there were many and most of them had radically different outlooks on politics among other things. Not to mention the urban elite were still heavily entrenched in the tribal way of thinking. In her letter to her father on the 8th of February 1918, Gertrude Bell stated Its curious to find how many of the Baghdad notables . . . are tribesmen, often only settled in the town for the last generation or two . . . the tribal links are unbroken.[footnoteRef:13] This obviously led to tension between the Native people of the land with the British and the Indians. The British had to come up with a tactic that would compel the Mesopotamians to work with them. So on 7 November 1918 the Anglo-French Declaration to the peoples so long oppressed by the Turks promised the establishment of national governments and administrations deriving their authority from the initiative and free choice of the indigenous population.[footnoteRef:14] This was an attempt by the French and British governments to make peace with the local people living in the lands that were now lost to the Ottomans. By promising the indigenous people in the area that they would be able to lead and rule themselves was meant to gain their trust and hopefully persuade them to cooperate. But there were those within the British government that strongly opposed even mentioning the creation of such a government. Which would eventually lead to the next logical step in the evolution of modern Iraq. [10: Gertrude Bell to Her Father. August 23, 1920. Accessed February 27, 2014.http://www.gerty.ncl.ac.uk/letter_details.php?letter_id=411.] [11: Kristian Coates Ulrichsen (2007) The British occupation of Mesopotamia, 19141922, Journal of Strategic Studies, 30:2, DOI: 10.1080/01402390701248780. 358.] [12: Ibid.] [13: Ibid.] [14: Kristian Coates Ulrichsen (2007) The British occupation of Mesopotamia, 19141922, Journal of Strategic Studies, 30:2, DOI: 10.1080/01402390701248780. 366. ]

The United States and The Middle East: How America and Americans influenced the border creation political sphere, even those originating from Ohio. When it comes to the creation of the Modern Middle East, in many ways the United States can be looked at as a player that was late to the dinner table so to sayThe United States was not as much concerned with the land of the Ottoman Empire as it was with profits. As mentioned above, Great Britain wanted control over the Middle East in order to ensure they kept a strong geopolitical footing in place that would allow them to maintain connections to the east at to India. And lets not forget about the predicted amounts of oil deposits that they planned on eventually extracting oil from. But originally the United States had a different plan for oil and commercial trading in the Middle East. To the United States the Middle East was not so much of an oil exporter, but more as an importer or consumer. American companies such as Standard Oil imported much of the Middle Easts kerosene among many other things. Middle East importations of such goods include items like sewing machines. For example, Singer Sewing Machines were also active, with 200 stores and agencies in Turkey in 1918. [footnoteRef:15] Along with selling oil and sewing machines to the Middle East, the United States was invested in the tobacco industry of the area. Sources indicate, The primary U.S. import was tobaccoby 1912 the American Tobacco Company was purchasing $10 million of Turkish tobacco each year and employed at least 3,800 people in Turkey. [footnoteRef:16] What the United States wanted out of the Middle East economically was free trade of commerce. However, commerce was not the only American concern in the Middle East. One of their main concerns was actually a much higher power than any man. [15: Simon, Reeva S., and Eleanor Harvey Tejirian. The Creation of Iraq, 1914-1921. New York: Columbia University Press, 2004. Apple IBooks. 193-194. ] [16: Ibid]

One of the main actions taken by the United States in the Middle East during the early to mid twentieth century was missionary work. Written about extensively in the work Conflict, Conquest, and Conversion, Americans and even Ohioans had been trying to shape the Middle East. [footnoteRef:17] After the fall of the Ottoman Empire, there were those who feared for the safety of Americans in the region. Those men and women were missionaries spreading the word of the Christian faith to those living in a devoutly Muslim area. The United States having a mandate over the predominate areas where mission work was occurring would have secured at least some security for those Americans trying to do the lords work, although the standpoint of seeming imperialist created hesitation. But it would have not just been imperialist, because the United States did not really see a problem with that. The problem was that it would have been imperialism based on religion, which is what they were uncomfortable with. Whatever the case, in 1919, at the Paris Peace Conference, Woodrow Wilson was persuaded by Howard Bliss, who just so happened to be the president of the Syrian Protestant College, to put together a commission to gather the facts about the Middle East and to report back their findings. Two personal friends of Wilsons were added to the commission, and their names were Charles Crane and Dr. Henry Churchill King. With those two men also served Albert Lybyer, and William Yale who was an observer for the American State Department and resident agent for the Standard Oil Company. [footnoteRef:18] Pulling from this same source, it is important to know that 50% of the commission were associated or affiliated with the Presbyterian church, and that led to an overly bias Christian viewpoint that may have skewed the report. [17: Tejirian, Eleanor H., and Reeva Spector. Simon. Conflict, Conquest, and Conversion: Two Thousand Years of Christian Missions in the Middle East. New York: Columbia University Press, 2012. Apple IBooks] [18: Ibid., 261-267]

Seeing as part of the topic of this paper is how people living and working in Ohio helped shape the Middle Eastern policies held by the ally powers, I feel that it is important to point out that Dr. Henry Churchill King was the president of Oberlin College in Ohio, which is where he earned his degrees from as well. A photograph of the condensed instructions to King and Crane can be found on the digital archive of the King-Crane commission website run by Oberlin University.[footnoteRef:19] The last section of the document states [19: Document Detailing Instructions for the Commission. 1919. Henry Churchill King Papers, 1873-1934, Oberlin, Ohio, USA. Accessed April 01, 2014. http://dcollections.oberlin.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/kingcrane/id/191/rec/6.Ibid.]

Duties of Commission visiting regions: Acquaint themselves with state of opinion of people with regard to the future administration of their affairs which might help the Conference form opinions of best divisions of territory and assignment of mandates for order, peace and development of peoples and countries.[footnoteRef:20] [20: Ibid.]

At the end of their journey and after all of their data was compiled the commission decided that an American mandate over Syria as long as it included Palestine free of a Jewish homeland was preferred by the indigenous people of the surveyed lands. If this obtained information had been acted upon it is highly likely that many of the problems that ensued after the action decided upon would not have transpired. Though there was no way for their research and advice to hold any ground due to the fact that the commissions findings were not even reported on until 1922.[footnoteRef:21] By then it was too late and a decision was already made. [21: Reeva S. Simon and Eleanor Harvey Tejirian, The Creation of Iraq, 1914-1921 (New York:Columbia University Press, 2004), Apple IBooks, pg. 52.]

The British Mandate:After a revolt by the people of Mesopotamia during and soon after the end of World War One, Great Britain was awarded a mandate for the control of Mesopotamia in April of 1920. Under the British mandate of 1920, Britain was given control over the Mesopotamia area. The British had to build a nation or nation from nothing. Thus creating the new country of Iraq in 1921. As a part of the mandate Britain built a government in Iraq and decided to go with a style of rule then common in Western Europe. A monarchy was established in the later half of 1920 that also had a parliament in its system of rule, which was centered in Baghdad. It was a great challenge for the British to create a government in which most of the residents of this new country could follow and which could still be heavily influenced and controlled by the British Government. After all, there was no way that the British were going to set up a ruling system in which they had any fear that it would not serve and protect the interests of the UK. Especially considering the time, expense, and effort it had put into gaining control of the area to begin with. So they had the new governments led by a passive Arab Sunni religious official, and a council of ministers, both under British supervision.[footnoteRef:22] In order to try and appease the citizens of this new founded country, they made sure that representatives from all of the different groups that made up the area were included. Most of which were in fact Sunni, but even a few Christian, ShiI, and Jewish people were included which meant that everyone in each differing religious sec felt connected in at least some small way to the government. A plebiscite managed by the British gave the King 96 percent of the popular vote[footnoteRef:23] keeping the British in practically complete control seeing as they basically controlled the King. That was a strategic move by the British that allowed them to keep their own interests at heart while allowing a government that was acceptable to the people. Most importantly it allowed the British to accomplish their goals of having a connection to their eastern empire and to the oil many countries had been fighting over in the recent past. While the mandate of 1920 gave them the control to establish a new government, army and civil services program, it was not until July 11, 1921 that Iraq became an official country. [22: Ibid. ] [23: Ibid., 52-53]

Iraqi Persian Borders: When examining specifically the border region between Iraq and Persia, or Iran, as it is known post 1935, the pre-existing Ottoman and Persian borders must be assessed. Information for the author Potter will be utilized to discuss the Iraqi Iranian border situation. According to Potter, the border between modern Iraq and modern Iran has been a disputed area since the time of the Ottoman Empire and the Persian Empire. Wars frequently transpired between the two groups because of neither side truly understanding where the border was. The modern boundary was decided in 1847 on paper, but was nearly impossible to decipher on the ground all of the way up until 1914.[footnoteRef:24] Sixty some odd years is quite a long time to go without knowing which side of the border your house may sit on for example. But even the modern border and where it lies is controversial. For thousands of years there was no need for a formal political border between Iraq and Iran. The monarchies that historically ruled over the Persian Empire, before the time of Ottoman rule, where sometimes even in what is now modern Iraq. When the Ottomans came in, and later the Iraqi state was formed, all of the sudden tension was created between people whose families had lived in a certain area for generations and who assumed themselves a citizen of a certain country were told that they belonged to a different country now. It was much like what is going on in Russia with Crimea today. Persians wanted to protect people who naturally saw themselves as Persian by decent, and the holy sites for the ShiI that exist in Iraq, but the Ottomans and later the British wanted land to be within their borders. Conflict over the area persisted from the early 1500s all the way through the mid 1800s when the modern border was decided upon.[footnoteRef:25] However, with the creation of the two new state borders between Turkey under the Turks and Iraq under the British, old quarrels rose to the surface once more. Persia had more of a problem with Iraq than just loosing some land to it. Many Persians were not happy with the way Persians were being treated from within the Iraqi border and to those Persian who set out on a pilgrimage to their holy sites contained inside of Iraq. [24: Ibid., Potter Lawrence, The Evolution of the Iran-Iraq Boundary. Pg. 88] [25: Ibid., 90-91]

The Persians were not the only ones to have grievances about the border between these two countries though. Iraq was made up of herdsman and tribes that depended heavily on specific sources of water to support both them and their livestock. Because of the way the border was drawn, many rivers and streams that flowed from the foothills of the Zagros Mountains down onto the plain of Mesopotamia were divided between Iran and Iraq. Iraq thus depended upon its upstream neighbor for this crucial resource.[footnoteRef:26] This fact alone was just begging to create problems. Any time people live in an arid environment; fights and disagreements over water are bound to happen. And as the author notes, they did in the drought of 1925. [26: Simon, Reeva S., and Eleanor Harvey Tejirian. The Creation of Iraq, 1914-1921. New York: Columbia University Press, 2004. Apple IBooks. 99-100.]

The dispute and problem between the border of Iraq and Iran was a long a drawn out event. In order to understand the creation of the Iraq Iran border one must examine the consequences of the actions taken and the lines drawn.The Shatt al-Arab Issue deals with water rights that both Iraq and Iran fought over. The Shatt al-Arab means "Shore of the Arabs. It is the name given to the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers before they disgorge into the Gulf. The Shatt-al-Arabis the 120-mile long waterway on which rest the important ports of Basrah and Khorramshahr . It runs from the Gurmet Ali confluence to the mouth of the estuary at Fao on the Gulf." [footnoteRef:27] Iraq felt that it had the rights to the entirety of the water system because it was at one time all a part of the Ottoman controlled land. When the British took control of the Ottoman land in the Mandate, it claimed that the whole river was included. However, Iran wanted access to the water system because of the relevant lack of other water sources in the area. Iraq countered this claim with the argument that Iran had access to the Gulf via its southern borders proximity to it and that Iraq had no other access to the Gulf with the exception of this water way and phrased it in the form of economic gain or equity. But, Iran was relentless. Iran wanted to split the waterway in half and draw the border straight down the middle. Iraq eventually won out by getting the Iranian case dismissed by the Council of the League of Nations. [footnoteRef:28] Information from the same source states that in 1937, after relation from the two countries, a treaty was signed recognizing the control the Iraqi government had over the waterway. At the same time it ensured that trading vessels of all different states were allowed to use the waterway. The treaty also ensured that only Iraqi and Iranian war ships were allowed to use it in time of distress. Though the treaty remained shaky. The tensions between Iran and Iraq culminated when the Iraqi monarchy dissolved in 1958 and Iran tried once more to gain control over the Shatt al-Arab on the basis that Iraq violated the terms of the 1937 treaty. [footnoteRef:29] [27: Amin, S. H. "The Iran-Iraq Conflict: Legal Implications." He International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 1982nd ser., Vol. 31, no. No. 1 (January 1982): 169. Accessed April 6, 2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/759271.] [28: Ibid., 169-173.] [29: Sirriyeh, Hussein. "Development of the Iraqi-Iranian Dispute, 1847-1975." Journal of Contemporary History 20, no. 3 (July 1985): 483-87. Accessed April 5, 2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/260356.]

The Question of Kurdistan: Should the Kurdish homeland have been lumped into the Iraqi State? That is a question that has yet to be officially and politically answered to this day.It was originally Churchills intent to establish Kurdistan as a separate sovereign power. It was to serve as a barrier between Russia and Turkey, but it was more than that. Churchill was scared to think how the Kurdish people would be treated under the rule of an Arab state. Churchill was so troubled by this notion that hetold the committee, with acutely accurate foresight, such a ruler: while outwardly accepting constitutional procedures and forming a Parliament, [might] at the same time despise democratic and constitutional procedures . . . [and] with the power of an Arab army behind him . . . ignore Kurdish sentiment and oppress the Kurdish minority. [footnoteRef:30] [30: Christopher Catherwood, Churchill's Folly: How Winston Churchill Created Modern Iraq(New York: Carroll & Graf Pub., 2004), Apple IBooks, pg. 41-62.]

Unfortunately his later decision to include the Kurdish homeland within the state of Iraq would have disastrous consequences that plague the region to this day. [footnoteRef:31] So how did the border of Iraq come to include Kurdistan? In the end the British were extremely concerned with the overhead associated with their involvement in the Middle East. It was eventually concluded that by incorporating the Kurds and their homeland into the Iraqi state, the British government could save a lot of money. A separate civil system would not have to be established, and portions of the money already being funneled into Iraq could just be reallocated. Another reason Great Britain decided to just lump Kurdistan in with Iraq is the lack of a cohesive, centralized leadership by the Kurds. Nor was there any one Kurdish leader, as Feisal was for the Arab parts of Britains new dominions, whom the British felt they could rely on as a useful and compliant native ruler. [footnoteRef:32] This was important because Britain was not going to put anybody into power that they thought that they either could not trust or control. Essentially for the British both are one in the same. [31: Ibid., 106-107.] [32: Ibid., 65.]

The Border between Iraq, Syria and Turkey:The problem of what to do with the Kurds and Kurdistan greatly affected the question of what to do about the Syrian and Turkish borders. Many ethnically Kurdish people fall into the modern borders of Syria and Turkey, which is one of the reasons the Kurds were dealt the hand that they received. Syria makes up the northwestern border of Iraq and the final border of Turkey makes up the northern border of Iraq. The problem of what to do with the Kurds was much more than if they should be included in Iraq or not. The traditionally Kurdish land actually falls into three modern day states, Syria, Turkey and Iraq. The decision to include Kurdistan within Iraq greatly dictated the outcome of the Syrian and Turkish borders. That is because some of the area that would have been Kurdistan is now split between the three states mentioned. If Kurdistan had become a separate state, Syria would have shared its middle border with Iraq and northeastern border with Kurdistan Kurdistan. But instead Syrian borders side right up against Iraq, which increases the size of the country and the power of the French. The original Treaty of Sevres dictated that there would be a Kurdish state. This would not come to pass due to The war-weary British were in no mood to force the terms of Sevres upon Ataturks newly reinvigorated Turkish state. Replacing Sevres, the Treaty of Lausanne of July 1923 did not mention Kurdish independence but partitioned Kurdistan into the various components of the coalescing state system. [footnoteRef:33] Thus deciding the fate of the Kurdish state and the division of the Kurds. [33: Gareth Stansfield, The Kurdish Question in Iraq, 1914-1974, The Middle East Online Series 2: Iraq 1914-1974,Thomson Learning EMEA Ltd, Reading, 2006. 1-2]

The Border Between Iraq and Saudi Arabia:One of the most hotly contested borders of Iraq in the twentieth century is the region between Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Between the countries of Iraq and Saudi Arabia laid a land that was considered to be a frontier. It was much like the frontier that lay between Iraq and Iraq as mentioned earlier in this paper. The questions of who fully controlled and what exactly to do with the frontier region between Saudi Arabia and Iraq created a special quandary for the British. Just like much of the rest of the Middle East thus far discussed in this paper, the people of this region were travelling or nomadic people. Traditionally these tribes would move with their flock during different parts of the year depending on what vegetation was growing where and what time. Violence was a main stay in the area when the creation of an official state border was attempted. In order to try and bring peace to the region a specific set of rules were agreed upon to keep order in the frontier region. These rules were spelled out in the Muhammarah Agreement between the government of Iraq and the Sultanate of Najd in May of 1922, which actually would later become Saudi Arabia.[footnoteRef:34] It is very important to note that this country did not yet go by the name Saudi Arabia. [34: Yitzhak Gil, Har (1992) Delimitation boundaries: TransJordan and Saudi Arabia, Middle Eastern Studies, 28:2,374-384, DOI: 10.1080/00263209208700906 ]

The Border between Kuwait and Iraq:The story as to how the Iraqi section of the border that connects to Kuwait is comparatively much more straightforward than many of the other Iraqi country borders. Although many of the inhabitants of the newly created Iraq did not feel the same way the British did. The creation of the border between Iraq and Kuwait goes all of the way back before the British declared war on the Ottoman Empire. While the Ottoman Empire viewed Kuwait as a territory under their rule, the British did not. Instead the British viewed Kuwait as an independent state under British protection. [footnoteRef:35] Kuwait held this stance in the mind of Britain dating all of the way back to 1899 when it signed an agreement with al-Sabah dynasty. The al-Sabah dynasty requested this protection from Great Britain due to conflicts in the region between the residence of Kuwait and the Ottoman Empire. In order to protect their future in the Middle East, Britain decided to protect the existing al-Sabah dynasty and Kuwait.[footnoteRef:36] When the British took control of Iraq due to the mandate granted to them by The League of Nations in 1920, the British decided not to include the area known as Kuwait within the Iraqi borders. It was an attempt by the British government to keep the New Iraqi state weak and dependent on British rule by preventing Iraq from having access to the Gulf. This is something that both the Iraqi and Kuwaiti people did not take kindly to. In fact, there were several attempts all of the way into the 1930s to reunify the two countries spawning from both sides of the border but British might prevented such a revolt from being successful and ultimately deciding the border between the two countries on their own terms. [footnoteRef:37] The line drawn as the border that lay between Iraq and Kuwait was set by the Sanam Mountains, which already represented a natural border between these two countries. This border was affirmed in 1932 with an agreement between the Iraqi government and that of Kuwait. The border that existed from 1932 until the present day has changed very little. The former border was moved slightly to the south of the mountain in 1994 because of a later agreement between Iraq and Kuwait.[footnoteRef:38] [35: Polk, William R. Understanding Iraq: The Whole Sweep of Iraqi History, from Genghis Khan's Mongols to theOttoman Turks to the British Mandate to the American Occupation. New York: HarperCollins, 2005. Apple IBooks. 101] [36: Ulrichsen, Kristian Coates. "Basra, Southern Iraq and the Gulf: Challenges and Connections." Department ofGovernment London School of Economics and Political Science, no. 21 (February 2012): Accessed April 02, 2014. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/55665/1/__lse.ac.uk_storage_LIBRARY_Secondary_libfile_shared_repository_Content_Kuwait%20Programme_Coates_2012.pdf. 1-3.] [37: Klein, David. "Mechanisms of Western Domination: A Short History of Iraq and Kuwait." Iraq & Kuwait.January 2003. Accessed April 01, 2014. http://www.csun.edu/~vcmth00m/iraqkuwait.html.] [38: "History of Kuwait." Center for Research and Studies on Kuwait. October 05, 2009. Accessed April 01, 2014.http://www.crsk.edu.kw/PageModule.asp?Module=10031.]

Conclusion:In conclusion, there were many different factors that when into how the French and the British decided to carve up the land that the Ottoman Empire previously ruled. Treaties and agreements were made to be broken and brutal economic, political, and cultural battles were waged between them. Many of Great Britains problems in the Middle East may have been avoided if they had listened to the recommendations King-Crane Commission. Instead the League of Nations rushed into granting the British a mandate for Mesopotamia who then made some decisions that were, lets just say less than spectacular. For the most part, these decisions and mistakes were due to the extreme lack of knowledge about the area and people they were dividing up into new nation-states. The British reneged on promises made and eventually paid a hearty price. As this paper proves, the drive for colonial success was a main factor in deciding the borders of all of the modern Middle Eastern state borders.

Bibliography

1. Amin, S. H. "The Iran-Iraq Conflict: Legal Implications." He International andComparative Law Quarterly, 1982nd ser., Vol. 31, no. No. 1 (January 1982): 169.Accessed April 6, 2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/759271.

2. Christopher Catherwood, Churchill's Folly: How Winston Churchill Created Modern Iraq(New York: Carroll & Graf Pub. 2004), Apple IBooks.

3. Document Detailing Instructions for the Commission. 1919. Henry Churchill King Papers,1873-1934, Oberlin, Ohio, USA. Accessed April 01, 2014. http://dcollections.oberlin.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/kingcrane/id/191/rec/6.

4. Gareth Stansfield, The Kurdish Question in Iraq, 1914-1974, The Middle East OnlineSeries 2: Iraq 1914-1974, Thomson Learning EMEA Ltd, Reading, 2006

5. Gertrude Bell to Her Father. August 23, 1920. Accessed February 27, 2014.http://www.gerty.ncl.ac.uk/letter_details.php?letter_id=411.

6. "History of Kuwait." Center for Research and Studies on Kuwait. October 05, 2009.Accessed April 01, 2014.http://www.crsk.edu.kw/PageModule.asp?Module=10031.

7. Kent, Marian. "7 Great Britain and the End of the Ottoman Empire 190023." In The Great Powers and the End of the Ottoman Empire, 165. London: G. Allen & Unwin, 1984.Accessed February 17, 2014. http://gendocs.ru/docs/10/9309/conv_1/file1.pdf.

8. Klein, David. "Mechanisms of Western Domination: A Short History of Iraq and Kuwait."Iraq & Kuwait.January 2003. Accessed April 01, 2014. http://www.csun.edu/~vcmth00m/iraqkuwait.html.

9. Kristian Coates Ulrichsen (2007) The British occupation of Mesopotamia, 19141922, Journal of Strategic Studies, 30:2, 366, DOI: 10.1080/01402390701248780

10. Polk, William R. Understanding Iraq: The Whole Sweep of Iraqi History, from GenghisKhan's Mongols to the Ottoman Turks to the British Mandate to the American Occupation. New York: HarperCollins, 2005. Apple IBooks.

11. Simon, Reeva S., and Eleanor Harvey Tejirian. The Creation of Iraq, 1914-1921. New York: Columbia University Press, 2004. Apple IBooks.

12. Sirriyeh, Hussein. "Development of the Iraqi-Iranian Dispute, 1847-1975." Journal ofContemporary History 20, no. 3 (July 1985): 483-87. Accessed April 5, 2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/260356.

13. Sorkhabi, Rasoul, Ph.D. "GEO ExPro - Oil from Babylon to Iraq." Editorial. GEO ExPro,2009. Accessed March 1, 2014. http://www.geoexpro.com/articles/2009/02/oil-from-babylon-to-iraq.

14. Tejirian, Eleanor H., and Reeva Spector. Simon. Conflict, Conquest, and Conversion: Two Thousand Years of Christian Missions in the Middle East. New York: Columbia University Press, 2012. Apple IBooks

15. Ulrichsen, Kristian Coates. "Basra, Southern Iraq and the Gulf: Challenges andConnections." Department of Government London School of Economics and Political Science, no. 21 (February 2012): 1-3. Accessed April 02, 2014. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/55665/1/__lse.ac.uk_storage_LIBRARY_Secondary_libfile_shared_repository_Content_Kuwait%20Programme_Coates_2012.pdf.

16. Yitzhak Gil, Har (1992) Delimitation boundaries: Trans-Jordan and Saudi Arabia, MiddleEastern Studies, 28:2, DOI: 10.1080/00263209208700906.