​​​​​​​Sèvres Treaty goal was to deepen the crises

ZINAR YALDIZ

The content of the Treaty of Sèvres was prepared to create new conflicts in the Middle East, make the hegemonic regime of the Middle East the center of global unrest and seek to exterminate peoples at the hands of each other.
On 11^th January 1918, World War I ended with the victory of the coalition countries (Britain, France and Russia) over the other coalition countries (Germany, Austria, Hungary, Italy). As the Ottoman Empire sided with other allied powers, especially Germany, so after the defeat of the allied states, the Ottoman state was declared a defeated state.

But the division of Ottoman geography had already begun before the end of the war, and the partition plan was drafted by a confidentiality agreement between Britain and France and with the consent of Russia, and George Pico of France and Mark Sykes of Britain signed the Treaty of Sykes Pico on 16^th May 1916.

After occupying Kirkuk on 9^th May, 1918 by Britain, resistance movement was emerged by the Kurds to confront Britain Forces, this confronting was a new for Britain, because after the end of the war in Mosul, Amed, Urmia and Zakho the Kurds engaged in resistance against the occupation, the main fear of the Kurds was to change the demography of Kurdistan through settling the Armenian and Syriac peoples to the region and give them Kurdish lands."

Mahmoud Barzanj began to move in Kirkuk, Mosul and Sulaymaniyah. From Erzurum to Kirkuk the Kurds began to resist the policies of occupation. On the border of Northern and Eastern Kurdistan, Sheikh Tahir and Samko began uprisings.

In 1918 and 1919, fierce fighting took place between Kurdish and British forces. The cities of Mosul, Sulaymaniyah and Halabja were bombed by British aircraft several times. This issue became the subject of discussion among the Coalition forces. On 27^th February 1918, Pico sent a telegram to the French Foreign Ministry, saying" "My meeting with Mark Sykes showed me that they were considering building an independent Kurdish principality that would include Mosul. "But I did not accept this because of the reasons I informed you earlier and made it clear that these solutions are completely contrary to our interests."
In particular, British diplomats working in the region wanted to build a policy consistent with their interests.

On the same day, the British academician, M. Akelstan Riley, who studies Kurdish affairs, reported that the British Foreign Office said, "Because of the complex situation of the Kurdish community, it is not possible to establish a Kurdish state, therefore, the efforts of the British state that wants to establish a Kurdish state will be without result."

When presenting this report to British Foreign Secretary Stephen Pichon, he said, "Join Mr. Riley's opinion on what he wrote about the shortcomings of Kurdish society."

With the arrival of the occupying imperialist powers, a dynamic and active force emerged in the region, and despite its distribution and inexperience, it showed considerable resistance, and instead of taking from it a stand-off that Britain wanted to take advantage of; There were conflicts with the Ottomans as well as with the peoples of the region. Especially after the Hamidiyya brigades of the Ottomans joined the Armenian massacre, they lived in deep conflicts with the Armenian people.

At the same time, they lived in conflict with the Ottomans because they had been under the Ottoman occupation for a long time, and made several uprisings against it, and disagreed with the Arabs because of racial differences. When Britain became aware of these differences, it sought to extricate itself from the Kurdish conflict by escalating it.

Leader Abdullah Ocalan used the name of the Kurdish trap (Xafika Kurdan) for this policy, and the national differences that existed in the geography of Mazopatamia were used against the forces of resistance.

It was used as a special trap against Mustafa Kemal, who resisted the imperialist occupation in Anatolia, and against King Faisal, who represented the Arab tribes in Iraq, who was forced to implement occupation's orders?

France didn't want to scare the Turks.

France's situation was also not far from this policy, and as Britain took control of much of Kurdistan's geography it became increasingly concerned about the Kurdish issue. But it did nothing more than the Kurdish catch policy.

France in Syria and Western Kurdistan created an associated government, and France did not want the Kurdish issue to become a contentious issue between it and the Turkish government, and in order to prevent the rebellion against the Damascus Government gave Kurds some social rights. However, France's main objective was to harass Turkey; So Britain supported in public policy.

Kurdish representative Sharif Pasha

Sèvres peace talks began in this atmosphere in 1919 until its conclusion on 10^th August 1920, and numerous conferences and meetings were held. At those conferences and meetings, Mohamed Sharif Pasha al-Babani was approved as representative of the Kurds. But Sharif Pasha and many Kurdish parties and organizations wanted other people to join as well.
In particular, Fahri Beik and Sheikh Tahir, as representatives of Eastern Kurdistan, applied for accession, but this request was rejected by British diplomats. On the other hand, the Sulaymaniyah delegation, headed by Zaki Rashid and Sheikh Ahmed Barzanji, came to Beirut, and asked France to go to Paris. But because of the Sulaymaniyah's fight against Britain, France did not allow them to go. Therefore, Sherif Pasha represented the Kurds in the meetings from the beginning of the meetings until May 5^th, 1920

 Cairo, Baghdad and Istanbul differences

During the meetings, Sharif Pasha took the views of many Kurds, and in particular wanted the Cairo-based Kurdistan Independence Caucus, influenced by the Berxwedan family, and the Istanbul-based Al-Taali Kurdish Society, under the influence of the Empire, to influence Sharif Pasha.
On the other hand, some of the uprising centers in Kurdistan are in contact with Sharif Pasha from Baghdad, and there are very different views from the three centres arriving in Paris, Cairo says there is no way to accept anything but an independent and united Kurdistan. If anything other than this is accepted, it will be treason.

They also called on Istanbul to establish a shared life and administration with the Turks, and the forces fighting and resisting in Kurdistan did not see meaningful meetings, saying that there was no possibility of implementing, and some of them, as independent, saw some national rights as sufficient.

Joint statement of Kurds and Armenians
Deepening the Armenian-Kurdish conflict is highly controversial. The aim is to hand over Kurdish-majority territory to Armenians, thereby provoking an Armenian Kurdish war. The Armenian delegation itself says that there is no possibility for Armenians to return to this geography. The Kurdish delegation is also disturbed by this, and it is known that with this map the conflicts of the components deepen and war spreads. Therefore, on 25^th January 1919, the Armenian and Kurdish delegations issued a joint statement stating that they wanted to resolve their problems throughout the region in a peaceful manner with the components. When the positions of Britain and France were not changed, Sharif Pasha withdrew from the meeting on May 5^th, 1920.

 The beginning of the 21^st century witnessed deep tensions and conflicts within the hegemony system, so they engaged the world in war in order to overcome the crises they face, and at the end of the war the conflicts and tensions of the hegemony system spread all over the world and some global conflict centers were established that could not get rid of those conflicts on for a hundred years, one of these major centers was the Middle East, which still has not been able to get rid of these conflicts.

After World War I, the dominant powers came to the Middle East with the aim of dividing and using a policy of division, and these dominant powers had no basis other than their own interests, and to achieve these interests benefited from existing conflicts. It also wanted to stir up disputes in places where there was no conflict.

This policy was clearly reflected in the Sèvres Treaty. They linked the Sèvres Treaty to themselves and used it as a partition tool and are still used against each other to this day.

T/S

ANHA