Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qlrfm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T19:16:38.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Reconciliation of Conflicting Colonial Policy Aims: Acceptance of the League of Nations Mandate System

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 May 2009

Ernst B. Haas
Get access

Extract

That politics, and especially international politics, is the art of compromise is a cliché of ancient standing. This, however, does not deprive it of a certain value if we make it our task to examine the factors of ideology and interest which were responsible for the introduction of radical innovations into the structure of international organization. The story of the acceptance of the Mandate System is a case in point.

Type
Articles
Information
International Organization , Volume 6 , Issue 4 , November 1952 , pp. 521 - 536
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 1952

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Hall, H. Duncan, Mandates, Dependencies and Trusteeship (Washington, 1948), p. 3Google Scholar.

2 Bunche, Ralph J., in Department of State, Bulletin, XIII, p. 1037–1044Google Scholar; New Republic, October 28, 1946, p. 542–544.

3 An exception to this generalization is furnished by the argument of Robert Lansing who urged that Anglo-French acceptance of the Mandate System was due only to the desire to avoid formal annexations of German colonies so as not to give the Germans a claim for reducing their reparation obligations. The Peace Negotiations (New York, 1921), p. 156–160Google Scholar. No support for this motivation has been found, though the claim is repeated by Stoyanovsky, J., La Thérie Gén érale des Mandats Internationaux (Paris, 1925), p. 13–18Google Scholar.

4 Manchester Guardian, May 10, 25, 31, June 16, July 2, 5, 1917; October 24, 1918.

5 House of Commons Parliamentary Debates. Official Reports (Hansard), 5th Series, vol. 93, col. 1640–41, 1682–83, 1712–13; vol. 95, col 1105; vol. 96, col. 1515; vol. 100, col. 2220; vol. 107, col. 1055; vol. 112, col. 215–16, 191–192; vol. 116, col. 1668–69; vol. 117, col. 1227–28.

6 The Liberal Magazine, January 1918, p. 620–622.

7 Ibid., March 1918, p. 87–88. Also see Independent Labor Party, Report of the Annual Conference, April 1917, April 1918.

8 George, David Lloyd, War Memoirs (Boston, 1934), vol. IV, p. 22–23Google Scholar.

9 George, David Lloyd, Memoirs of the Peace Conference (New Haven, 1939), vol. I, p. 32–33, 66–71, 367–368Google Scholar.

10 See, e.g., the statement in Hansard, vol. 93, col. 1701, 05 16, 1917Google Scholar; also vol. 97, col. 1050, vol. 103, col. 2194–5.

11 Ibid., vol. 110, col. 1094.

12 Journal Officiel, de la Chambre, Debats, 08 1917, p. 2265Google Scholar.

13 Reoue politique et parlementaire, August 10, 1915, p. 206. The article urged inter nationalization in order not to give French clericalism a fresh impetus. Through the acquisition of the Near Eastern shrines and new Christian populations an increase in the power of the Church was feared.

14 George, Lloyd, op. cit., vol. I, p. 349–363Google Scholar.

15 Sykes-Picot Agreement, confirmed by Grey-Cambon exchange of letters, May 9, 1916, Article 1, as cited in de V. Loder, John, The Truth about Mesopotamia, Palestine and Syria (London, 1923), Appendix IGoogle Scholar.

16 Ireland, Philip W., Iraq (New York, 1938), Appendix I and IV, p. 457–460Google Scholar.

17 Ronaldshay, , Lord Curzon (London, 1928), vol. III, p. 148–161Google Scholar. Bell, Lady (ed.), The Letters of Gertrude Bell (New York, 1927), vol. II, 11 1, 1920, p. 571Google Scholar. George, Lloyd, op. cit., vol. II, p. 739Google Scholar.

18 Lawrence, T. E., Oriental Assembly (London, 1939), p. 95–96Google Scholar and Seven Pillars of Wisdom (London, 1935), p. 276, footnoteGoogle Scholar. Lawarence, A. W. (ed.), T. E. Lawrence By His Friends (New York, 1937), p. 104Google Scholar. Bell, , op. cit., vol. II, p. 468, p. 527Google Scholar.

19 Churchill, Winstom, The Aftermath (New York, 1929), p. 394–397Google Scholar.

20 Lesile, Shane, Mark Sykes, His Life and Letters (London, 1923), p. 248, 253–257, 272–275 (my italics)Google Scholar.

21 For the economy argument see: article in Nineteenth Century, November 1922, The New Europe, March 18, 1920, and Hansard, debate on October 30, 1919 and February 23, 1920. The strategic argument is presented in Foster, Henry A., The Making of Modem Iraq (Norman, Oklahoma, 1935), p. 43 and p. 101–103Google Scholar. The Anatolian situation is analyzed by Cumming, H. H., Franco-British Rivalry in the Post-War Near East (New York, 1938), p. 83–95Google Scholar. Lloyd George, for instance, could argue on March 20, 1919, that if the King-Crane Commission inquiry should show that the Iraqis did not want a British “mandate,” “they [United Kingdom] would be free to consider whether they would take a mandate elsewhere in Turkey.” Baker, R. S., Woodrow Wilson and World Settlement (New York, 1922), vol. III, p. 18Google Scholar. Also see Ronaldshay, , op. cit., vol. III, p. 212–225Google Scholar.

22 Benoist, Charles, La Question Méditerranéenne (Paris, 1928), p. 164Google Scholar. See also Journal Officiel, February 14, 1919, p. 1729; Emile Aublé, Bagdad, son Chemin de Fer, son Importance, son Avenir (introduction by Herriot), Dudon, Paul, La Syrie et la France (Paris, 1915)Google Scholar, and Gontaut-Biron, , Comment la Frances'est installée en Syrie (Paris, 1919)Google Scholar, for similar demands and opinions.

23 Baker, , op. cit., p. 1–9Google Scholar. Miller, D. H., My Diary at the Peace Conference of Paris, vol. VII, p. 169–170Google Scholar. See also Georges Picot's introduction to Nolde, E., L'Irak origines historiques et situation internationale, (Paris, 1934)Google Scholar, Which makes clear that Picot and his government regarded the mandate over Syria as a means “to sacrifice certain appearances in order to assure herself of useful real advantages.”

24 Journal Officiel, April 28, 29, 1920, p. 545.

25 Ibid., June 25, 1920, p. 2444–2445.

26 The Liberal Magazine, July and October, 1918. Manchester Guardian, May 23, 1917. Churchill, , op. cit., p. 150–153Google Scholar. George, Lloyd, op. cit., vol. I. p. 69–70, 416Google Scholar.

27 See the statement of General Page-Croft on February 11, 1919, Hansard, vol. 112, col. 85.

28 Miller, D. H., The Drafting of the Covenant (New York, 1928), vol. I, p. 106–107Google Scholar.

29 Churchill, M, op. cit., p. 151–153Google Scholar. George, Lloyd, op. cit., vol. I, p. 342–344Google Scholar. Miller, D. H., “Origin of the Mandates System,” Foreign Affairs, 01 1928, p. 286–289Google Scholar.

30 Ibid., p. 281.

31 Miller, , The Drafting of the Covenant, op. cit., vol. II, p. 87–89, 103–104, 106–117, 151–153, 194–225, 272–273Google Scholar.