SHOEDERING NEW BURDENS

New Zealand Times, Volume LII, Issue 12323, 18 December 1925, Page 7

SHOEDERING NEW BURDENS

BRITAIN’S NEW COMMITMENT IN IRAK UNPOPULAR “PUBLIC HAS BEEN DECEIVED” FRIENDLY UNDERSTANDING WITH TURKEY URGED BY ‘TIMES” The announcement that Britain will again shoulder the burden of the Irak mandate (including Mosul) has had a mixed reception, because of the common impression that Britain would drop her responsibilities in Irak as soon as possible. “The Times” urges that a friendlyunderstanding with Turkey should be sought. Turkey has officially protested against the League’s award.

(Sydney "Sun" Cable.) GENEVA, December 16. Official. —The Council o£ the Deague of Nations has awarded Mosul to Britain conditionally on Britain’s agreeing to ai 25 years’ mandate, terminable earlier if Jrak enters the League. The Brussels line will constitute the Turkish frontier. The decision is operative within six months, provided Britain fulfils the conditions stipulated. Sir Austen Chamberlain, and Mr Leopold Amery were largely responsible for the insertion of the phrase permitting the termination of the mandate whenever Irak joins the League as an independent nation. This is regarded as most important, in view of Mr Amery’s repeated declaration that Irak should be, self-supporting within four years. Australian and N.Z Cable association The Council unanimously approved the committee’s Mosul award. The president read a letter, in which Tewfik Bey protested on behalf of the Turkish Government, and maintained that Turkey’s sovereign rights to Mosul must remain complete and undiminished. NEWSPAPERS CRITICAL Australian and N.Z. Cable Association. (Received December 17,- 8.5 p.m.) December 17. The Iraq, decision is given a mixed reception in the Press. ‘‘The Times” stresses its opinion that the six months in which Britain must make a treaty with Iraq should be utilised in an effort to reach a friendly understanding with Turkev. It advocates sending "a wise Englishman, familiar with the East,” to Angora. The “Daily Express,” “Daily Mail.” and “Daily Herald” find it impossible to reconcile Sir Austen Chamberlain’s welcoming of the decision with Mr Baldwin’s pronouncements in the House of Commons. The “Herald” says: “If business men want the oil of Mosul, let them pay for it.” The “Express” states that the public has been deceived, and knows it. The “Mail” says: “When the public discovers the nature of the new burden there will he universal indignation.” The “Morning Post” comments: “We again express the hope that the Turks will be impressed with the danger of lending too ready an ear to the promises and inducements of conces-sion-hunters.” The “Daily News” states: “What Beams to be contemplated is a repeti-

tian of the history of Egypt, with oil instead of Sudan ootton, and without a Suez Canal.” IMPORTANT WORK DONE Heater's Telegram. GENEVA, December 16. Sir Austen Chamberlain, in an interview, said that three things made the present meeting of the League of Nations important. First, there was the settlement of the Greco-Bulgarian dispute which might have had ca 1 imitous consequences. Secondly, the Mosul settlement, which Britain accepted and welcomed,though he at present was not aware of the entire terms. The decision in regard to tile Irak mandate of 25 yeaTs was the maximum mandate, which was to cease the moment independent Irak joined the League. AN OFFER TO TURKEY It had been impossible to hold conversations with the Turks, as there was no common ground. “We are anxious,” he added, “to create good relations, and if Turkey is now willing to start from the decision of the League we shall he happy to converse with her.” Thirdly, the deposit of the Locarno Agreement with the Secretariat would itself render the session a memorable one. “FAR BEYOND EXPECTATIONS’ 4 , VISCOUNT GREY’S VIEW. (Sydney "Son" Cable.) LONDON, December 16. Viscount Grey, addressing the League of Nations Union, said that it was now manifest that an alert organised public opinion existed in Britain behind (the League’s policy. If ever Britain were again engaged in a foreign dispute the world, would know that the British public insist on the , utilisation of the League’s machinery. Germany’s expectation was that its disarmament would come in a few years, not as a humiliating result of the Versailles Treaty, but as part of the normal conditions of both Germany and her neighbours. ’ He was of the opinion that the grip the League was obtaining in international affairs was beyond expectations. The. union’s existence, however, was essential, because none of the British political parties either had the time ortho energy to devote to the furtherance of the League’s cause.