Wairarapa Daily Times [Established Over 50 Years.] TUESDAY, 15th MARCH, 1932. EMANCIPATION OF IRAQ.

Wairarapa Daily Times, 15 March 1932, Page 4

Wairarapa Daily Times [Established Over 50 Years.] TUESDAY, 15th MARCH, 1932. EMANCIPATION OF IRAQ.

Important principles are formulated in the report of the Permanent Mandates Commission to the Council of the League on the proposal for the emancipation of Iraq from-the British mandate. It should be noted that the author of the proposal was the British Government, a circumstance which should discomfort those who are never tired of denouncing “British Imperialistic greed.” By an I agreement of 1926 Britain undertook to recommend the admission of Iraq to the League in 1932. This was deemed to be the most practical, and, indeed, the only legal procedure whereby the mandate could be terminated, adhesion to the League being a sign of national independence. Of course, all that Britain could do was to make the recommendation, accompanied by any observations that she might see fit to offer. Whether it should be adopted rested with the League, which is entitled to insist that certain conditions essential to membership are satisfied. Britain’s comments on these were entirely favourable to Iraq, the first mandatory to qualify for graduation out of a status of tutelage which is beneficial rather than irksome. The mandatory system was designed to comply with the Wilsonian axiom of “no annexations.” The doctrine of trusteeship is a commonplace in law. But it was previously unknown in international jurisprudence, under which responsibility for the conduct of the administration of territory is associated with sovereignty. For this reason, no doubt, many critics asserted that the system was merely annexation disguised. The mandatory Powers, it was alleged, while paying lip service to the academic theory that they were stewards, and no more, actually esteemed themselves to be lords and masters who would brook no interference from outside, and whose policy would be that of the one embodied in the saying of the French monarch: “I am here; here I stay.” To this allegation two obvious answers can be supplied. One is found in the vigilance with which the Mandates Commssion executes its supervisory duties, and the readiness with which the mandatories acquiesce in its suggestions, embarrassing though these may sometimes be. The other is plain to read in the terms of the Covenant itself, by virtue of which the charters and the functions of the several mandates are defined. The ceded possessions subjected to mandate belonged to three categories, a clear distinction between which was drawn. Class A, so-called, consists of communities in a stage of

development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognised, subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. Classes B and C consist of less advanced societies. Iraq is in Class A, and Britain’s efforts have been devoted to the task of so training her charge that the latter would be able, to stand alone as soon as possible. The Commission holds that they have been successful, and credit is due no less to Britain for her fruitful labours than to Iraq for her aptitude.