THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1932 INDEPENDENCE FOR IRAK

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 21297, 26 September 1932, Page 8

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1932 INDEPENDENCE FOR IRAK

By a decision of the League Council, Irak assumes full nationhood, passing out of the list of mandated territories and attaining membership in the League. This event has an interest for reasons beyond the mere fact of the emergence of another Asiatic State and its attachment to the most representative international body in the world. Historic imagination glows at the thought of the Mesopotamia of ancient times, its very name reminiscent of a location central in many an old story of clashing sovereignties and frequent subjection beneath their, crossing and recrossing hosts, now takingrank amid modern peoples and called to a place of mutual counsel with them. After passing into a shadowy and inglorious backwater, seemingly as an ultimate catastrophe of subdual, it came to hope again through the recurrence of war, involved once more in a strife thrust upon it by circumstances rather than inclination; for its enfranchisement is very largely a gift of the selfsame struggle that almost as strangely produced the welcoming League. Before 1914, however, Irak coveted freedom from thraldom to Turkey, and British guidance even then brought inspiration. But nationalist ambitions were checked until Germany, bent on command of the raw-material resources of the region, followed the exaction of concessions by forcing Turkey to side with the Central Powers in their challenge to Europe. Then, their cause lost, Irak came under the wing of the new alliance for peace and took fresh heart. Problems darkened the outlook —some relating to neighbours and some to quarrels within the border newly defined —but they have so nearly reached solution that tutelage is no longer necessary. With the aid of the League in another capacity than that of overseer, what remains of difficulty is expected soon to be outgrown. The new status has been gradually earned. Strictly speaking, Irak has not

been a mandated territory. When the Allied Supreme Council met in 1920 at San Rerao, to select mandatories for the forfeited dependencies of Turkey, it was natural to consider the future of Irak, and Britain was accordingly chosen. But before the terms of the mandate were defined by the League Council, the British Government openly stated that its judgment favoured so early a granting of independence to this country, fallen into its hands, that the issue of a mandate w r ould prove unnecessary. This view was put to the Council and endorsed by it. As the people of Irak themselves, with the concurrence of Britain, wished to have a national Government under an Arab ruler, there was good reason for revising the original intention. However, the boundary problems and a risk of internal divisions, based on religious differences of Mohammedans, Jews, Christians and

others, made advisable some immediate oversight. As a means of this, favoured by Irak, a treaty of alliance with Britain was concluded in 1922, and had the approval of the League Council. Certain subsidiary agreements were similarly endorsed. In them all were embodied principles according with mandate responsibility. Hence the virtual administration of Irak as a mandated territory. The position has been anomalous, but the expectation of early independence has assisted to make it more or less acceptable to all parties. A limited monarchy on the model of Egypt's—a king, a small nominated senate and a popular chamber of deputies—has been associated with an arrangement for British advisers in provinces and smaller divisions. Always, however, there has been a clear understand-

ing that independence would be granted as soon as conditions became favourable. King Feisul and his Government have openly wished to see the quasi-mandatory relation displaced by independence and a free treaty with Britain. After the boundary questions had been settled with the help of a League commission, a new treaty was made in 1925, again with the understanding of its early supersession—when the anomaly would be removed and the

immediate accession of Irak to League membership would prevent any break in helpful oversight. For more than a year there has been frequent reference to this pending change. Britain has consistently expressed agreement with it. Other Powers, nevertheless, have hesitated, mainly on the ground of protecting minorities that the policy of the Irak Government seemed likely to oppress. Signs of restiveness have appeared among the Assyrian Christians and the Kurds. Last year the Mandates Commission considered the conditions on" which ! the existing order could be safely ended. In the end it was agreed that there must be a settled Government capable of maintaining essential public services, that this Government must also be capable of maintaining territorial integrity and political independence as well as domestic peace, that it must have adequate financial resources and machinery of law and justice. The opinion was expressed in some quarters — Signor Grandi spoke with emphases for Italy—that the projected independence should be without any qualifying reference to a treaty of alliance with Britain; that is, it should be complete, any continuance of treaty relations being left to the participants to settle. The point is theoretical rather than practical, for the maintenance of treaty relations with Britain is manifestly sought by Irak. In praising Britain's guidance of the new State toward independence, the League Council has put on record what is widely known to be true. The British Government has fulfilled its obligations under the old order, while urging that it should cease, and Irak is assured that these good offices will be available as sought in the new experience now begun..