The Dominion. WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 29, 1920. AMERICA AND MANDATES

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 80, 29 December 1920, Page 4

The Dominion. WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 29, 1920. AMERICA AND MANDATES

A report from Paris that the United States is claiming a voicein the settlement of mandates is of greater interest than is implied in the cabled comment that her attention inevitably will be directed to tho fact that she cannot claim to exert any right under the Treaty of Versailles while she has hot ratified that instrument. It is quite obvious that so long as she refuses to accept any responsibility in regard to mandates, America by her own act forfeits any voice in their settlement. She evidently cannot expect to intcrpoße in the treatment and control of mandate territories merely in the hope of advancing her own trading or other interests. The position in theserespects is so clear "that the Paris report, should it prove to be authentic, will distinctly suggest that tho niembers of _ the incoming Republican Administration arc 'preparing to abandon the policy of isolation they and their supporters have imposed on tho United States by their opposition to President Witsos's peace policy. 'It seems hardly likely thai' the retiring President on. his own initiative has, taken the futile step of making a merely formal. and belated assertion of America's right to be. consulted in the settlement of mandates. On the other, hand, it Is quite possible that'the Republicans, with their majority in the Senate, are influencing American foreign: policy on the lines indicated in the cablegram with a view to further action when the new president takes office. In any case it is manifest that America cannot re-establish her rigbfc to a voice in the settlement or control of mandates without offering to co-operate with other nations in maintaining the peace of the world. Her co-operation on /these terms, of course, would be very welcome, and it is perhaps not without significance that Mr Lloyd George only a few days ago said that he looked hopefully to America's inclusion in the League. While it is overshadowed by the considerations_ just stated, the point America is said to have raised (in diplomatic Notes to France and Britain) regarding the' final sanction of mandates is perfectly sound. The Treaty of Versailles makes it quite clear that tho final sanction of. mandates, as ihe United States ')« said to claim, "is not a prerogative of the League of NaiJons, but of t the Allied and Associated Powers." This is plain from various clauses of the Treaty, amongst others Article 119, which reads:— Germany renounces in favour of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers all her rights and titles over her oversea possessions. The contention America is now said to have raised in this matter is in accord with the standpoint consistently taken by Britain and other Allied Powers. For instance, in June last, Mr. Lloyd George expressly repudiated the idea that tho League' of Nations might determine who were to be mandatories.

Under that proposal (he said) (he League might possibly hand over even to Germany countries which cost us hundreds of millions, of .pounds. The League could consider the mandates' if the terms were abused, or the natives oppressed.

The position was further cleared up in a recent discussion at the League of Nations Assembly. No doubt it is still open.to America to resume something of her former standing as one | of the nations primarily concerned in the determination of mandates, hut her fysb effective step in that direction must be to ratify at least the essential portions of the Treaty of Versailles.

So far as the ex-German islands in the Pacific, and some other territories, are concerned, questions regarding the settlement of mandates must be regarded as closed; for the reason, amongst others, that the fate of these island and other territories is explicitly, determined in the Treaty tho United States has held so long in suspense, and which all the other nations interested have long since ratified. There are areas, howqver, in -which existing mandate arrangements might advantageously be reviewed., It would be excellent news, for' instance, that the United States is prepared to reconsider the decision reached by its Senate some months ago when it rejected a mandate over Armenia, or is prepared to cooperate in other ways in remedying tho unsatisfactory conditions that exist in the Middle East. As Makshal Foch observed some time ago, it i would be to the interest of tho United States to help solve the Eastern problem, and it is a familiar fact also that the Allies considerably delayed their settlement with Turkey because they were reluctant to proceed without American cooperation. Speaking in the House of Commons on June 23, Me. Lloyd George stated that the long delay in settling ■ with Turkey—a defey

which undoubtedly did a great deal to increase the obstacles to a satisfactory settlement—was • "entirely attributable" to the request of the United States that discussion of the Turkish Treaty should be'deferred until it saw its way to participate. . Presumably the Allied Powers would be glad even now to share with the United States the' formidable responsibilities they have assumed ; in the Middle East, and it is certainly in the interests of all nations that co-operation on these lines should be established. On this ground particularly, further details of the new attitude the United States is said to be taking up will* be awaited with a great deal of interest.