Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

the summoning in 1897 at Basle of a Congress of Jews which defined the meaning of Zionism as the effort to win "a legally secured, publicly recognized Home for the Jewish People in Palestine.”

The original program of the Zionist organization was to obtain, with the approval of the powers, a charter from the Ottoman Government authorizing the realization of its aim. Failing in this, its leaders concentrated their efforts on colonization projects and on fostering in the minds of Jews throughout the world the idea of the creation in Palestine of what was termed "a home for the Jewish spirit." With the advent of the World War, however, a new opportunity was offered to the Zionist leaders to press for the recognition and support of their original program. Their overtures finally met with success in London, where on November 2, 1917, Mr. Balfour, then His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, issued what has since come to be known as “the Balfour Declaration,” reading as follows:

BALFOUR DECLARATION His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing nonJewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by the Jews in any other country.

This declaration was endorsed by the principal Allied powers, and the statement of principle embodied therein played an important part in the definition of the terms of the mandate for Palestine and the resulting administration in that territory. In 1922 it received recognition in the United States through joint resolution 6 reading as follows:

JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES FAVORING THE ESTABLISHMENT IN PALESTINE OF A NATIONAL HOME FOR THE JEWISH PEOPLE

[ocr errors]

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the United States of America favors the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of Christian and all other non-Jewish communities in Palestine, and that the holy places and religious buildings and sites in Palestine shall be adequately protected.

(c) Secret agreements between certain of the Allies Of the various secret agreements entered into during the war by certain of the Allied powers, four related directly to the Near East. These were:

First: The Constantinople agreement of 1915 between Great Britain, France, and Russia regarding the future of Constantinople, the Straits, other parts of the Ottoman Empire, and Persia. A memorandum embodying the understanding of the Russian Government with respect to these matters was handed to the British and French Ambassadors at Petrograd on March 4, 1915, by the Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs. One of the clauses of this memorandum recognized British and French

rights in Asiatic Turkey and provided that these rights should • Public No. 73, 67th Congress, signed by the President Harding on September 21, 1922.

ܙܙ

be defined by a special agreement between Great Britain, France, and Russia. The Sykes-Picot agreement, referred to below, was reached in pursuance of the provisions of this clause.

Secondly: The Pact of London, signed by the representatives of Great Britain, France, Russia, and Italy on April 26, 1915, setting forth the bases on which Italy agreed to participate in the war on the side of the Allied powers.

Article 9 of this agreement, referring to the British and French claims in Asiatic Turkey mentioned above, recognized Italy's interest in "the maintenance of the balance of power in the Mediterranean”; and in Article 12 "Italy declares that she associates herself in the declaration made by France, Great Britain, and Russia to the effect that Arabia and the Moslem Holy Places in Arabia shall be left under the authority of an independent Moslem power.”

Thirdly: The Sykes-Picot agreement effected by an exchange of notes between the French and British Governments, dated, respectively, May 9 and 16, 1916, defining their respective interests and claims in the Asiatic provinces of the Ottoman Empire.

Article 3 of this agreement provided for the establishment in that part of Palestine lying to the west of the Jordan River and exclusive of a small district including the ports of Haifa and Acre, of "an international administration of which the form shall be determined after consultation with Russia, and later in agreement with the other Allies and with representatives of the Sherif of Mecca.” In general the agreement recognized French claims to Syria (as far east as the anti-Lebanon), Cilicia, a portion of Asia Minor, and a sphere of influence in eastern Syria; and British claims to Mesopotamia, a small district on the Mediterranean including the ports of Haifa and Acre, and a sphere of influence in the intervening territory between Mesopotamia and Palestine. In their respective spheres of influence the eventual establishment of Arab sovereignty was envisaged, and Article 11 provided that “the negotiations with the Arabs in regard to the frontiers of the Arab state or confederation of states shall proceed in the same way as before, in the name of the two powers.'

Fourthly: The St. Jean de Maurienne agreement reached between representatives of France, Great Britain, and Italy and communicated by the Italian Ambassador in Paris to the Quai d'Orsay in a memorandum dated April 20, 1917.

The general object of this agreement was to define, "subject to the assent of the Russian Government," the territorial and economic gains in Asiatic Turkey which should accrue to Italy under the pertinent provisions of the Pact of London. With regard to Palestine it was set forth in Article 3 that "the form of international administration

will be decided upon in agreement with Italy"; and, with certain other similar reservations, Italy expressed her adherence to the Sykes-Picot agreement. Although Russian assent to this agreement was never given, its influence survived in subsequent discussions between the Allies and in their negotiations with Turkey and with the Arabs regarding the final disposition of the territories in question.

5. BRITISH MILITARY ADMINISTRATION, 1917–1920 Following the occupation of southern Palestine in the fall of 1917 and spring of the following year," a military administration was established under which the occupied territory was divided into five administrative districts. The principles on which this administration was founded were set forth by General Allenby in the following proclamation which, on December 11, 1917, the date of his official entry into the city of Jerusalem, he caused to be read to the people in English, French, Italian, Arabic, and Hebrew:

To the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Blessed and the people dwelling in the vicinity.

The defeat inflicted upon the Turks by the troops under my command has resulted in the occupation of your city by my forces. I, therefore, here and now proclaim it to be under martial law, under which form of administration it will remain so long as military considerations make necessary. However, lest any of you should be alarmed by reason of your experience at the hands of the enemy who has retired, I hereby inform you that it is my desire that every person should pursue his lawful business without fear of interruption.

Furthermore, since your city is regarded with affection by the adherents of three of the great religions of mankind, and its soil has been consecrated by the prayers and pilgrimages of multitudes of devout people of these three religions for many centuries, therefore do I make known to you that every sacred building, monument, holy spot, shrine, traditional site, endowment, pious bequest, or customary place of prayer, of whatsoever form of the three religions, will be maintained and protected according to the existing customs and beliefs of those to whose faiths they are sacred.

With the occupation of northern Palestine and Syria, following the brilliant advance of September, 1918, a first endeavor was made to meet the various political claims discussed in the preceding section of this report. Under the supreme command of General Allenby as commander in chief, France assumed administrative responsibility in Syria from the coast to the anti-Lebanon, an Arab administration was set up in Damascus and the hinterland, and British control was extended over all of Palestine west of the Jordan. This tentative division of control was confirmed in the FrancoBritish military convention of September 15, 1919, which, at the same time, abolished the office of the commander in chief.

The final status of Palestine, complicated as it was by Arab pretensions, Zionist aspirations, and Allied agreements pointing to an eventual international control, became a subject of Allied discussions at the Peace Conference which had met in Paris in December, 1918. There the theory of the mandatory system was evolved, and it was believed that, in the application of this theory to the Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire, a solution of the problem would be found.

Meanwhile in Palestine, under British military administration, considerable progress was made towards the creation of a stable form of government and the rehabilitation of the economic life of the country.

6. THE GRANTING OF THE MANDATE

The mandate theory, as discussed and understood by the Allied peace delegations at Paris, was given definite form in the drafting of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. As finally adopted this article read as follows:

[blocks in formation]

To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.

The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances.

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognised subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by å Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.

Other peoples, especially those of Central Africa, are at such a stage that the Mandatory must be responsible for the administration of the territory under conditions which will guarantee freedom of conscience and religion, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, the prohibition of abuses such as the slave trade, the arms traffic and the liquor traffic, and the prevention of the establishment of fortifications or military and naval bases and of military training of the natives for other than police purposes and the defence of territory, and will also secure equal opportunities for the trade and commerce of other Members of the League.

There are territories, such as South-West Africa and certain of the South Pacific Islands, which, owing to the sparseness of their population, or their small size, or their remoteness from the centres of civilisation, or their geographical contiguity to the territory of the Mandatory, and other circumstances, can be best administered under the laws of the Mandatory as integral portions of its territory, subject to the safeguards above mentioned in the interests of the indigenous population.

In every case of mandate, the Mandatory shall render to the Council an annual report in reference to the territory committed to its charge.

The degree of authority, control, or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory shall, if not previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, be explicitly defined in each case by the Council.

A permanent Commission shall be constituted to receive and examine the annual reports of the Mandatories and to advise the Council on all matters relating to the observance of the mandates.

The League Covenant entered into effect on January 10, 1920, the date of the procès-verbal drawn up by the French Government setting forth the deposit of ratifications of the treaty of Versailles by Germany and by three of the principal Allied powers. On this date, therefore, the League of Nations came into being and the Allied powers proceeded to deal with the "colonies and territories” referred to in Article 22 which were to be placed under the "tutelage" of "advanced nations," exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.' In the case of the territories formerly a part of the Ottoman Empire (known as "A" mandates, in contradistinction to the "B" and "C" mandates exercised over the less advanced communities of the overseas possessions lost to Germany in Africa and the Pacific Islands), although no treaty with Turkey whereby that state renounced sovereignty to such territories had come into effect, the Allies were in effective occupation; and on April 25, 1920, at the Allied Conference of San Remo, the allocation of the “A” mandates was made, Great Britain receiving the mandate for Palestine.

[ocr errors]

)

As early as June, 1919, the Supreme Council in Paris had entrusted the drafting of the projected mandates to a commission under Lord Milner. Although in the absence of a treaty of peace with Turkey, this commission abandoned its work on "A" mandate drafts, an exchange of views with reference to such drafts continued between the interested governments, a discussion in which the United States Government participated; and on December 6, 1920, Mr. Balfour addressed the following letter to the League:

In accordance with instructions received from my Government, I have the honour to transmit herewith copies of the texts of the Mandates for Mesopotamia and Palestine as drawn up by His Majesty's Government, and to request that you will be so good as to lay them before the Council of the League of Nations.

His Majesty's Government have prepared the terms of these Mandates in conformity with the spirit of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, and have throughout been in consultation with the the French Government with whom they are in complete agreement on the subject.

His Majesty's Government venture to hope that an examination of these documents will satisfy the Council that they are in compliance with Article 22 of the Pact, and that the Council will be prepared to approve them.

I should add that, in the interests of the native inhabitants of Mesopotamia and Palestine and with the object of conferring upon them with the least possible delay the benefits of a system based on the stipulations of the Pact, His Majesty's Government desire to draw the attention of the Council to the advisability of bringing to an early close the temporary arrangements at present in force.

« PředchozíPokračovat »