The Timaru Herald FRIDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1925. THE MOSUL AWARD.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXIII, 18 December 1925, Page 8

The Timaru Herald FRIDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1925. THE MOSUL AWARD.

Strong' disapproval of the decision of the Imperial Oabineh to accept at the invitation of the League of JN a lions-, a further term of mandatory responsibility for the welfare of Iraq, in face of Turkey’s openly -ex pres sed hostility, will doubtless, be voiced, by an influential section of the press of London. Months ago it was stated quite openly by Lord Islington, who was one time Governor of New Zealand, that “it may be confidently affirmed that the great majority of people are desirous ot seeing Great Britain extricated at an early date from the cost and embarrassment attached to our present connection with Iraq, ana there is little doubt that the nation’s anxiety to see a withdrawal from our commitments has been increased rather than lessoned since the Prime Minister’s’ announcement in 1923.” Early in October Mr Baldwin made a clearly-expressed pronouncement regarding the Imperial Government’s intentions and obligations in Mesopotamia. To this the “Daily Mail” replied:

The Prime Minister insisted on hib devotion to peace, but his declaration that Mr Amery’s action in the Mosul affair has the full approval of the Government is a fresh cause for concern. Is Mr Amery to be to provoke a conflict in the Middle East with a great military Power (for such Turkey is) at the very moment when Mr Churchill is cutting down the ouv lay on .the Army? This will seem the very negation of sound policy to the public. For there, is no reason to quarrel with Turkey at all, when it is well known to all in touch with the Mosul affair that the Turks are only too anxious to negotiate and settle the disputo in a friendly way. The nation wants to get out of Mesopotamia, other than the Basra region, as soon as possible. It has neither the men npr tht money to hold and defend that arid and unhealthy region.

It may be said in reply to this criticism, as the British Ambassador in Berlin said to the German Imperial Chancellor when the destiny of civilisation hung in the balance on the day before fateful August 4, 1914, that Britain does not count the cost when the honour of the nation is at stake. It should not be forgotten that the legal right of Iraq to the province of Mosul is exactly as good as her legal right to any other part, of her territory. Mr Baldwin lias consistently argued _ that the Government’s policy in .Iraq is working out successfully, hut the, point the critics should not overlook is that Britain has no light Treaty obligations in Mesopotamia. The Colonial Secretary (Colonel Amery) made a special trip to Iraq in order to fortify himself, and the Imperial Cabinet,, with first-hand knowledge of the actual conditions prevailing. Colonel Amery returned to London, where he made the official announcement that in the opinion of all whom lie had met, British and Irakiis alike, the one tiring necessary for the future development of the country was an assurance that the British Government would carry out the undertaking implied in the protocol .of the present treaty and replace it by a further treaty giving the' Iraq Government the benefit of the help' that it. received from British advisers during- the past years. The same point of view obviously impressed itself upon the Commissioners sent out by the League of N ations. It is well then, for the critics to hear in mind, the outstanding fact, that in this matter Britain is not dealing alone with her’ diplomatic, political, and economic interests, but with the obligations of honour. Moreover, the conditional acceptance of the invitation of the League to continue mandatory responsibility for the protection and development of Iraq, emphasises Britain's bona tides, and clearly indicates that no territorial aggrandisement or commercial advantages actuated British statesmen in evolving- the present policy relating to Mosul. Hence there can only be one possible answer to the critics., namely that Britain decided to continue to co-operate with the Government of Iraq to ensure the stability and progress of the. country until such time as that help was no. longer necessary, because to have given any othei answer would have fatally prejudiced the cause of Iraq before the. League' and would have been a breach of trust, towards those 'whose cause Britain is defending, land would have -been inconsistent I with the policy which has been j pursued in Iraq by all British i Governments since the mandate was first conceded. It may have saved the Imperial Treasury a. few millions to have withdrawn from Mesopotamia, but such a lino of actipn, or rather inaction _ would have been inconsistent with the. obligations of British honour and would have resulted in. complete chaos created by Turkish aggression in that unsettled part of the country, with consequences, resulting there which no one' can foresee.