‘Mandates in Syria and Irak: A New Threat of World War’ by H.M. Wicks from The Daily Worker. Vol. 2 No. 257. November 10, 1925.

DESPITE the optimism disseminated by British and French states- men over the outcome at Locarno, the French colonial war in Syria carries the unrest of another world war. If the revolt in Syria succeeds, the I whole mandate policy of the league of nations falls. It not only means the loss of Syria to France, but also seriously endangers the English control over Irak. Thus it is to the interest of Britain to prevent the liberation of Syria as a league mandate. That does not necessarily mean that Britain will aid France to maintain control. On the contrary it is probable that Britain will endeavor to take advantage of the Syrian revolt to charge France with incompetency in the administration of the Syrian mandate.

The mandates themselves, instead of preventing war are the sources of new wars. This is plain as day when the imperialist forces that motivated the struggle to secure mandates are known. During the progress of the war when the entente powers were indulging in expression of the most exalted sentiments regarding the un- selfish motives involved, the foundation for future conflicts were laid.

IN the struggle against Turkey, during the world war, there had to be an understanding between Britain and France concerning the spoils of a hoped-for-victory. In 1916, such a treaty was completed, under the terms of which France was granted Syria and a part of Mosul. Britain played one of its shrewd diplomatic games here when it magnanimously refrained from openly demanding anything for itself. All the material advantages were to go to poor suffering France, then bleeding under the sledgehammer blows of the German forces. England insisted that the balance of Arabia, with the exception of Palestine, come under the domination of Hussein. But one little reservation was made. This territory was to become a “sphere of influence” for England. Hussein was the agent of Britain.

When the war closed and the victorious nations met at Versailles, they were no longer heroic allies, but grasping imperialist thieves and plunderers, each striving to secure the larger part of the loot. Mr. Lloyd George, representing Britain, harbored no illusions regarding the mission of the entente to bring the millennium on earth. Among other advantages he secured for Great Britain the mandates for Palestine and Mesopotamia. In the first discussions he demanded all of Syria. This demand was made for purposes of negotiations and to give the appearance of diplomatic yielding to preserve the entente cordiale. It is sometimes necessary to abandon temporarily a desired advantage and find other means to obtain the same result.

ENGLAND has a very definite in relation to Palestine, Syria, Arabia and Irak. That is to so manipulate the mandates, to transfer the control of territories that it can realize the dream of British imperialism: a Cape to Cairo railway and extension of this to Calcutta, thus joining the continent of Africa with that of Asia. The rapid expansion of new markets of the east and the development of industrial capitalism in India, create this necessity for British imperialism.

France also has imperialist ambitions that come into conflict with Britain. The struggle over Mosul oil finds France backing the Turks against Britain. In Morocco both France and Britain furnished guns and ammunition to the Riffs to drive out Spain.

That accomplished there will begin a struggle for domination between the two nations. Already French troops are taking up the struggle that Spain was losing, in order that France may intrench itself in northwestern Africa, and exploit the mineral resources of that territory.

While Britain had a hand in the Riff affair there is nothing to indicate that the revolt in Syria was encouraged from that source. This movement originated thru the despicable frightfulness on the part of General Serrail, the representative of Herriot, and the left bloc, to throttle the Druse tribesmen, and inflamed into insurrection the smouldering hatred of the Syrians for the French conqueror. But now that the struggle has started England will endeavor to take advantage of it.

THE revolt of the Syrians constitutes a grave menace to British control over the mandated territory of Irak, and the British press is non-committal on the ruthlessness of the French. That is because Britain itself may be forced to step in and aid in crushing the revolt.

But it does not mean that France will continue to exercise the mandate of the league. The last assembly (sixth) of the league of nations was a British triumph. Britain ousted France from the domination of the league.

While British troops are heavily concentrated in Palestine, on the border of Syria, preparatory to invading the territory if the situation becomes menacing, it will also use the league machinery to prepare the way for eliminating France under the terms of the treaty of Versailles on the grounds that France is incapable of carrying out the mandate.

Tho these mandates are enforced for the benefit of given nations and by the favored nation, the nations are responsible to the league and theoretically are carrying them out as the representative of the league. In case any nation fails in carrying out its mandate, then the league can revoke it and place another nation in charge of the territory.

FRANCE is desperate in face of this menace and therefore, is using all the frightfulness of modern warfare to maintain control. The cabinet of Painleve and Briand is tolerated by all capitalist elements in France in spite of the currency crisis because they are united in the Syrian campaign by fear of Great Britain and he consequences of failure to maintain control.

Failure in the Syrian war will place France in the humiliating position of being forced by the league to abandon its mandate. The inevitable result of such an eventuality will be to place the mandate in the hands of Britain.

This humiliation will not be tolerated if France has enough vitality to resist, or if she can get the backing of American imperialism, itself waging economic war against Britain in every part of the world. Unquestionably Wall Street will come to the res cue of its investments in Europe and aid France, first with money and munitions and finally, with arms.

The mandates, constitute a powder magazine and Syria may be the spark that will set it off with a detonation that will rock the world, causing a conflagration eclipsing anything mankind has ever witnessed.

Capitalism has shown great resourcefulness thus far in avoiding open breaks between the victors of the last war, but each of the threats becomes more, difficult to overcome. With the colonials and the slaves of the mandated areas rising against imperialism, the period of diplomacy will merge into open warfare.

Nothing can prevent it except wide-spread colonial resistance, combined with the rise of the proletariat in the home countries.

Such a war will be the last imperialist war, and bring forcibly onto the stage of history the next wave of the world revolution, carried out thru civil wars against the capitalist class In every country.

The Daily Worker began in 1924 and was published in New York City by the Communist Party US and its predecessor organizations. Among the most long-lasting and important left publications in US history, it had a circulation of 35,000 at its peak. The Daily Worker came from The Ohio Socialist, published by the Left Wing-dominated Socialist Party of Ohio in Cleveland from 1917 to November 1919, when it became became The Toiler, paper of the Communist Labor Party. In December 1921 the above-ground Workers Party of America merged the Toiler with the paper Workers Council to found The Worker, which became The Daily Worker beginning January 13, 1924. National and City (New York and environs) editions exist.

PDF of full issue: https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84020097/1925-11-10/ed-1/seq-1/