§ LORD STRABOLGI had given Notice that he would ask the Secretary of State fur Air whether he has any further information about the recent loss of a Royal Air Force bombing machine in Iraq when the aeroplane was shot down in flames by revolting tribesmen; what is the present position of the Royal Air Forces in Iraq with regard to giving assistance to the Government of that country in suppressing disorder; and where does the ultimate responsibility lie for the use of our forces in that country in suppressing internal disturbances; and move for Papers.
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Question that I have on the Order Paper is not anything other than what it purports to be. It really is only asking for information, and I want to say at the outset that I am not making any sort of allegation against the Government in this connection, because, apart from other reasons, I do not know any to make. The information in the newspapers recently was that one of our Royal Air Force bombing machines was shot down by revolting tribesmen in Iraq, and two gallant officers of the Royal Air Force unfortunately lost their lives. It was stated later that the shots were fired by mistake, that our machine was not involved in the insurrection, and I take it that that was so. No doubt the noble Marquess will confirm that. But I would like to ask why our machine was flying over this disturbed area at all. If there were tribesmen engaged in conflict with the Central Government of Iraq it seems rather rash to allow our aeroplanes to fly over them, as in the excitement they may be shot at by mistake.
§ The other matter on which I seek information is as to the present real situation of our Air Forces in Iraq with regard to supporting the civil power there, and this matter is not irrelevant to the debate that occupied your Lordships' House yesterday. Obviously, if we are threatened, as the noble Marquess would have us believe, by a very serious menace 1093 from the air to our security, then the more we can concentrate our Force in the danger area, which we are told is here, the better; and therefore if we have to maintain an Air Force in Iraq for other than very clearly defined purposes I think your Lordships are entitled to know why. I understand that our Air Force at present is required for the protection of the oil supplies and especially of the new pipe-line—I can quite understand that for naval reasons that is necessary—and also that it is necessary to guard our aerial lines of communication to India. But how far are they expected to aid the civil Government of another nation?
§
I have been refreshing my memory of the Treaty of Alliance of 1930 between His Majesty the King of Iraq and His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, and Article 5 of that Treaty is a little vague. Article 4 says that we will assist each other in our mutual defence against external aggression. That is quite clear. Article 5 says that:
His Majesty the King of Iraq recognises that the permanent maintenance and protection in all circumstances of the essential communications of His Britannic Majesty is in the common interests of the High Contracting Parties.
Those words, I suggest, are a little vague if they can be used to call upon our Forces to assist in patting down a tribal insurrection on the plea, that the tribal insurrectionaries might interfere with our communications. I hope I am giving the wrong interpretation and that when the noble Marquess replies he will assure us that the first part of Article 5, which says that the provisions for the internal defence of Iraq shall be a responsibility of the Government of Iraq, is the governing part of that Article.
§ Some time ago them was indignation in this country because our aeroplanes were used to bomb tribes in Iraq who were in arrears with their taxes. A dispute existed between the Central Government and its feudatories or subjects, and apparently our aeroplanes could be used at that time in that dispute, and there was much indignation. I am not sure whether it was not during the time of the last Labour Government. But then, policies often continue from one Government to another by their own momentum. I wish more of the policy of the last 1094 Government had continued by its own momentum; but let that pass for the moment. But I do suggest to your Lordships that, at a time when the noble Marquess and everyone else concerned is trying to bring about international agreement to abolish the bombing of civilians from the air in Europe, it would be most unfortunate if oar aeroplanes were engaged in that practice in the Middle East. I understand that, in this case there was no question whatever of our aeroplane being engaged on active service at all. I shall be glad of what information the noble Marquess can give us as to what she was doing, and the whole of the circumstances. I repeat that I make no accusation against the Air Ministry and His Majesty's Government in this matter at all, because I know of no accusation, and my Question is intended merely to obtain what information the noble Marquess has at his disposal. I beg to move.
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY)My Lords, I should like to take the opportunity, first of all, of thanking the noble Lord for having at my request postponed this Question from the day for which he originally put it down on the Paper and for having asked it to-day. I am now in a position to give the noble Lord the information which he requires. The information I have received concerning this very regrettable incident, which we all deplore, indicates that while it is impossible to say definitely how the aircraft was actually brought down, the probability is that it was fired at by disaffected tribesmen in the belief that it belonged to the Iraqi Air Force. From the information I have received, it appears that the machine was not shot down in flames, but that it was set on fire 'by the tribesmen after the dead bodies of the occupants had been taken out. I am very happy to be able to give the noble Lord the assurance that the aircraft was carrying out a reconnaissance in the course of its duty and was not taking part, in any way in any operations against the rebels. The noble Lord, I think, knows the country of Iraq. He knows where the Air Force is stationed in Iraq, and he knows that part of its duty is to early out reconnaissance over the country. Oil this occasion, when 1095 there was a disturbed area, the commanding officer, for the purposes of information which he required, had called on the aircraft to carry out this reconnaissance.
As regards the second and third parts of the Question, the position and responsibilities of the Royal Air Force in Iraq are defined in the Treaty of Alliance which was concluded between Great Britain and Iraq in 1930. The noble Lord has referred to this Treaty, and he has referred to Article 5, Under Article 4 of that Treaty it is explicitly laid down that responsibility for the maintenance of internal order in Iraq rests with His Majesty the King of Iraq, and I would assure the noble Lord there is no doubt on that particular point. On the other hand, Article 4 of the Treaty provides that if either of the High Contracting Parties should become engaged in war, the other will, subject to its rights and obligations under the Covenant of the League of Nations or the Treaty for the Renunciation of War not being prejudiced, immediately come to his aid in the capacity of an ally. Article 5 of the Treaty further provides for the maintenance of British Air Forces in Iraq, in order to facilitate the discharge by this country of its obligations under Article 4, and also for the maintenance and protection in all circumstances of our essential communications. That is the important point—the maintenance mid protection of our essential communications.
The noble Lord will also appreciate from this summary of the relevant provisions of the Treaty that the only circumstances in which the question could arise under the Treaty of British forces in Iraq being concerned in suppressing internal disorder would be if our own essential communications were threatened. I need hardly say that the method and extent of the employment of British forces in these circumstances, if such employment was ever required, would be a matter for concerted arrangements between the British and the Iraqi Governments. I should like to impress that point on the noble Lord, that this employment could only take place under very carefully concerted arrangements between the British and Iraqi Governments. I hope, however, that this is a 1096 very remote contingency, and I am glad to be able to say that the most recent information from Iraq is to the effect that the local disturbances in the Middle Euphrates area have considerably abated since the noble Lord put down his Question. I know that your Lordships will join with us in deeply deploring the loss of the lives of an officer and airman, and join with us in offering our deep and respectful sympathy to their relatives. But your Lordships will understand when I say that this occurrence must be regarded as one of those incidental perils which are in some degree ever present, even in the routine duties of our forces overseas.
I do not know whether I have made, the matter clear to the noble Lord. I hope I have, but perhaps I might add that the British forces in Iraq are there solely for the purposes stated in Article 5 of the Treaty of 1930. I might tell the noble Lord that that Treaty did not actually come into force until October, 1932, and was concurrent with the admission of Iraq to the League of Nations. On the admission of Iraq to the League, the mandatory responsibilities of the British Government automatically came to an end, and this fact is referred to in the Preamble to the Treaty. Since the Treaty came into force the British forces in Iraq have not undertaken, or participated in, any active operations. The last occasion on which the Royal Air Force was engaged in such operations was against the Sheik Bazan in the spring of 1932, and I think those operations quite probably were in the mind of the noble Lord.
LORD STRABOLGIMy Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Marquess for the very full reply he has given to my Question, and in view of the answer I do not propose to press my Motion. I therefore beg leave to withdraw.
§ Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.