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

2
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.

3
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
Islam1 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
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.2
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

2 Ibid.

4
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

5
across the globe.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:
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
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.

6
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.4
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

4 Ibid.,165.

7
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, 1914
1921 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.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
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.

8
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

9
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 1920.6 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.

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.
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.8 In fact, decisions of who would get control of

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.

8 Ibid., 152-154

10
what parts of the Ottoman Empire started to transpire as early as 1915.
Almost three years before the war ended.
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.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!
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
9 Simon, Reeva S., and Eleanor Harvey Tejirian. The Creation of Iraq, 1914-1921. New York: Columbia University
Press, 2004. Apple IBooks.153-158.

11
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.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.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.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
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.

12
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.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.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.
13 Ibid.
14 Kristian Coates Ulrichsen (2007) The British occupation of Mesopotamia, 19141922, Journal of Strategic
Studies, 30:2, DOI: 10.1080/01402390701248780. 366.

13
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.

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
15 Simon, Reeva S., and Eleanor Harvey Tejirian. The Creation of Iraq, 1914-1921. New York: Columbia
University Press, 2004. Apple IBooks. 193-194.

14
was purchasing $10 million of Turkish tobacco each year and employed at
least 3,800 people in Turkey.

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.
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.

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
16 Ibid
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

15
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.

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.
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.19 The last section of the document states
Duties of Commission visiting regions: Acquaint themselves with state
of opinion of people with regard to the future administration of their
18 Ibid., 261-267
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.

16
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.20
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. 21 By then it was
too late and a decision was already made.
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
20 Ibid.
21 Reeva S. Simon and Eleanor Harvey Tejirian, The Creation of Iraq, 1914-1921 (New
York:Columbia University Press, 2004), Apple IBooks, pg. 52.

17
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. 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 vote23 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

22 Ibid.
23 Ibid., 52-53

18
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.
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 1914.24 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

24 Ibid., Potter Lawrence, The Evolution of the Iran-Iraq Boundary. Pg. 88

19
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.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.
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.
25 Ibid., 90-91

20
Iraq thus depended upon its upstream neighbor for this crucial resource.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.
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."

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
26 Simon, Reeva S., and Eleanor Harvey Tejirian. The Creation of Iraq, 1914-1921. New York:
Columbia University Press, 2004. Apple IBooks. 99-100.

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.

21
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 theCouncil of the League of Nations.

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.

29

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
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.

22
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 he
told 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.

30

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.

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
30 Christopher Catherwood, Churchill's Folly: How Winston Churchill Created Modern
Iraq(New York: Carroll & Graf Pub., 2004), Apple IBooks, pg. 41-62.

31 Ibid., 106-107.

23
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.

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.
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
32 Ibid., 65.

24
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.

33

Thus deciding the fate of the Kurdish state

and the division of the Kurds.

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
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

25
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.34 It is very important to
note that this country did not yet go by the name Saudi Arabia.
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.

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
34
Yitzhak Gil, Har (1992) Delimitation boundaries: TransJordan and Saudi Arabia, Middle
Eastern Studies, 28:2,374-384, DOI: 10.1080/00263209208700906

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

26
and Kuwait.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.

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

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_share
d_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.

27
slightly to the south of the mountain in 1994 because of a later agreement
between Iraq and Kuwait.38
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.

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.

28
Bibliography

1. 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.
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/1
91/rec/6.
4. Gareth Stansfield, The Kurdish Question in Iraq, 1914-1974, The Middle
East Online
Series 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 1900
23.
" 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

29

10. Polk, William R. Understanding Iraq: The Whole Sweep of Iraqi History,
from Genghis
Khan'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, 19141921.
New York: Columbia University Press, 2004. Apple IBooks.
12. 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.
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
and
Connections." 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_Secondar
y_libfile_shared_repository_Content_Kuwait
%20Programme_Coates_2012.pdf.
16. Yitzhak Gil, Har (1992) Delimitation boundaries: Trans-Jordan and Saudi
Arabia, Middle
Eastern Studies, 28:2, DOI: 10.1080/00263209208700906.

30