The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1926-02-07
BY H. M. wIcKs.

BY n. NJ. WiCKS.
THE system of mandates establish
4 ed by the league of nations is a
new aform of colonial exploitation.
Eleven of these mandates have been
granted by the league in Asia, Africa
and the Pacific Ocean. They are the
spoils of the iInperialist war. The
theory of the mandates system is that
the league is responsible for the grad
ual uplifting of the inhabitants of
these areas until they become cap
able Of self-government," but assigns
the responsibility for the enforcement
of each mandate to given nation In
practice the nation holding the man
date exercises the same despotic rule
that is applied to colonies gained thru
individual conquest
As an important part of the league
of nations, the world court plays a
major role in this new form of colon
ial exploitation The classic formula
ton of the relationship of the court
to the mandates is contained in article
26 of the mandate granted Great
Britain in Palestine, which provides
that:
The mandatory agrees that if any
dispute shall arise between the man.
datOry and any other member of the
league of nations relating to the in
depreciation or the application Of the
provisions of the mandate; such dis
pute, if it cannot be settled by ne
gotiation, shall be submitted to the
permanent court of international
justice.
Similar provision is embodied in
each of the II mandates. Like all
other articles of the Versailles con-
spiracy and the various treaties and
covenants based upon that instrument
of world imperialism, the clause is
vague and can be interpreted in any
manner convenient for the powers
that dominate the court and the
league.
The MosuI Decision. -
ONE of the British mandates is the
~ Kingdom of Irak formerly Meso-
potamia). The Angora republic (Tur-
key) extends to the borders of Irak.
In negotiations being conducted be-
tween. Britain and Turkey at Lau-
same in 1928, no agreement could be
reached regarding the boundary be-
tween Irak and Turkey. The disputed
territory is known as Mosul, and is
supposed to contain oil in great guam
titles. Failing to reach an agree
ment on the question Of Mosul oil
which Britain claimed for Irak, in or
der thru its mandate to add to the
power OF the British oil trust, the
treaty was finally signed on July "a,
1923, and instead OF settling the ques-
ton at that time article three Of the
treaty Of Lausanne provided that the
frontier between TurkC.y and Irak
shall be laid down in friendly arrange
ment to be concluded between Turkey
and Great Britain within nine
months" In case Of no agreement be-
ing reached within that time The case
was to be referred to the council Of
the league of nations.
Decisions on such questions accord
Ing to the covenant of the league must
be unanimous. With Turkey having
a vote in the league there was no pos.
.sibility of decision being reached
that was. detrimental to her interests.
AT least that was the Interpretation
formerly placed upon the rights of
members Of the league and on that
basis Turkey placed her head in the
moose.
When, after nine months, the case
could not be decided for. the simple
reason that Britain was determined
to get control Of the Mosul oil fields,
1t was referred to the council
Of the league of nations. Turkey then