BRITAIN AND IRAK

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 35, 10 February 1926, Page 3

BRITAIN AND IRAK

MANDATE TO CONTINUE i DEBATE IN THE HOUSE FAITH WITH THE LEAGUE. (From Our Own Correspondent.) LONDON, 29th December. The debates which, took place in both Houses of Parliament on the League Council's award of the Irak boundary were of a one-sided character. For the second time this session the Labour Party has refused to take part in an important debate on high policy. The motives which inspired their action on the present occasion •• are not altogether intelligible. The Labour leaders were faced perhaps with the probability that opposition* to the Government motion would suggest that they opposed the decision of the League, and were not prepared to mcci the issues raised by the Laidoner Report. The Socialists first indulged in prolonged obstruction, and. then tct the crown on a lamentable exhibition by walking morose ly out of the House. A flock of. Conservatives at once settle-T"oh their benches, and the whole House cheered to the echo as the Prime Minister rose. They cheered louder when, with a whimsical glance at the late Socialist benches, Mr. Baldwin claimed that the Government's Mosul p 'licy was in full conformity with that of all past.Governments. Lord Curzon, Mr. Mac Donald, and Lord Parmoor had, during the various stages of the Treaty of Lausanne, bound Great Britain to accept the League's verdict. Acceptance of an # obligation scarcely a year old Vas therefore vital to our policy of strengthening the League as an instrument of international peace. ; For that policy he demanded now the unanimous support it had commanded in^ the past. ' REFUTATION OF INCONSISTENCY. The next passage was a refutation of Che charge of personal inconsistency.'l have been charged again and again," said the Prime Minister, ''mainly in certain organs of the Press, with having broken a definite pledge given by myselt on 3rd May, 1923, that we should wash our hands for good and all of any responsioility for or interest in Irak after August, 1928. As evidence of that pledge they have reproduced in type of every conceivable magnitude one or two sentences out of a statement made in Bagdad by Sir Percy Cox, which I read out to the House as embodying the policy of His Majesty's Government. These sentences run aa follows: ■Both parties being equally anxious that the commitments and responsibilities of His Majesty's Government in respect of Irak should be terminated as soon as possible, it is considered that the per.oi of the treaty in its present form can yonveniently be shortened. It is understood that the present treaty shall terminate on Irak becoming a menber of the League of Nations, and,' in any case, not later than four years from the ratification of peace with Turkey.' I wonder how many of those have read these sentences reproduced by themselves apart from their context as a statement of our policy' at the time have realised that the very "«rt sentence of that declaration, which 1 also read out in this House,.went on to say: "Nothing in the Protocol shall prevent a fresh agreement from being concluded with a view to regulating the subsequent relations between the high contracting parties and negotiations for that object shall' —not may—"be entered into between them before the expiration of the above period.' (Cheers.) In other words, the Protocol, which brings the existing treaty to an end in 1928, definitely pledges us to endeavour before 1928 to replace it by another treaty for the future. A LIMITED LIABILITY. There *followed the answer to material accusation of extravagant commitments in the form, of a statement of policy sited upon at Geneva by the British representatives. It laid down, firstly, that our liability towards. Irak was not for 25 years, but only until she was adjudged fit for membership of the League. Secondly, it asserted that our liability was definable in terms of consultation and advice, not of troops and money; and, thirdly, that if Irak .were attacked,' the League itself would be challenged,'and, with the League, all its members. It added that any special British responsibility could_ not be assessed in advance, though it waa recognised. . This thesis of an invasion was, Mr. Baldwin added, with earnest emphasis, purely hypothetical. All depended upon the relations between Turkey and Irak. He had therefore invited the Turkish Ambassodor to see him, with_ a view to._immediate, amicable negotiations—an invitation endorsed on the spot by a unanimous and prolonged cheer. ' UNSCRUPULOUS PROPAGANDA. Captain Eden (Warwick and Leamington, UO'Baid there could be no question that the fixing of the boundary somewhere in the neighbourhood of the Brussels, line was vital to IrakTAs far as he knew, there was no section of opinion, in Irak, or anywhere else, which believed that Irak had any chance of establishing itself by the year 1928. The country needed initiative, foreign .capital, and development from abroad, and it could get none of those things without security. It might seem a paradox, but it was true,

that the very extension of the maximum period of our mandate was the best evidence of the likelihood of an. early curtailment of our responsibilities in that country. (Cheers.) While we might be able to leave Irak under normal circumstances after discharging our obligations without loss of prestige, no words could be strong enough, to exaggerate the harm this country could do to its reputation in Irak and throughout the East if we were now to scuttle like frightened curs afraid of the sight of our shadow. (Cheers.) Irak could not hope to stand by itself, and before long the Turkish flag would fly again over the capital. Were we to leave the Christian minorities to the fate which must inevitably be theirs? He hoped the Government, while standing fast by their bond with Irak, would at the same time extend a hand of .friendship and conciliation to Turkey. It would not be apiiss if at this stage we sent a diplomatic representative of high standing, not to Constantinople, but to Angora. There were only two forces encouraging the Turks to foolish actions; one was the agents of the Russian Bolsheviks, and the other, moved, no doubt, by the different motives, was a section of our own Press. That was a marriage bed which even the most hardened must blush to look upon—(laughter)—and he. hoped it would clear that section '-of the Press did not in any sense represent thevoice of this country. (Cheers.) If, as he did not believe would happen, our relations with the Turk in the near future in any sense went awry, then the responsibility must rest in large measure upon those organs of the Press who had been carrying on such unscrupulous propaganda. There were some sacrifices which could not in honour be made even upon the altars of circulation. (Cheers.) He hoped that the, Government would extend the hand of friendship to the Turk/and that the House would give unanimous approval to the decision of the Government. SANCTITY OF CONTRACT. Sir A. Mond (Carmarthen, L.) said that no one in the House was anxious to do anything that would look like any repudiation of the Council of the League o£ Nations, If we took such a step the whole authority of the League ever afterwards; would be diminished, and our own position in all League discussions would be very much suspect. (Cheers.) He could not take the responsibility of voting against the decision taken by the Government— (cheers)—but the British taxpayers** and people were entitled to know how far this mandate, obligation for twenty-five yean arose out of existing treaties, and how far it waa a new obligation. Irak, with sufficient capital and a stable Government, might become a very valuable asset in the future, and we should not lightly throw away an opportunity of giving the guidance, protection, and security wnich we alone could afford to Eastern countries in this important part of the world. The British Empire wag never built np on a policy of running away— (cheers)—and'he would never give a vote that would in any way jeopardise, endanger, or miTiimiaa our 'great Empire, (Cheers.) OUR NEW RESPONSIBILITIES. Mr. Amery began with a review, very necessary to a proper perspective, of <*be development of Irak from a costly conquest to an embryo State, aided and aiding in co-operative administration. The British policy had brought peace and contentment to Irak, and thecfiarge had been, reduced from £32,000,000 in 1920-21 to £4,----750,000 last year, of which £2,000,000 was expenditure on the Air' Force, which would be necessary, Irak or no Irak. Irak already paid for its,civil services, police, and native army. In" a few years it would be no charge on us at all, in spite of a heavy burden in respect of the Ottoman. Debt. The most important part of the speech was a redefinition of our new responsibilities towards Irak. These are the same obligations to defend here as now exists, modified by the new measure of responsibility for her defence falling on the League as a result of the award, until Irak becomes a member of the League. Thereafter, the general responsibility will be the League's, modified by any special responsibility falling upon us as the result of continued co-operation in administration* if any. Finally, the award did give a basis for future negotiations with Turkey, impossible sol long as # the two theses were in undecided; and direct conflict. • WHAT IS THE ALTERNATIVE. "The policy of the Government with regard to Irak," says the "Morning Post," "is in harmony with its relations with the League of Nations, and of a piece with the whole principle of policy in th« Near" East.: ,A withdrawal from Irak would be not only a "breach of faith with the League* of Nations, but -would jeopardise settled Government in Persia, the Balkans, Egypt, and beyond. While we have every sympathy with those who honestly fear the extension of British obligations in Irak, we wov:ld ask, What is the alternative? Were tte Turks, to occupy Mosul, they would reach Basra in tw» years or so. The acts already committed by the Turks on the frontier sufficiently indicate what would happen wert they permitted to exercise further jurisdiction in that region. At the same tim« we trust that the Turkish Government will reciprocate the overtures of the British Government, and we hope that, at Lord Parmoor suggested in the House of Lords, friendly relations with Turkey may. conduce to peace on her frontiers." A VITAL TEST. The "Times" points put that at present the real cost of the Irak mandate to the taxpayer is little over £2,000,000, and Mr. Amery has given good grounds for the belief thrft this liability will be reduced to vanishing point in the near future. "But the'main argument that an extension of the mandate implies an unjustifiable extension of British political commitments justifies and invites the reply that our commitments and responsibiliities would increase rather than diminish were our mandate to be abandoned. ■ It ia generally admitted that a premature withdrawal from Irak would bring about a state of internal confusion probably complicated by external attack. As thtt Prime Minister pointed out, this country, having once undertaken a mandate, is not entitled to throw up that mandate and leave chaos in its place. A rejection of the application of the principle affirmed at Locarno to the question of the Irak boundary would give the other members of the League of Nations ample cause for scepticism as to the value of our professed desire to strengthen the LeagueTo weaken the authority of the League in the Mosul question is to weaken it in questions still more vital to the future of this reentry. Meanwhile, as both Mr. Baldwin and "Lord Cecil pointed out, our commitments are. emphatically not unlimited. We have undertaken them, not for a definite twenty-five years, but until Irak, has made sufficient advance to join the League of Nations. Nor is there the slightest ground for the charge that Ministers have broken any previous pledges on the subject. The Prime Minister's exposure of that persistent myth was not the least important point in a remarkably clear and concise statement of policy." IF WE ABANDONED THE CHRISTIANS. "Let us repeat," says the "Spectator," "that we ourselves regretted at the be* ginning! that we accepted the responsibility for Irak, but the heavy part of the .expenditure is ended, and in the meantime we have undoubtedly become responsible for the unhappy people who have put themselves under our charge. There is only one. safe and humane policy for us now, and that is to do what the League wishes us to do. If trouble with Turkey comes—and we do not think the risks of our policy are. in themselves, or in any immediate sense,, greater than the risks of any other policy—we shall have the League on our side, and shall be fairly entitled to look to it for help. If we ignore the League and abandon the Christians we shall have lost both our friends and our honour. Experience has shown over and over again that the worst possible policy in dealing with the Turks is to bargain with, them cynically. If we had done that they would have never stopped trying to squeeze us. They have never felt an enduring resentment^ against us for trying to save oppressed minorities . and denouncing barbarity. That is the way in which they, expect ns to behave." 85, Fleet street. / .