Introduction: The Erasure of Kurdistan

On August 10, 1920, delegates from the Allied powers and the defeated Ottoman Empire convened in the showroom of the porcelain factory in Sèvres, France, to sign a peace treaty intended to formally end World War I in the Middle East. The Treaty of Sèvres was a document of punitive partition. It stripped the Ottoman Empire of its Arab provinces and divided the Anatolian heartland into zones of influence for Britain, France, Italy, and Greece.

Embedded within the 433 articles of the treaty were three specific clauses—Articles 62, 63, and 64—that addressed the status of the Kurdish people. These articles outlined a mechanism for local autonomy and, crucially, a potential pathway to independence. For the first time in modern diplomatic history, the term “Kurdistan” appeared in an international treaty, offering legal recognition to Kurdish national aspirations.

Yet, just three years later, on July 24, 1923, a new peace treaty was signed in Lausanne, Switzerland. The Treaty of Lausanne superseded Sèvres. It recognized the borders of the new Republic of Turkey, but the references to Kurdistan and Kurdish autonomy had vanished. The Kurdish population was left partitioned between the new borders of Turkey, Iraq, Syria, and Iran.

This article examines the diplomatic shift from Sèvres to Lausanne, often cited as the origin of the “Kurdish Question.” It analyzes the provisions of the Treaty of Sèvres, the impact of the Turkish War of Independence led by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, and the geopolitical maneuvering that prioritized the stability of the new Turkish state and British control over Iraqi oil fields above Kurdish self-determinationSelf-Determination Full Description:Self-Determination became the rallying cry for anti-colonial movements worldwide. While enshrined in the UN Charter, its application was initially fiercely contested. Colonial powers argued it did not apply to their imperial possessions, while independence movements used the UN’s own language to demand the end of empire. Critical Perspective:There is a fundamental tension in the UN’s history regarding this term. While the organization theoretically supported freedom, its most powerful members were often actively fighting brutal wars to suppress self-determination movements in their colonies. The realization of this right was not granted by the UN, but seized by colonized peoples through struggle..

The Kurdish Awakening and the Promise of Sèvres

To understand the significance of the shift between 1920 and 1923, one must appreciate the context of Kurdish political development. For centuries, Kurds lived primarily as tribal confederations within the Ottoman and Persian empires. While distinct linguistically and culturally, their political identity was often subsumed under the broader category of Muslim subjects.

However, the late 19th and early 20th centuries saw the emergence of a Kurdish national consciousness, spurred by the rise of Turkish nationalism and the upheavals of World War I. Kurdish intellectuals in Istanbul formed organizations such as the Society for the Rise of Kurdistan, arguing for rights similar to those being claimed by Armenians and Arabs.

Following the Ottoman defeat in 1918, Kurdish representatives petitioned the Paris Peace Conference, invoking President Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points, which promised “autonomous development” for non-Turkish nationalities. The Allied powers, particularly Britain, saw potential strategic utility in a Kurdish entity in eastern Anatolia—as a buffer against a resurgent Turkey or Bolshevik Russia, and as a means to punish the Ottoman state.

Consequently, the Treaty of Sèvres institutionalized these aspirations, though conditionally:

• Article 62 mandated a commission to draft a scheme of local autonomy for the predominantly Kurdish areas lying east of the Euphrates.
• Article 64 stated that if, within one year, the Kurdish population in these areas demonstrated that a majority desired independence from Turkey, and if the League of NationsLeague of Nations Full Description:The first worldwide intergovernmental organisation whose principal mission was to maintain world peace. Its spectacular failure to prevent the aggression of the Axis powers provided the negative blueprint for the United Nations, influencing the decision to prioritize enforcement power over pure idealism. The League of Nations was the precursor to the UN, established after the First World War. Founded on the principle of collective security, it relied on moral persuasion and unanimous voting. It ultimately collapsed because it lacked an armed force and, crucially, the United States never joined, rendering it toothless in the face of expansionist empires. Critical Perspective:The shadow of the League looms over the UN. The founders of the UN viewed the League as “too democratic” and ineffective because it treated all nations as relatively equal. Consequently, the UN was designed specifically to correct this “error” by empowering the Great Powers (via the Security Council) to police the world, effectively sacrificing sovereign equality for the sake of stability.
  Read more considered them capable of such independence, Turkey would agree to renounce all rights to these territories.

While these provisions were limited to parts of present-day Turkey and did not create a unified “Greater Kurdistan,” Sèvres remains a touchstone for Kurdish nationalism because it offered international legal recognition of their right to self-determination.

The Turkish War of Independence: The Rejection of Sèvres

The Treaty of Sèvres was never implemented. Its harsh terms, which left the Turkish state with only a small territory in central Anatolia, sparked immediate resistance.

Mustafa Kemal Pasha (later Atatürk), an Ottoman general, rejected the treaty signed by the Sultan’s government. He organized the Turkish National Movement in Ankara and launched a War of Independence (1919–1923) to expel the occupying Greek, French, Italian, and British forces.

Crucially, Mustafa Kemal recognized the strategic importance of the Kurds in this struggle. He appealed to Islamic solidarity rather than Turkish ethnic nationalism. In telegrams to Kurdish tribal leaders, he framed the war as a defense of the Caliphate and the Muslim homeland against Christian invaders. He famously declared that the new Grand National Assembly represented “Turks and Kurds” equally as genuine elements of the nation.

This strategy was largely effective. Many Kurdish tribes, suspicious of British intentions and fearful of Armenian territorial claims in the east, supported the Kemalist forces. They provided vital manpower to the armies that eventually defeated the French in the south and the Greeks in the west.

The Road to Lausanne: A Shift in the Balance of Power

By late 1922, the military situation had transformed the diplomatic landscape. The Turkish National Movement had secured victory on the battlefield, forcing the Allies to abandon Sèvres and negotiate a new peace treaty.

The conference convened in Lausanne in November 1922. The British delegation was led by Foreign Secretary Lord Curzon; the Turkish delegation by Ismet Inönü. The dynamics were fundamentally different from 1920. The Allies were no longer dictating terms to a defeated empire but negotiating with a victorious sovereign state.

The Mosul Question: Oil and Geopolitics

A central point of contention at Lausanne was the status of the Mosul Vilayet (in modern-day northern Iraq). Britain had occupied Mosul following the 1918 armistice and was determined to incorporate it into the British Mandate of Iraq. This was driven by two factors: the belief that Mosul held significant oil reserves and the strategic need for the defensible mountainous frontier.

Turkey claimed Mosul as part of its National Pact (Misak-ı Millî), arguing that the population was predominantly Kurdish and, based on the rhetoric of Turkish-Kurdish brotherhood, should remain part of Turkey.

Lord Curzon countered this claim by arguing that the Kurds of Mosul preferred British rule. While the records do not show an explicit “deal” where Britain traded Kurdish independence in Turkey for control of Mosul, the outcome reflects a realignment of priorities. Britain realized it could not enforce Kurdish autonomy within Turkey without war. Consequently, British diplomats ceased pressing for the implementation of the Sèvres provisions regarding Kurdistan, focusing instead on securing the border that would place Mosul within Iraq. The Mosul dispute was eventually referred to the League of Nations, which awarded the province to Iraq in 1926.

The Treaty of Lausanne (1923): The Great Erasure

The Treaty of Lausanne was signed on July 24, 1923. It established the modern borders of Turkey and, by omission, sealed the fate of the Kurdish nationalist project.

The Omission of Kurdistan
The text of Lausanne contains no mention of Kurds or Kurdistan. Unlike Sèvres, it offered no mechanism for autonomy or independence.

Minority Rights
Articles 37–45 of the treaty outlined protections for minorities, but these were explicitly restricted to “non-Muslim minorities” (Greeks, Armenians, and Jews). By limiting minority status to religious groups, the treaty legally classified the Kurds (who are overwhelmingly Muslim) as part of the majority population. This meant they had no recourse to international law to protect their language or culture.

The Partition
The treaty codified the division of the Kurdish population among four sovereign entities:

1. Turkey: Containing the largest Kurdish population.
2. Iraq (British Mandate): Incorporating the Kurds of Mosul and the north.
3. Syria (French Mandate): Containing Kurdish populations in the north and northeast.
4. Iran: Which held the eastern Kurdish territories (though not a signatory to Lausanne, the treaty stabilized the regional borders).

The Aftermath: Assimilation and Rebellion

The consequences of Lausanne were felt almost immediately. With the borders secured and the republic established, the Turkish state moved away from the pluralistic rhetoric of the independence war.

Mustafa Kemal launched a program of secularization and centralization. In 1924, the Caliphate was abolished, removing the religious institution that had historically linked Turks and Kurds. The state adopted a policy of Turkification, which denied the existence of a distinct Kurdish ethnicity (later referring to Kurds as “Mountain Turks”) and banned the Kurdish language in public life and education.

The Sheikh Said Rebellion (1925)

In February 1925, Sheikh Said, a Kurdish religious leader, launched a major rebellion in southeastern Turkey. The uprising was driven by a mix of Kurdish nationalism and religious grievance against the secularizing state.

The British response to the rebellion illustrates the shift in priorities. At the time, the League of Nations was still deliberating the Mosul question. Britain, concerned that instability in Turkey might spill over into Iraq and threaten British interests, did not support the rebellion. The Turkish government crushed the uprising with significant force. Sheikh Said was executed, and thousands were deported. This marked the beginning of decades of conflict between the Turkish state and its Kurdish periphery.

Conclusion: The Legacy of 1923

The transition from the Treaty of Sèvres to the Treaty of Lausanne represents a pivotal moment in the history of the Middle East. It marked the triumph of the nation-state model over the multi-ethnic empire, but it also cemented the marginalization of the Kurds.

The decision at Lausanne to prioritize the stability of the new Turkish Republic and the security of British interests in Iraq over Kurdish aspirations left millions of people partitioned across borders that divided families, tribes, and economic zones. This partition created structural instabilities in Turkey, Iraq, Syria, and Iran that persist to this day.

While Lausanne is often viewed in diplomatic history as a successful resolution to the “Eastern QuestionEastern Question Full Description:The 19th- and early 20th-century diplomatic problem posed by the decline of the Ottoman Empire. European powers (Britain, France, Russia, Austria-Hungary) each sought to maximize their influence over Ottoman territories without triggering a general European war. The Eastern Question drove the Crimean War (1853–56), the Balkan Wars (1912–13), and ultimately World War I. Critical Perspective:The Eastern Question is the intellectual framework that made Sykes-Picot possible. For a century, European statesmen treated Ottoman lands as an inheritance to be divided among heirs, not as territories with living populations possessing rights. The “question” assumed that Ottomans were passive objects, not historical actors. This mindset—that Middle Eastern peoples existed to be managed, not consulted—did not end with the Mandates. It persists in every Western intervention from the Baghdad Pact to the Iraq War.
Read more” because it prevented a renewed war between the Great Powers and Turkey, for the Kurds, it represents the moment their homeland was erased from the map of international law, leaving a legacy of statelessness and conflict that defines the region a century later.