A CONFLICT RESOLUTION PRACTICE OF THE IDEALIST PEACE PROJECT: LEAGUE OF NATIONS' MEDIATION IN THE MOSUL QUESTION

Year 2022, , 1214 - 1237, 27.12.2022

Cavit Emre Aytekin

https://doi.org/10.36543/kauiibfd.2022.049

Abstract

1. Dünya Savaşının sona ermesinin ardından ortaya çıkan idealist barış projesi, yeni bir uluslararası barış ve istikrarı sağlamak için çeşitli ilkelere dayalı düzenleme ve anlaşmaları hayata geçirmiştir. Çatışmaların ve anlaşmazlıkların uluslararası topluluğu temsil etme iddiası taşıyan Milletler Cemiyeti bünyesinde bu ilkeler doğrultusunda çözümlenmesi üzerinde uzlaşılmıştır. Uluslararası topluluğu temsil eden Milletler Cemiyeti, birçok durumda bu sorumluluğunu başarıyla yerine getirmiş ve toprak anlaşmazlıklarının çözümü için prosedürler oluşturmuştur. Ancak 1925-1926 yılları arasında gerçekleşen Musul sorunu örneğinde bu yapıdan önemli ayrışmalar ortaya çıkmıştır. Bu makale, bir arabuluculuk süreci olarak Musul Sorunu müzakerelerini, tarafların idealist barış projesinden beklentilerini ya da uzaklaşmalarını açığa çıkaran tez ve önerileri üzerinden incelemektedir. Arşiv belgelerine, komisyon raporlarına ve o döneme ait kaynaklara dayanan bulgular; İngiliz hükümeti idealist barış projesinin uygulamalarından kaçınırken, Türk hükümetininin Dünyanın Doğu ve Batı yarısı arasındaki güveni güçlendirmesi için Milletler Cemiyeti'nin önündeki bir fırsat olarak gördüğü vakada idealist prensiplerin uygulanması için daha açık çağrılar yaptığını ortaya koymaktadır.

Keywords

league of nations, İdealist barış projesi, Musul sorunu, milletler cemiyeti, çatışma çözümü, arabuluculuk

A CONFLICT RESOLUTION PRACTICE OF THE IDEALIST PEACE PROJECT: LEAGUE OF NATIONS' MEDIATION IN THE MOSUL QUESTION

Abstract

The idealist peace project after the end of World War I realized various principles-based regulations and conventions to provide a new international peace and stability. One such arrangement was the rule that conflicts and disputes should be resolved under the auspices of these principles within the League of Nations. Representing the international community, the League successfully fulfilled this responsibility in many cases and established procedures for settling territorial disputes. However the case of Mosul Question between 1925-1926, considerable divergences in that structure became evident. This article examines Mosul Question as a mediation process through the arguements and proposals that reveal the expectations of the parties or their departure from the idealist peace project. Findings based on archival documents, commission reports, and sources from that period reveal that while the British government avoided practices of the idealist peace project, the Turkish government made more explicit appeals to implement them in the case considered as an opportunity for the League of Nations to foster confidence between the Eastern and Western parts of the World.

Keywords

Idealist peace project, Mosul question, league of nations, conflict resolution, mediation

References

• Åkermark, S. S. (2009). The Åland Islands question in the League of Nations: The ideal minority case? Redescriptions: Political Thought, Conceptual History and Feminist Theory, 13(1), 195-205.
• Akın, P. (2009). The formation of Iraqi nationalism under British mandate (1920-1932). (Ma). The graduate school of social sciences of Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
• Alantar, Ö. Z. (1992). Turkey on the agenda of the League of Nations. (PhD). Boğaziçi University, Institute for Atatürk's Principles and the history of Turkish Renovation, İstanbul.
• Barros, J. (1964). The Greek-Bulgarian incident of 1925: The League of Nations and the great powers. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 108(4), 354-385.
• Beck, P. J. (1981). ‘A tedious and perilous controversy’: Britain and the settlement of the Mosul dispute, 1918–1926. Middle Eastern Studies, 17(2), 256-276.
• Bialasiewicz, L. (2002). Upper Silesia: Rebirth of regional identity in Poland. Regional & Federal Studies, 12(2), 111-132.
• Bonsal, S. (1946). Suitors and suppliants: The little nations at Versailles. New York: Prentice-Hall.
• De Auer, P. (1920). Plebiscites and the League of Nations covenant. Transactions of the Grotius Society, 6, 45-58.
• Edmonds, C. J. (1957). Kurds, Turks, and Arabs. London: Oxford University Press.
• Gade, J. A. (1924). The Memel controversy. Foreign Affairs, 2(3), 410-420.
• Heywood, A. (2019). Politics (5 ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Kirchwey, G. W. (1917). Pax Americana. The ANNALS of the American academy of political and social science, 72(1), 40-48.
• League of Nations. (1919). The covenant of the League of Nations - Including amendments adopted to december 1924. Geneva.
• League of Nations Political Collection. (1924). La frontière entre la Turquie et l'Irak - Ismet Pacha, Angora -Transmet, pour communication aux membres du Conseil, vingt exemplaires du mémoire du gouvernement Turc, relatif à la frontière entre la Turquie et l'Irak. C.494.1924.VII. (05.09.1924), 38866, political collection, League of Nations, https://lontad-project.unog.ch/records?navigation=default&perpage=50&page=1&search=38866.
• League of Nations Political Collection. (1926). The frontier between Turkey and Iraq - Discussion at the 37th session of the Council, December 1925. (23 December 1925), R609/11/25888/48236, political collection, League of Nations, https://lontad-project.unog.ch/records/item/4535-frontier-between-turkey-and-iraq-discussion-at-the-37th-session-of-the-council-december-1925.
• Makko, A. (2010). Arbitrator in a world of wars: The League of Nations and the Mosul dispute, 1924–1925. Diplomacy & Statecraft, 21(4), 631-649.
• Macmillan, M. O. (2002). Paris 1919 : Six months that changed the world. New York: Random House.
• Michalopoulos, D. (2020). Musul sorunu: Anlaşma, sonrası ve bir bakış (A. F. Yıldırım, Trans.). In Z. Kurşun & D. Hut (Eds.), Yüzyıllık sorun: Musul vilayeti (tarih, toplum ve siyaset) (pp. 283-296). İstanbul: Vakıfbank Kültür Yayınları.
• Minorsky, V. F. (2015). Musul sorunu (2 ed.). İstanbul: Avesta.
• Question of the Frontier Between Turkey and Iraq: Report Submitted to the Council by the Commission Instituted by the Council Resolution of September 30th, 1924, League of Nations (1925).
• Nicolson, H. (2013). Peacemaking, 1919. London: Faber & Faber.
• Okur, M. A. (2020). Men-Zor tezi ve eşitsiz anlaşmalar tartışmasının ışığında Musul vilayeti: Türkiye'nin tarihi hakları/haklılığı meselesi. In Z. Kurşun & D. Hut (Eds.), Yüzyıllık sorun: Musul vilayeti (tarih, toplum ve siyaset) (pp. 317-359). İstanbul: Vakıfbank Kültür Yayınları.
• Princen, T. (2014). Intermediaries in international conflict. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
• Provence, M. (2017). The last Ottoman generation and the making of the modern middle east. Cambridge Cambridge University Press.
• Richmond, O. P. (2019). Peace in international relations. New York: Routledge.
• Shields, S. D. (2004). Mosul questions: Economy, identity, and annexation. In R. S. Simon & E. Tejirian (Eds.), The Creation of Iraq, 1914-1921 (pp. 50-60). New York: Columbia University Press.
• Shields, S. (2009). Mosul, the Ottoman legacy and the League of Nations. International Journal of Contemporary Iraqi Studies, 3(2), 217-230.
• Shields, S. D. (2020). Musul, Osmanlı mirası ve Cemiyet-i Akvam. In Z. Kurşun & D. Hut (Eds.), Yüzyıllık sorun: Musul vilayeti (tarih, toplum ve siyaset) (pp. 301-316). İstanbul: Vakıfbank Kültür Yayınları.
• Taha, M. (2013). Self-determination, oil and Islam in the face of the League of Nations: The Mosul Dispute and the ‘non-European’ legal terrain. In D. French (Ed.), Statehood and self-determination: Reconciling tradition and modernity in international law (pp. 324-348). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• TBMM Zabıt Ceridesi, 09.01.1926. Devre 2, Cilt 21, İçtima 38.
• Tejel Gorgas, J. (2018). Making borders from below: the emergence of the Turkish–Iraqi Frontier, 1918–1925. Middle Eastern Studies, 54(5), 811-826.
• Tooley, T. H. (1997). National identity and Weimar Germany: Upper Silesia and the eastern border, 1918-1922. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
• Treaty of Lausanne (1923). Treaty of peace with Turkey, and other instruments signed at Lausanne on 24th July 1923 together with agreements between Greece and Turkey signed on 30th January 1923 and subsidiary documents forming part of the Turkish peace settlement. Melbourne: Govt. Pr, https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/ parlInfo/download/publications/tabledpapers/HPP052016005158/upload_pdf/HPP052016005158_1923-24_63.pdf
• Wahrman, M. (2016). Minorities in Mosul: The Workings of the 1925 League of Nations Frontier Enquiry Commission. (Senior Theses). Princeton University, New Jersey.
• Wambaugh, S. (2013). The Saar Plebiscite: With a Collection of Official Documents. Cambridge, MA and London, England: Harvard University Press.
• Walters, F. P. (1952). A History of the League of Nations. London: Oxford University Press.
• Wilson, W. (1918). Fourteen points. Documents to Accompany America’s History.
• Yearwood, P. J. (2009). Guarantee of peace: The League of Nations in British policy 1914-1925. London: Oxford University Press.
• Zimmern, A. E. (1953). The American Road to World Peace. New York: E. P. Dutton.