BRITAIN AND IRAK.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIX, Issue 18180, 28 August 1922, Page 7

BRITAIN AND IRAK.

TROUBLE OVER MANDATE. KING FEISAL HOSTILE. RESIGNATION OF CABINET. By Telesrauh-—Press Association—Copyright. (Received 8.5 p.m.) A. and N.Z. LONDON. Aug. 26. A Ministerial crisis has arisen in Bagdad over the signing of a treaty between Britain and the new kingdom of Irak (Mesopotamia), on the lines of the British mandate. The Cabinet, which was in favour of signing the treaty, has resigned, as King Feisal, who was operated on for appendicitis yesterday, favours the Extremists, who are opposed to signing the treaty and thereby formally accepting tho British mandate. An interesting view of the situation in Mesopotamia from the detached standpoint of an American was recently contributed to the Chicago Tribune by a special correspondent in Bagdad. So many elements enter into the political situation in Irak, and the internal and international status of the present Government is so unstable, ho wrote, that any appreciation of the conditions of today may not bo worth expressing a week from now. It is hard to tell what the masses of the Irak population want, and whether it will be beneficial for them if they get it. In Bagdad there is no doubt as to the trend of sentiment. Bagdad is not all of Irak, however, and the feeling between the Bagdadi and the tribesmen is such that blood-letting always has been frequent. Nor is there any reason tc believe that the millennium has come in this part of the world and that the lion of the desert is ready to lie down with the lamb of the town- Or if he is, he wants most of the blankets.

Here in Bagdad everyone, from the King down, is open in his expression of his views regarding the mandate. The Eagdadi wants an independent Irak. How much of his desire is dictated by patriotism and how much from hope of personal gain and political favour is hard to judge. The Eagdadi townsman and many of the lawyers and professional classes in Basra openly declare that they will not accept a British mandate over Irak.

"We are perfectly willing to have the advice and help of the British, but not British control, ' they say. "We need and want British assistance, bat if the word mandate means more than advice and aid, such a solution of our national problems is unacceptable. We have seen what mandates are in other parts.of the world—in Syria, Palestine, and the German colonies in Africa, and, thank you very much, but we aren't having any." [ The British Government has promised us ' our independence without any leadingstrings. But it is presenting us with a : treaty in which it retains absolute control of all the important functions of • government—foreign relations, defence. ' and finance. And it insists on the man- ' date. That is no more independence than ; was outr status under the Turks." So says the Bagdadi townsman. The ' British recoznise the existence of his group, but they assert that the great , majority of the country people, the tribesmen and sheiks, are just as firm in their ' support of British control, and just as insistent that the mandate should continue. I cannot give personal evidence on their attitude, for I have talked with only a few of the tribal leaders, and these have expressed contrary ideas. The i opposition of the King to the, mandate I j has been a big surprise for the British. On the refusal of his Cabinet, backed by Feisal himself, to sign a treaty with! Britain, which recognised her mandatory powers, he was gently reminded by Mr. Winston Churchill of what happened in Syria, and a strong intimation was given him' that the same thin? might be expected here. However, .Feisal, at least outwardty, has not changed his opinions. Put here by the British as a miippet whom they expected' to control, FeisaPs show of strength has surprised everyone, and none more than the mwi who expected to be his masters. Perhaps they are just, giving him enough rope to hang himself. Feisal is' not over-poputer noliticallv. and wbnt little real popularity he has attained in Bagdad has been due. in no small measure, to his firm stand on the question of Irak's independence. He pees what his people—or at least the Bagdadis —want him to do, and h« knows what the British expect. He is between the horns of as puzzling a dilemma as has faced a pier in the East. On the one hand. British threats to remove him if he does not siVn on the dotted line; on the other, definite assurance from the official that no otter statm? than indeoendence and a constitutional Government for Irak will be accepted by «tbe country.