League of Nations = Great Britain

As previously mentioned, discussions on Mosul had been the longest and most heated ones during the Conference of Lausanne. Neither side wanted to compromise, but the mad grip of the British deep state on the Mosul issue, at certain points, brought the two countries back to the brink of war. Lord Curzon made maneuvers intended to bring the negotiations to a dead-end and demanded that the issue be resolved by the League of Nations. However, Turkey was not a member of the League of Nations at the time and was perfectly aware that Britain had the necessary lobby to ensure the passing of decisions to Britain's heart's content.

To overcome the impasse, İsmet İnönü proposed a new way. A 'referendum' could be held in the region so that Kurdish people could make their decision. However, knowing for certain that the outcome would be against Britain, Lord Curzon refused the proposal. Historian Sevtap Demirel explains why Lord Curzon rejected the idea:

Lord Curzon says a referendum can never be accepted. Why? Because it is a painstaking process. You have to find donkeys, you have to find papers, load the papers onto the donkeys, send them up to the mountains, go to the Kurds there and ask them 'do you want to stay in Turkey? Do you want to stay under British mandate in Iraq?' 'These Kurds', I'm repeating the exact words in the document 'These Kurds will eat those papers'. That's why they say, just forget about the referendum. Do you know why they are doing that? Do you know the reasons behind that? That region sends regular intelligence to the Foreign Office and therefore to Lord Curzon. I have read hundreds of intelligence reports. They all underline one truth: If under the circumstances of the day, a referendum was held and Kurds in Mosul were asked 'who would you wish to join?' 99% would choose Turkey. These are in British intelligence reports. British said 'we'll lose Mosul, so we can never let Turks carry out a referendum here and ask the Kurds what they want'…³⁸⁵

Academician, historian and author İhsan Şerif Kaymaz explains how Curzon, in his own mind, tried to insult the Kurdish people:

Curzon argued that it wasn't the issue of choosing to whom Mosul was going to join, and that the border was just a simple technical issue and therefore no referendum could be held there. Therefore, he said referendum was out of the question there and that population and culture wasn't suitable for it anyway, as people were illiterate and had never seen a ballot box in their lives. He even used certain insulting, offensive words to prove his point and claimed that it could lead to conflicts and even bloodshed. Therefore he said that instead of that, the League of Nations should be resorted to.³⁸⁶

These offensive claims about the Kurds show that the view of the British deep state of the Kurds wasn't different from its horrible views today. The Kurdish people are above these statements that certainly cross a line. These remarks of Curzon reveal that Curzon knew the British deep state could have no influence over the people of the region. These illogical and tasteless remarks uttered in a bid to prevent a potential referendum almost proved that the British deep state could never win over the Kurds and Arabs of Mosul. The British deep state might have taken control of the region through deceitful politics and violence, but never was able to win over the people of the region. 

Mosul Rejects British Mandate

The people of Mosul are Turkish people that include Arabs, Turks and Kurds, who lived together under Turkish rule for 700 years. Breaking them apart from Turkish rule is tantamount to tearing them apart from their homeland. Fully aware of this, in order to 'convince' the public the British deep state resorted to its usual method: violence.

Ankara government, in an effort to balance the power shift against Britain with respect to Mosul, signed a deal with the US company Chester and gave it vast privileges in building railways and exploring mines, and when the Turkish Parliament endorsed the deal, the British got furious. No matter what it did, the British deep state just couldn't achieve the control it desired over Mosul. When the people rose against the British mandate and the British-appointed King Faisal of Iraq, the British violently clamped down on the protestors.³⁸⁷ British forces pressured Turkish-siding tribes and arrested tribal leaders. Especially the people of Kirkuk and Sulaymaniyah continued to reject a British mandate despite the violent suppression tactics of the British.³⁸⁸

In Mosul, Kurds started a riot against the British mandate and British jetfighters violently suppressed the protest. İhsan Şerif Kaymaz tells about this massacre with following words in his valuable book, based on the British archives:

To sum it up, Churchill scaled down the land forces to make savings in defense budget and reinforced the air forces stationed in Mosul. British decided to use the Iraqi army and Assyrian militia as the ground troops. The purpose was giving the message that even the slightest move by the Kurds in Mosul would be punished in the harshest manner possible. The method was cruel but successful. After a while, even hearing the approaching jetfighters was enough to 'tone down' the tribes…

Cities, towns and villages were relentlessly hit with airstrikes and then were burnt down to ground by Assyrian militia. The animals and crops of the tribes believed to support Turks were exterminated. Cities and towns like Köysancak, Raniye, Revanduz, Biraz, Kapra, Kale, Diza, Barzan, Derbet and Merga were largely destroyed… Barzan tribe was forced to choose between starvation and surrender. But the real horror started when they surrendered. Barzan town and villages were destroyed by Assyrian militia…³⁸⁹

On February 4, 1923, the Lausanne talks were suspended. Only two days later, Mustafa Kemal said in Izmir, "They are trying to take away by force Mosul and the region south of Mosul from us, from our mainland."³⁹⁰

This horrible massacre carried out in Mosul is a clear indication how savage the British deep state can get to obtain control of a region it targets. In fact, this strategy is not different than the genocide policies practiced in South Africa and India. The British deep state massacred the noble Kurdish people that it wrongly considered inferior. To the British deep state, these people could be used in a valuable geography through various pretenses. However, since it was the British deep state in question, no one could object to this 'illegality' and no one could call these massacres 'genocide' after WWI, just as had happened so many times before. 

'Operation Kurdistan'

Historian Sevtap Demirci notes that the Chester project and the proposal of referendum were also among the reasons why the British so violently quelled the Kurdish riot:

There was an 'O.K.' in the archive that no one knew or wrote about. I stumbled upon it unexpectedly during my research. So I started looking to find out what that 'O.K.' meant. I thought to myself that it couldn't mean 'okay', because the reports were intricate. If that was an okay, they wouldn't have put dots in between. It was 'O' dot, 'K' dot. It was in a small place. So days, months passed, and I caught it not in the documents of the Foreign Office, but in the documents of the Secretary of State for the Colonies. Turns out, it was short for 'Operation Kurdistan'... Britain had put into motion the 'Operation Kurdistan' project. If you ask, what is this operation, there is no detail. No information, no documents, just O.K.…

Within the scope of Operation Kurdistan, the British heavily bombarded the area. It was a very covert operation, no one knew about it. One person from the British army headquarters and one person from the Prime Ministry… No one was privy to this. Not the parliament, not the allies, no one. For two straight days, British ceaselessly pounded Mosul, Kirkuk and Sulaymaniyah. The second round of negotiations in Lausanne was supposed to start on April 23, 1923. The operation ended at 12.00 pm on April 22. The next day, when the second round of talks started in Lausanne, Turkey no longer had people in the region that could participate in a referendum. That operation completely ended the possibility of a referendum. If you ask, how many people died, I don't know, too many civilians died. What did Britain want to say? You give these privileges to the USA, but you cannot make these decisions on these lands without my involvement. And the second outcome was, in a sort of, taking captive the Turkish-supporting Kurdish tribes and the indigenous people that wished to join Turkey. So when the second round started, Turkey was no longer able to suggest that there should be a referendum.³⁹¹

The British deep state was aware that, only if it martyred everyone in the region, would it have control over Mosul. For this reason, it stuck to its centuries old tradition and didn't refrain from brutally slaughtering thousands of innocent people, the indigenous population of a region. Clearly the massacre had a purpose other than the oil or trade routes. 'Operation Kurdistan' was the reason behind the Mosul persistence of the British deep state. Indeed, that's why it was so secret, why there were no official documents proving that it ever existed. As the Lausanne talks were underway, the British deep state was carrying out its Kurdistan plan, devised a long time ago. At the center of it was Mosul, which had to be taken from Turkey. Kurds coming under British rule marked the first step towards building the artificial Kurdish issue, which would continue for another hundred years. The British deep state was convinced that Gladstone's dream of 'driving Turks back to steppes of Central Asia' could be realized that way. Even destroying a whole people seemed trivial if it meant goals were achieved. 

Turkey Backs Down on Mosul

Up to that point, the Turkish delegation was determined to take Mosul back, but with the new development, it was forced to adopt a new strategy because the British deep state wasn't hesitant about carrying out horrible massacres, and they were slaughtering in plain sight our people in Mosul, Kirkuk and Sulaymaniyah. The only way out seemed reconciliation.

Another important reason why Turkey didn't risk war at Mosul and settled on reconciliation with the terms proposed by the British was the fact that Ankara had no air forces to fight the British air forces stationed in Iraq. After the war, Britain deployed its entire air force to Iraq. This also clearly demonstrated that Mosul was not a negotiable topic for Britain. However, it must be kept in mind that the Turkish side had just emerged from a ten-year of period of constant wars that included the Balkan Wars, WWI and the Independence War. Turkey, during those years, was a tired, battered and impoverished country struggling to remain strong amidst the ruins of the Ottoman Empire. Not only did it have no air force to defend itself, it had very limited military capabilities.

Furthermore, it should be kept in mind that, during the Lausanne talks, Istanbul was still under occupation. Under the circumstances, the Turkish side was clearly at a disadvantage with limited flexibility. All these factors forced the Turkish side to agree to a compromise on the Mosul issue.

Mustafa Kemal, until the time the Lausanne talks were suspended, said on many occasions that Mosul was a Turkish land and that he would ensure it stayed that way, by using military force if necessary. However, later he shifted his tone significantly. He began to say that it would be wrong to be persistent in Lausanne for the resolution of the Mosul issue and that it could be resolved later. One British intelligence report dated March 15, 1923 explains the reason behind this change of rhetoric. The report stated that in the next couple of years, not only Mosul, but Iraq, Basra, Arabia, Syria and possibly other Islamic countries, could unite under Turkish hegemony and that it would be done as the Islamic Union project and that the project had a high likelihood of success.³⁹²

Islamic Union indeed will definitely happen, all Islamic countries will unite, the borders will be removed and even countries such as Russia, USA, Israel, China and all the other world countries will join this union. It will happen with the appearance of the Mahdi (pbuh) when all the sinister plots of the British deep state, the wars and conflicts end, when not even a single drop of blood is shed. Mustafa Kemal, no doubt, knew that time would come. He was aware that, sooner or later, Turks would get back the lands that once belonged to them. He was sure that, even though it didn't happen at the time, it would happen with the coming of the Mahdi (pbuh). For this reason, he didn't push the envelope and kept his hope alive with the dream of Islamic Union in his heart. 

Finalizing the Treaty of Lausanne

With the 3^rd clause of the Treaty of Lausanne signed on July 24, the frontier between Turkey and Iraq was regulated. This clause, where Mosul was not mentioned, stipulated that Turkey and Britain would continue negotiations for another 9 months to determine the frontier and that the Mosul issue would be taken to the Council of the League of Nations unless an agreement was reached. However, the clause had been unclear about the methods of the League of Nations or just what the decision would be about. As mentioned before, taking the issue to the League of Nations would in any case be in favor of the British interests. Turkey would clearly have no say in an organization that it wasn't even a member of. The British deep state, which had maintained a strong grip over the League of Nations back then, pushed with all its might to make illegitimate claims over Mosul.

When the issue was eventually referred to the League of Nations, Turkey asked that the League establish 'the will of the people of Mosul', but Britain asked for the establishment of the 'frontier between Turkey and Iraq'. The fact that the respective clause in the Treaty of Lausanne didn't make reference to Mosul, but only mentioned the 'frontier', gave the British argument the upper hand.³⁹³

Post-Lausanne Mosul

Controversial issues that the Treaty couldn't solve dominated Turkish foreign policy in the wake of the Conference of Lausanne, while the disagreement over Mosul with Britain was the most heated foreign policy issue between 1923-1926.

Upon the application of Britain, the Mosul dispute was referred to the League of Nations on August 6, 1924, which started discussing it on September 20, 1924, one year after the Treaty of Lausanne was signed. During the talks, the Turkish side repeated their offer of a referendum in Mosul, but Britain, just like before, rejected the idea with insolent excuses like 'locals being ignorant and not understanding about border issues'.³⁹⁴ (The Kurdish people in the region are above such remarks). On September 30, 1924, a decision was made to set up an investigative commission, which defined the borders on October 28, 1924 and established a status quo Turkish-Iraqi border named 'Brussels Line'. The highlights from the report of the commission that was submitted to the League of Nations on July 16, 1925 were as follows:

1- Brussels Line should be determined as a geographical border,

2- Kurds with their population of 500,000, consisted the majority in Mosul vilayet,

3- Kurds were more populous than Turks and Arabs,

4- Mandate in Iraq that was supposed to end in 1928, be extended for another 25 years,

5- Mosul be left to Iraqi administration provided Kurds in the region are given administrational and cultural rights,

6- If the League of Nations decides that the region is shared between the two countries, the Little Zab river line be accepted as border,

7- If the League of Nations doesn't consider it suitable that the mandate in Iraq is extended and that the region is left to Iraq with certain privileges to Kurds, then Mosul be left to Turkey,

8- Britain's claims and demands with regards to Hakkari be rejected.

When Turkey raised objections to this report, the Council asked the Permanent Court of International Justice in Hague on September 19, 1925 to submit its opinion. This opinion was in line with the wishes of the League of Nations, and despite Turkish protests the Assembly of the League of Nations announced on December 8, 1925 that it adopted the resolution of the Court of Justice. Only a couple of days later, on December 16, 1925, it approved the report of the Investigative Commission and decided that the lands lying to the south of Brussels Line be left to Iraq. 

British Deep State's Sedition Fuels Riots Across the Region

Nestorian Riot

Nestorianism and Missionary Activities Targeting Nestorians

Nestorianism is a Christian sect with members in various parts of Asia. Between 1915-1924, a significant Nestorian population lived in Nusaybin, Siirt and Hakkari in Turkey,³⁹⁵ with most settling around Hakkari and considering it as their center (there are currently no Nestorians in Turkey).³⁹⁶

When the word spread in the West of the Nestorian presence in Ottoman lands, many missionaries came to the region as various countries sought ways to turn this Christian minority on Ottoman lands into an advantage for them. Britain was the most ardent and determined one.

The British "Royal Geographical Society" and "Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge" were particularly active in missionary activities. Before we delve further into these historical facts, let us remember one more time a very important truth: being a missionary is a holy activity that people carry out to spread their faith and communicate the religion they believe in. However, the missionaries that will be mentioned here were not seeking to carry out such a duty; on the contrary, they were spies of the British deep state charged with carrying out its dirty tasks, but disguised as missionaries. So much so, those so-called missionaries sent by the said organizations functioned just like intelligence officers on Turkish lands and studied the social order and the power of state authority in the region. They determined the methods that could be used to provoke this community that had a different ethnical background against the state administration.

Nestorian Riots and the British Deep State Efforts

Nestorians had rioted twice against the Ottoman Empire, in 1843 and 1846, but they were suppressed. During WWI, they clashed with the Kurdish tribes in Southeast Anatolia and East Anatolia. The Ottoman archives mention the rivalry between Protestant British and American missionaries and Orthodox Russians to win over the Nestorians during these years³⁹⁷ and that the problems between Nestorians and Kurds escalated due to these supposedly missionary activities.³⁹⁸ Indeed, after having lived together peacefully, tensions began to arise between these two communities which later turned into bloody clashes when the British deep state came onto the scene and started its activities in the region under the guise of missionary activities in the 19th century.³⁹⁹

During the Kurdish-Nestorian clashes in 1843, British missionaries led by George Percy Badger used clothes, food, and money to curry favor with the Nestorians while the Nestorian Patriarch sought refuge in the British Consulate.⁴⁰⁰ This is an indication of how the members of the British deep state considered Nestorians as an ideal means to help them gain a foothold in the region. As soon as British missionaries like Dr. William Henry Browne gained the trust of the people in the region, they immediately said that the problem concerned internal policy⁴⁰¹ and took a stance against the Ottoman Empire.

John George Taylor, the Consul of Britain in Erzurum at the time, began his letter to Earl of Clarendon in 1868, with the following statements: 'Please find attached two reports which include my observations and the experiences about the country and the people. This data is based on my six years of duty in the country'. The attachment of the letter included, in addition to the demographic details of Nestorians, the following comment:

Nestorians are the second largest Christian community after Armenians. They are not important because they are rich or smart. It is because they live on a mountainous terrain close to Iranian border and can be fighters when necessary. It is also because in practice they are almost independent… They always complain about Kurds and Turks and they are so pitiful, they are willing to accept rule of foreigners at the cost of their faiths and lands.⁴⁰²

In other words, the members of the British deep state once again applied its usual tactics, tried to show Nestorians as an 'oppressed people', when they have been living in peace for centuries, and saw them as pawns that could be used with the pretense of 'protection'. (Nestorianism and Nestorians are above his remarks). They didn't hesitate to clearly voice their thoughts.

Riots during WWI and the Subsequent Clashes

Nestorians that rioted during WWI were defeated by the Ottoman army, and as a result started moving towards Hamadan with guidance and help from British aircraft. Subsequently, Britain set up a 3000-tent settlement in Baquba, 50 km from Baghdad, for 40,000-50,000 Nestorians.⁴⁰³

This made Nestorians more vulnerable to exploitation by the British. Living in tent camps dependent on the British, they couldn't help but turn into potential mercenaries for future British claims in the region, rather than being 'oppressed' people protected by the British.

Promising a muhtar (self-governing) state to Nestorians in Hakkari and Urmiye region, British wanted to build a buffer zone between the Ottoman Empire and its lands in Iraq and set up four battalions of Nestorians called 'Levy forces' as the armed force of this buffer zone.⁴⁰⁴

Identical to British forces in their uniforms and equipment, these forces staged attacks against people living in Hakkari, Şırnak and Van provinces, and particularly worked to drive the Kurdish population living along the Zab valley out of the region. In retaliation, Kurdish tribes began attacking British units in various areas starting in March 1919.⁴⁰⁵

Even though the British responded to these attacks with counter-attacks, they had to give up on their 'buffer zone' plans based on the use of these 'Levy forces'. Nevertheless, the British deep state continued its efforts to build a Nestorian state in Anatolia. During the conference held in San Remo, Italy from June 18 to 26, 1920, convened for the purpose of sharing Ottoman territory, Lord Curzon demanded a special settlement area for Nestorians. After this development, Nestorians decided to launch a military attack on Hakkari and then settle there.⁴⁰⁶ The attack that started on October 27, 1920 failed due to harsh winter conditions.

1924 Riot

Three years later, Nestorians rioted one more time and again, their supporters were the British deep state. The British deep state continued to use Nestorians as mercenaries against Turkey until the Mosul issue was resolved in its favor.⁴⁰⁷

Hakkari governor Halil Rıfat Bey, who was taken a prisoner in the beginning of the 1924 Nestorian riot and later released, said that he saw uniformed and armed British soldiers among Nestorians, and British planes flying over Hakkari (Çukurca) hills. Based on his observations, he said: 'There is no doubt that the British have been recently provoking these people against our government'.⁴⁰⁸

Halil Rıfat Bey was spot on with his analysis that the riot was backed by the British deep state. This fact is further verified in an article published by The Times during the same time. This article depicted the Turkish lands, planned to be taken for Nestorians, as the Assyrian State, and referring to the incident in Hakkari, used a threatening tone and said if the region were left to Turkey, more incidents would follow. In the same article, the Turkish land of Çölemerik (Hakkari) was called 'lands that belonged to no one yet'. Governor Halil Rıfat Bey, who went to investigate the area, was portrayed as a person that violated the region.⁴⁰⁹

Indeed, Turkey has declared on several occasions that the British had armed Nestorian tribes that staged attacks against Turkey.⁴¹⁰

In truth, the British deep state was planning to build autonomous Kurdish and Nestorian regions within Mosul vilayet, which according to its plan would later join the Arabic state that would be founded under the British mandate. This would give Britain the buffer zone that would protect its oil reserves in the Middle East and enable it to push the Kurdish and Nestorian regions northwards to expand its sphere of influence.⁴¹¹

Cafer Tayyar (Eğilmez) Pasha, the 7^th Corps Commander, was given the task of leading the military operation to suppress the Nestorian riot⁴¹² and the campaign started on September 11, 1924.⁴¹³ Kurdish tribes also supported the military campaign against Nestorians.⁴¹⁴

On the morning of September 14, a Turkish cavalry unit that passed the border between Hakkari and Mosul was bombed for three straight hours by three British planes that took off from Zakho. Forced to retreat, the Turkish units moved northwards.⁴¹⁵ However, when the British began to violate the Turkish land using Nestorians, Turkey sent a diplomatic note to the League of Nations on September 17, 1924, informing it of the violation of the Treaty of Lausanne.⁴¹⁶

The campaign reached a conclusion when the Turkish units reached the Hezil Suyu river line on October 11, 1924 and drove the rebels to the north of Iraq.

Sheikh Said Rebellion

Turkey was certainly not pleased with the resolution of the League of Nations dated December 16, 1925 that left Mosul to Iraq. Indeed, according to British intelligence, Mustafa Kemal was getting ready for another round of fighting. As preparations were underway for a military campaign for control of Mosul, the Sheikh Said Rebellion in Southeastern Anatolia broke out. This riot, that saw the participation of some Kurdish and Zaza tribes, was quite suspicious in terms of its causes and timing. The truth is, the riot started for no real reason other than it had been planned years ahead by the British deep state. It was a backup plan to be used should Turkey decided to act – militarily or otherwise – about Mosul. This phony riot would also accentuate the imaginary 'Turkish-Kurdish divide', another British deep state production, and bound Turkey hand and foot.

French historian Jacques Benoist-Méchin made the following remarks regarding the support of the British deep state to the riot:

The Sheikh Said riot was a challenge to the unitary structure of the new state and the applicability of the laws across the entire country… Hoping that it could prevent the Kemalist regime from getting stronger, Britain was provoking a Kurdish riot that would create unrest. It was keeping the wound open for Turkey, by providing food and ammunition to the rioters.⁴¹⁷

Britain was closely monitoring the Sheikh Said Rebellion. This incident took place at the most critical point of the Mosul dispute, under the supervision of the British deep state, and just as planned by the British deep state, gave British important leverage. This forged riot gave the international public the message that 'Turks and Kurds were unable to live peacefully together on Turkish lands'.⁴¹⁸ This incident allowed Britain to say: "Let alone the Kurds in Mosul, you are fighting even your own Kurds."⁴¹⁹

In the first days of the riot, the French Commissariat in Baghdad sent Paris a 40-page report. The report mentioned conflicting French-British interests in the Middle East as well as the Kurdish-British relations. It also included the following statements about Sheikh Said:

Since 1918, Sheikh Said has been working for the Istanbul Kurdish Committee, which seeks to build a Kurdish state under British mandate. In 1918, Abdullah Bey, the leader of Turkey's Committee for Kurdish Independence introduced Sheikh Said to Major Noel, who was one of the fundamental elements of Britain's Kurdish policy …⁴²⁰

Let us reiterate one important fact: Neither Kurds nor Assyrians wished to rebel on Turkish lands. On the contrary, most of these communities objected to these riots. The truth is, the riots were organized and orchestrated by the British deep state spies. The goal was to facilitate British intervention on Turkish lands, portraying Turkey as a weak country intolerant of its minorities, and of course, ensuring definitive dominion over Mosul. The ruses of the British deep state succeeded and the Investigative Commission set up by the League of Nations issued its report in favor of the British case and the League made its decision accordingly. Erzurum MP Hüseyin Avni Bey's following words were proven right once more: 'League of Nations is nothing but a British council'.⁴²¹

Mosul Is Lost

The League of Nations made Mosul a part of Iraq under British mandate, and its duration was extended to 25 years while originally it was to last only 5 years. It was also decided that the economic matters should be resolved between the two countries through various agreements.

The main reasons why the Mosul dispute was resolved against Turkey's argument can be listed as follows:

1- Turkey was not a member of the League of Nations,

2- Great Britain was the most influential member of the League (indeed, many called the League a British council),

3- The Estonian general who went to the region to carry out examinations wasn't allowed to go to the north of the Brussels Line that defined the Turkish-Iraqi border, which made it impossible to carry out an unbiased investigation,

4- Turkey couldn't send a representative to Permanent Court of Justice,

5- Sheikh Said Rebellion, which was provoked by the British deep state, put Turkey in a difficult position.

Although Turkey objected to the decision, to maintain the newly emerged 'peace atmosphere' and to not violate the former resolutions accepted, she was forced to recognize the decision. The Turkish administration had serious difficulty during that time because the British deep state, which was very influential, fought tooth and nail for Mosul and was adamant on making no compromises on that issue during the negotiations. This was important for the British deep state because in the following years, the British deep state widely used Kurds to carry out its sinister plans for the Middle East and Turkey. The fabricated Turkish-Kurdish divide that was started with the Mosul issue marked the beginning of this exploitation of Kurds.

Although Turkey maintained that the decision about Mosul was unjust, due to its foreign policy of pursuing peaceful means to resolve problems, it refrained from further escalating the issue and voiced its protest through diplomacy in line with the circumstances of the day. As a part of this strategy, it signed a Treaty of Friendship and Neutrality with the Soviet Union on December 17, 1925. This treaty was a 'natural agreement' based on the rapprochement of two countries, which started during the Turkish War of Independence. However, it is noteworthy that it was signed the day after the League of Nations' decision on Mosul. In that sense, it was a continuation of the Soviet-Turkish Treaty of Friendship signed on March 16, 1921, the Treaty of Kars signed with Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan on October 13, 1921, which were Soviet Republics then, and finally the Treaty of Friendship and Brotherhood signed with Ukraine on January 2, 1922. It was also a reaction against the Mosul decision. 

What Does the Mosul Question Tell Us?

While studying the Mosul negotiations at Lausanne, it is important to understand why the British deep state was so adamant. The so-called 'Kurdish problem', which had never existed before, suddenly started after Mosul was forcefully brought under British control with the Lausanne negotiations. The century-old plan of the British deep state included fabricating the non-existent 'Kurdish problem' for Turkey, which lingers even today. 'Separation of Turks and Kurds' was first brought up during those days, almost building the infrastructure for a plan that would be used in the future by terror groups. Even though the Kurds of Turkey and Mosul repeatedly stated that they were 'Turks' and 'loyal to Turkey', and although the Kurdish members of the Turkish Parliament shouted out clearly that there was no discord or problem between Turks and Kurds, the British deep state continued its relentless propaganda that said otherwise.

Just like its artificial beginning, the 'Kurdish problem' is still artificial today, when we look at its causes. It should be noted that those people who claim today that such a divide exists and who assume a racist language accordingly, are in truth either agents or sycophants that serve the British deep state. Such people with that state of mind have been a part of deep state structures throughout Turkey's history; they have followed an oppressive policy towards Kurds and even resorted to violence, and they have created a divide in Turkey. Today it is well known that such people created polarization and an artificial hatred for minorities. A careful analysis of the current situation will reveal how the provocation of these people is supported by the familiar publications under the control of the British deep state.

Surprisingly, even though the Stalinist terror group PKK rejects all national identities, it uses Kurdish nationalism as a propaganda tool for its ultimate goal of building an anarchist-communist state in Southeast Anatolia and imposing a communal system on our Kurdish brothers. This propaganda is a frequently used method of the British deep state to influence the masses. Indeed, it was the British deep state that gave the idea to the PKK in the first place. Therefore, it doesn't come as a surprise that the PKK is kept under extreme protection by the British deep state. It was mentioned previously how Mosul was used to fabricate the previously non-existent Kurdish issue and how that plan was stretched into the next century. A careful examination of the current PKK problem reveals that Mosul had indeed been the starting point of the Kurdish card that is still being played by the British deep state.

At the time of the Lausanne negotiations, Kurds were our family, our people, a part of us; and still are. Providentially, our Kurdish brothers and sisters, especially in Southeastern Anatolia, have now realized the sly plans of the British deep state through our relentless efforts. For years, these great people weren't influenced by any provocation, and neither are they now, despite the nefarious traps of the British deep state and of the PKK. The British deep state will never break us from our Kurdish brothers and sisters, no matter how much it has tried since its Mosul games; never will it achieve this. 

Capitulations at the Treaty of Lausanne

The word 'capitulation' usually refers to a country granting various concessions and privileges to the citizens and consulates of another country on her lands, which might be financial, commercial, legal, administrative, etc.

When the Ottoman Empire began to give these concessions to the European states and their citizens in the 16^th century, the circumstances and the purpose were different. The Empire was on the rise; it was believed that such privileges, granted in line with the circumstances of the time, would contribute to the economy. The Empire failed to see the repercussions of this risky move.

Capitulations were first given to Venetians during the reign of Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror, then to the French during the reign of Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent, followed by other states, most notably Britain. In the beginning, the capitulations were limited to the lifespan of the Sultans who granted them, but with an agreement signed with France in 1740, became permanent. After this date, capitulations granted to the great powers, most notably Britain, created severe issues in the Ottoman economy, industry, and justice system, among others. Over time, commercial and legal privileges increased and caused major problems in the 19^th century. While in the beginning, the privileges were unilateral and served the interests of the Ottoman Empire, they later completely changed into a system where some rights of the Ottoman Empire were entrusted to foreign states through bilateral agreements.

The British deep state led the others in managing and controlling these privileges, sometimes explicitly and sometimes behind closed doors. 

The Great Interests of Great Britain

By the 1820s, Britain had completed its industrial revolution and became unrivalled in world markets after defeating France in the Napoleonic wars. However, during the same years, other European countries in the midst of their own industrial revolutions were blocking British products from entering their markets with protective measures. This caused British capital to turn to non-European countries; thus between 1820 and 1840, Britain signed numerous free trade deals with countries in Latin America and China among others.⁴²² These deals were sometimes secured through gaining the support of local powers, and sometimes by use of military power. For example, when China banned Britain from selling opium in her lands in 1839, Britain waged war against China in return. When the British came out victorious from this war, they forced the Chinese government to allow for extensive capitulations through various agreements.

However, all this intense effort didn't yield the results the British deep state was hoping for.

In the first half of the 19^th century, customs taxes in Europe rose and British foreign trade entered a period of stagnation between 1819 and 1835.⁴²³ This stagnation could have seriously impaired the young industry of the country, and urgently necessitated the discovery of new markets. Even in its period of decline, the Ottoman Empire was still one of the richest countries in the world, with its vast territory and affluent people. This appetizing, potentially profitable market suddenly made it the center of the British deep state's attention. Britain did everything in its power to sign a free trade deal with the Ottomans, in an attempt to exert its influence over this market.⁴²⁴ The Treaty of Balta Liman signed between the Ottoman Empire and Great Britain as a trade agreement on August 16, 1838, was the enactment of this desire.

The highlights of the agreement were as follows:

1- New capitulations will be added to the existing ones.

2- Britain will be allowed to freely buy and sell their agricultural and industrial products.

3- The Ottoman Empire will abolish all monopolies over domestic trade as well as bans on export.

4- Foreign merchants will enjoy the same rights and privileges as the local merchants of the Ottoman Empire.

5- Taxes on export will be 12%, and import 5%.

The Treaty of Balta Liman of 1838 removed all the restrictions on domestic and foreign trade, and facilitated the entry of foreign merchandise into the country. It also made it easier to export domestic products. Ostensibly, it brought the Ottoman industry and trade under European control, but in fact, it was under British control.

The most significant aspect of this trade system was the irrevocable and significant loss of Ottoman sovereignty over its own foreign trade. Additional taxes previously levied on export and import, which had been a main source of revenue for the state, were restricted, and the Ottoman Empire was no longer able to collect additional taxes from these sources in extraordinary situations such as war.⁴²⁵

In the aftermath of the Treaty of Balta Liman, the British trade volume in the Middle East increased dramatically. For instance, in 1837 only 432 British vessels had come to Istanbul and unloaded merchandise of 86,253 tons, but by 1848, these numbers increased to 1392 vessels and 358,422 tons respectively. The increase quickly sped up and in 1856, Britain sent 2,504 vessels with a total 898,753 tons of merchandise.⁴²⁶ Britain was getting complete control of the Ottoman market, while Ottoman merchants lost strength. 

The Ottoman Attempts to Abolish the Capitulations

The great powers of Europe were competing fiercely to get more out of the failing Ottoman Empire. As the capitulations incapacitated the Ottomans, the state wasn't even able to regulate its own taxes. The Turks were levied, but foreign merchants were exempt from taxes. Foreigners who lived on Turkish land weren't subjected to Turkish law, and couldn't be taken to Turkish courts. In other words, these people were living in a completely isolated manner in the country; in an incredibly privileged status, they were practicing their own laws in the Ottoman Empire. They made more money out of the same trade as the local merchants did but still didn't pay tax. Even the health-care sector offered extraordinary concessions to them.

Capitulations turned into a bleeding wound for the Ottomans, and naturally many Ottoman administrators undertook initiatives to stop the bleeding.

The first debate in the Ottoman Cabinet on the abolishment of the capitulations took place on September 2, 1914, which resulted in the decision to draw up a memorandum to do away with these concessions.

As a result, a commission led by Nazır Pirizade İbrahim Bey was set up in the Ministry of Justice.⁴²⁷ The Commission drafted the official communication to be sent to the Grand Vizier on September 4, and sent it the next day. The government, during the meeting of the Council of Ministers on September 5, decided to abolish all capitulations, economical and judicial alike.

On September 8, the government reconvened, read the official communication and decided that the approved text be sent to the ambassadors in the capital on September 9. The Sultan approved the abolishment of the capitulations on September 8. The text read as follows:

Upon the agreement of the Parliament Members, various financial, administrative, economical and judicial concessions and all privileges, previously granted to foreigners residing at the Ottoman Empire, known as the 'capitulations', as well as their associated permits and privileges are hereby abolished. This resolution, upon the orders of the Sultan, will come into effect on September 18, 1330 [October 1, 1914 in the Gregorian calendar].⁴²⁸

Capitulations Need to Be Abolished for Full Independence

The decision of the Ottoman administration to unilaterally abolish the capitulations was a rational, albeit a delayed one. Almost two months prior to the decision, world war had broken out in Europe and could have spread to the Ottoman territory at any moment. The states that had been given capitulations previously were too busy to object to the decision. Indeed, the declaration to eliminate capitulations received joyous welcome from the vast majority of the Ottoman Empire. The Empire was finally getting rid of this heavy burden on its shoulders.

Even though European ambassadors particularly raised objections to the abrogation of the capitulations, the Ottoman Empire didn't back down. Of course, certain new regulations were made in line with the requests of the ambassadors, but they were not like the capitulations. This was an important milestone for the Ottoman Empire as it began to be released from her chains. However, the joyous atmosphere didn't last long. The Empire had to enter WWI, was subsequently defeated and on October 30, 1918, once again had to endure the imposition of other states. Unsurprisingly, the victors immediately brought back the capitulations.

During the years of the Turkish War of Independence, Mustafa Kemal took the issue of capitulations very seriously and showed his clear stance in favor of full independence during the congress meetings. During National Pact sessions at the Ottoman Parliament (January 22-28, 1920) 

capitulations were once again on the agenda. The 6^th article of the decisions made there was briefly as follows:

… Ensuring full freedom and independence to complete our national and economic development, like every other country, is essential for our future. For this reason, any factors that hinder our political, judicial, commercial or financial development should be eliminated...⁴²⁹

For this reason, Mustafa Kemal strictly instructed the delegation that went to Lausanne that there could be no compromise on capitulations.

Of course, European countries were preparing to reinstate the capitulations at Lausanne. That's why the new Turkish Republic was well prepared to deal with the issue without any compromise of its independence. Yet once again Britain, the only country that didn't recognize the independence of the new Turkish Republic, proved the biggest obstacle. 

On the Way to Lausanne

The instruction given to the national delegation headed to Lausanne was brief and concise: 'Capitulations can never be accepted. If necessary, we can walk out of the negotiations.'⁴³⁰

In fact, everyone knew that immense difficulties would arise in reaching a solution in this matter. Many countries, present or not present at the conference, had a stake in the continuance of the said privileges. Furthermore, the Western world had been used to these privileges for at least 400 years and all mutual relations were based on them. Therefore, other countries, as they reached an agreement on the subject, wanted the concessions to continue, which made the prospect of completely abolishing the capitulations at Lausanne especially difficult.

İsmet Pasha, the head of the Turkish delegation, was aware of the problem and said, "All the Allies and the US were against us in this matter. But we considered it one of our most crucial issues."⁴³¹

A Tug of War

On November 27, 1922, the Finance and Economic Affairs Commission convened to discuss the capitulations and İsmet Pasha demanded that all the limitations that hindered the economic independence of Turkey be removed. He explained that a country cannot be independent with capitulations and that the situation of the foreigners in Turkey were already guaranteed with general laws that were in place as is the case in all civilized and independent countries, and that Turkish delegation would only accept being in a commission in line with these principles.⁴³²

The French delegation, coming from a country that had made great profits out of capitulations, insisted that capitulations be replaced with another system. İsmet Pasha refused the offer, completely aware that the new and unknown system could jeopardize the security or independence of the state.

Lord Curzon claimed that capitulations were based on rights given by the treaty and that even the Germans, the ally of the Ottomans, opposed the abolishment of the system. He also said that capitulations could not be abrogated unless they were replaced by a new system agreed upon by the parties.⁴³³

However, capitulations were non-negotiable for Turkey, no matter what happened. On December 28, 1922, the talks reached a dead-end. The proposals of the other side were rejected on the grounds they violated Turkish sovereignty. İsmet Pasha defended the Turkish case and said that "the Turkish justice system would be on par with the best justice systems in the world". He considered the replacement of the system with a similar one, or assignment of foreign judges in Turkey and all other similar proposals, an assault on Turkey's independence.⁴³⁴

Nothing came out of the discussions carried out under such circumstances. İsmet Pasha and the Turkish delegation refused to give into the demands of new restrictions, no matter under what guise they were presented, and fought off the pressure and oppression. The conference ended on February 4, 1923 without reaching an agreement.⁴³⁵

The Second Attempt Begins

As the Lausanne negotiations hit a dead-end and were suspended, Mustafa Kemal gave a speech at Izmir Economic Congress on February 17, 1923 and made it clear that there would be no concessions on the capitulations:

Ottoman Empire was deprived of its independence physically and effectively. If a country cannot levy taxes on foreigners on its lands as it does on its own citizens, if a country is banned from regulating its own customs… And, if a country is not allowed to practice its rule of law for foreigners living on her lands, then that country is not independent…⁴³⁶

These words clearly manifested how the abolishment of the capitulations was crucial for the Turkish side. So much so, the suspension of the talks due to the capitulations disagreement did nothing to weaken the determination of the Turks. The Turkish side, having just endured a war that continued for ten straight years, and having lost almost everything, didn't hesitate for a moment to start preparations for war again. When the Lausanne negotiations came to a halt due to the issue on capitulations, Mustafa Kemal ordered the Turkish army to start war preparations.

The truth is, the Allied Powers didn't want the Lausanne negotiations to be suspended either. Having fought in WWI, that caused immense destruction, none of them were willing to resume hostilities; especially after the horrible war of four years destroyed both the victors and the losers. Furthermore, European countries couldn't afford to be 'not on the side of peace'. The Western public, weary and battered, wanted peace and therefore, the Allied Powers had to yield and not be persistent on capitulations. Being the side that stopped the peace negotiations was equal to being the side that did not want peace and it was clear that such an administration would be punished by not only its own public, but other countries as well. Europe wouldn't risk that.

Furthermore, the Soviet Union, which had signed a treaty of friendship with Turkey in 1921, declared that if a new war broke out, it would fight alongside Turkey. This situation completely tipped the balance.

Seeing the decisive stance of Turkey, the Western countries took action to resume the talks and thus the second part of the Conference of Lausanne began on April 23, 1923. Lord Curzon and former 'celebrities' didn't attend this time. Horace Rumbold, the High Commissioner to Istanbul, was heading the British delegation and the conference.

Capitulations represented the biggest obstacle to concluding the Conference of Lausanne. The Westerners didn't want to give up on them, especially under heavy pressure from various economic groups. On the other hand, Turkey was adamant on refusing all sorts of limitations on its independence. Therefore, no agreement could be reached in the negotiations, and talks continued until May 4. Other financial issues continued to be a source of difficulty, as well.

After long discussions, it was decided to add the following clause to the treaty with regard to the capitulations:

Article 28: Each of the High Contracting Parties hereby accepts, in so far as it is concerned, the complete abolition of the Capitulations in Turkey in every respect.⁴³⁷

In the meantime, the other parties demanded that health capitulations should continue in Istanbul in the form of a commission of physicians, but the Turkish side rejected this, too. In the end, it was decided that for five years, three European doctors would be allowed to work in quarantine works in the capacity of consultants. This ended the health capitulations, as well. Five years later, these three foreign doctors were dismissed and the health-care industry was made completely domestic. Atatürk mentioned in his famous Nutuk (the Great Speech), 'this wasn't a capitulation. We agreed that a couple of foreign doctors serviced for five years'.⁴³⁸

In other words, the unyielding stance of the Turkish delegation saved the new Turkish Republic from capitulations, the shackles of the past. This way, Turkey not only achieved its full independence, but also completely dashed the British deep state's dreams of 'colonization'. The British deep state failed to repeat its scheme of slyly infiltrating states and building its economic and legal hegemony in new Turkey. That is why the capitulation concession on the part of the British delegation in the Lausanne negotiations was seen as a major defeat. Time, in its issue of April 14, 1924, made the following comment on this development: "The Treaty of Lausanne was the first conspicuous failure of the British diplomacy in more than a century." The piece continued with the following interesting remark that showed how the outrageous plans of the British deep state backfired: "In effect, the Lausanne Settlement turned Europe bag and baggage out of Turkey instead of turning Turkey bag and baggage out of Europe."⁴³⁹

The Capitulation Plans of the British Deep State

While studying the capitulations, we must keep in mind that the British deep state makes deep plans that extend well into the next centuries. This is what happened with the capitulations and the British deep state managed to extend the scope of the original concessions granted to Britain over time, abusing the Ottoman Empire's kindness and weakness to build a separate structure within the Ottoman Empire. In the end, foreign courts were operating on Ottoman territory, foreigners were parceling out, buying, and selling the Ottoman lands; and even the best medical service was given by foreign doctors to foreigners. These foreigners in question who became more privileged than Turks on Turkish lands, were in fact looting the state and led lives fully independent of Ottoman laws. Since these people had more rights than Turkish merchants, they began to dominate the trade in the country. This system was the application of the sly plan of the British deep state concocted over a long time. This insidious system, that one still can see in many colonized countries or in other countries infiltrated by the British deep state, deeply penetrated the Ottoman Empire, took control of its system, and built its own hegemony. This infiltration also allowed the British deep state to easily deploy its agents in the relevant countries. The process is so systematic, the new Turkish Republic fought tooth and nail to get rid of this virus.

Today, in the Middle East and particularly in Africa, the British deep state continues to exploit some countries and gets wealthier as the people of the respective countries starve and are poor. This is the usual policy of the British deep state. This was also what was planned for the Ottoman Empire with the capitulations. But Almighty God didn't allow this plan to work and made the Great Commander Mustafa Kemal Pasha and the brave Turkish people the reason for the end of the British deep state's hegemony. The capitulations were just another way invented to exploit the Ottoman Empire from within. The end of this scourge, which had to be fended off, represented an important victory at the Lausanne negotiations.

Do they feel secure against God's devising? No one feels secure against God's devising except for those who are lost... (Qur'an, 7:99)

The Pious Turkish People Rejected the British Hegemony

British leaders, reeling from the shock of the Turkish victory at Lausanne, made several comments to feel better about their loss, while the British deep state took every opportunity to state its dream that Turkey would eventually be destroyed even if it hadn't happened at Lausanne.

Lord Curzon, the British Foreign Secretary who headed the Lausanne talks for a long time, sent an instruction to Paris and Rome ambassadors of Britain only nine days after the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne. He stated that Turkey was a small country and that the Allies shouldn't send ambassadors to Turkey, as a low-level officer like an acting ambassador would be more appropriate.⁴⁴⁰

Only 21 days after the treaty was signed at Lausanne, Sir Nevile Meyrick Henderson, the British diplomat in Istanbul, made the following comment in his letter sent to London:

Turkey has lost land, grown poor and depopulated. It would be more than necessary to send an ambassador to an insignificant country like Turkey in terms of her size, wealth and population… If the current Turkish government cannot persist – I believe they won't last long – then the Turkish Government will come to that city where the British Embassy is located. It will inevitably drift with our support. In this setting of anarchy the current government will topple down and another government that will ally with us shall come to power.⁴⁴¹

There was, of course a reason why Henderson sounded so confident. The British deep state had successfully applied the same strategy on many countries before. And as Henderson pointed out, those countries eventually began to move in the direction shown by the British deep state. However, Henderson wasn't taking into account the unshakable determination and faith of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and the Turkish people. No one had the power to put the Turkish state into shackles when they had such a great leader and such a pious nation. The representatives of the British deep state, who were making these arrogant comments before and after Lausanne, over time understood that they wouldn't be able to defeat this devout nation. In fact, Gladstone's comment in the 1800s that the Qur'an had to be taken away from the Turks if they were ever to be defeated showed that since the 19^th century the British knew this faithful nation could never be defeated.

Turkey is a sacred country from where the Mahdi (pbuh) will emerge, and Istanbul is a holy city that will see this blessed appearance. Both the Mahdi (pbuh) and this sacred location will always be under God's protection. Therefore, it is not in Turkey's destiny to fall for the plots of sly deep states, or to be divided or to fall apart. No insidious plot against Turkey succeeded in the past, and none will in the future. The members of the British deep state that devise plans against Turkey should keep this truth in mind for good and all.

God will defend those who believe. God does not love any thankless traitor. (Qur'an, 22:38)