THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. MONDAY, AUGUST 10, 1925. THE FUTURE OF MOSUL.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXII, Issue 19092, 10 August 1925, Page 8

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. MONDAY, AUGUST 10, 1925. THE FUTURE OF MOSUL.

The commission which tho League of Nations appointed to investigate and report on frontier questions in dispute between Turkey and Britain, acting for tho State of Irak, has issued its finding. Its task was greater than that of defining a boundary; for the fato of a whole vilayet, that of Mosul, is at stake. During tho negotiations for peace at Lausanne, Turkey claimed tho whole of Mosul. Britain suggested a boundary lino a little further north than the old administrative frontier of Mosul. This might seem like an attack on Turkish territory, but the reason for it is made plain by a glance at the map. The frontier Britain favours is a river line for part of its length, and for the rest a mountain chain. This would make for Irak a very convenient fence between herself and Turkey. At Lausanne it proved impossible to reach an agreement. Tho treaty was signed with the point reserved for arbitrament by the League of Nations. Tho commission which has just reported represented the League in an inquiry held on the ground. It consisted of three members, one from Belgium, one from Sweden, and one from Hungary. The appointment of the Hungarian was criticised at tho time it was made, there being a straight-out objection to an ex-enemy Bubject serving as arbitrator in an after-war settlement. Now there has appeared a report which will not be received with unqualified approval by either Britain or Turkey. It is in flat opposition to plainly-expressed opinion in Bagdad, while it will be greeted with dismay by the town of Mosul, whatever the views of it entertained in the remainder of the vilayet. The town expressed its aversion to Turkish suzerainty while the commission was there, the demonstration reaching the point of bloodshed. The report recommends that the vilayet of Mosul should remain with Irak provided tho League of Nations retains control for 25 years. Since Irak is mandated territory this seems an innocent requirement, Actually it is not. After having accepted tho mandate, Britain acquiesced in the establishment of a kingdom with Feisul Ibn Hussein of the Hedjaz as King of Irak. Subsequently a treaty was drawn up, granting to Irak independent administration under British advice. It is not yet entirely effective owing to delay over ratification, but once it comes fully into forco Britain will not bo responsible for the country in the full sense implied by mandatory control. Therefore the stipulation that Irak must remain under the control of tho League of Nations if Mosul is to bo retained may easily conflict with this treaty arrangement. The cabled summary of the report does not make the position clear, but judging by the one piece of comment which is forthcoming it appears to be assumed that Britain will be called upon to represent the League fully if the stipulation is accepted in the final settlement. The alternative, the handing of all Mosul over to Turkey, will not be acceptable to Britain. For strategic reasons, and from considerations of trade and transport, Britain has vigorously opposed any such solution of the' difficulties attendant on frontier adjustment. Opinion in Irak is overwhelmingly against it. Tho mere suggestion by the commission that there is more stability at Angora than at Bagdad is not likely to meet the objections. The report is purely advisory. Final decision rests with the League itself. It is certain therefore that the controversy is not stilled by the finding, but merely given a new turn. Since there is disagreement about the fate of a large and important stretch of territory, a natural question is what the people most nearly concerned, the population of Mosul Vilayet, feel or desire. That, however, is a point by no means easy to determine. The people of the vilayet number roughly 050,000. Among them are some four races and five or more religions. Languages, occupations and habits of life are widely different. Very few are Turkish in blood or language. The Kurds arc fairly numerous. They are not especially fond of either the Arab, as represented by the Government of i King Feisul, or of the Turk. The aefc-

tied population, either agricultural or trading, desires a strong stable government enforcing law and upholding justice. Thus union with Irak, backed by Britain, appeals to them. The nomadic tribes would prefer no government at all, or in the alternative a feeble administration, so that they might remain a law unto themselves. Between tho two are other sections with various desires, and a largo and inarticulate mass, appreciating the points at issue very little, and quite incapable of giving a decided opinion one way or the other. It may bo mentioned in passing that there are some 15,000 Jews in the vilayet, and that two or three years ago all the Jews in Irak asked to be declared British subjects, so their attitude seema to bo ono of dislike to Turkish or Arab rule. Out of this welter of conflicting interests and prejudice!! thore seems little chance of obtaining any opinion which could bo more than sectional. Tho commission has evidently recognised the difficulty of its whole task. ,It postponed tho rendering of its report several times. Now it has produced recommendations which cannot be described as decisive in character. Appointed to determino as difficult and complex a question as has arisen in the after-war settlement, the commissioners, it is to bo feared, have done little save sharpen controversy.