AN INTERVIEW WITH THE GHAZI MUSTAPHA KEMAL PASHA
THE Ghazi M. Kemal Pasha granted me the following interview just after
the conference at Lausanne had assembled.
“To what extent, if any, has the attitude of the Grand National Assembly
been responsible for setting public opinion against the Turks?” I asked.
“Our attitude has never changed. All reports of inconsistency are false,
and circulated by the clever propaganda of our enemies. The Government
has to render account of itself not only to a Chamber of Deputies, but
to History; and no responsible or self-respecting Ministry could act
with such disloyalty to its own principles, the very spirit of its
being, as the Press has accused it of revealing. All these false reports
come from those Englishmen, some of them official, who are working to
prolong the war, a crime no one can lay on our shoulders. You know of
the untiring efforts we made for peace, and you know the result. In any
case, though personally accused, I am not responsible. I am only
President of the Assembly. The Assembly is not one man.”
“Do you think that a really _sincere entente_ can be established between
Turkey and Great Britain?”
“I do not think, I am _certain_, that we shall eventually return to the
old traditional friendship. There are no reasons against, and so many in
favour of, that course. We make no demands beyond respect and honour for
our independence. We have sent away our Sultan to secure greater
freedom, and to prevent all risk of danger to our independence.”
“Do you think that the Conference will produce good results?”
“Eventually there can be no doubt that, however heated and however
prolonged the discussions, it will bring peace. Unfortunately, we cannot
wait for ever: The Powers should recognise now, what they must
ultimately admit, that we could not accept terms which would deny us
that liberty for which we have sacrificed so much and fought with such
stern resolve.
“For every reason, we desire peace; a settlement that will enable us to
get on with the vital work of reconstruction. Details must take time,
but the essential question should have been arranged before this.”
“The papers accuse Angora of arrogance and zenophobia,” I reminded him.
“The charge is invented for propaganda. Is it _arrogant_ to stand out
for our just and logical rights ? Of ‘zenophobia’ I know nothing! My
whole life, in every action, is proof that I do _not_ hate Europe. I
never fought for hate, but to save the truth. The same inspiration
guides and controls our politics.
“I could never myself keep on hating a nation for the mistakes of its
Government. I fought against the Bulgarians, who are my greatest friends
to-day.
“And towards the Greeks I feel the same. I am confident that we shall
soon be great friends, friends as we were before the Powers intervened.
As they were led away by false flatterers, they will be the first to see
their mistake and repent.”
“Have you banished the Christians, or are they leaving Anatolia in mere
panic?”
“We have taken no steps in this matter, but left them absolutely free,
to go or stay. They have been terrified by propaganda, largely American,
directed by religious animosities. While they followed the Greek army in
thousands, and are still flying, many others are coming back. To-day you
can see two long streams of refugees among us, one leaving, the other
returning. They know that all Christians, whether our own subjects or
foreigners, will always enjoy, as they _have_ always enjoyed, the full
liberties accorded them in every civilised country.”
“Are you satisfied with the situation in Constantinople?”
“We shall keep faith to the promise we made at Moudania. Meanwhile it is
unnatural to see foreign troops in Constantinople, and they should be
taken away as soon as possible. Their presence involves abnormal
conditions, which have made it necessary for us to administer that
villayet from the Assembly at Angora—an indignity which should not be
prolonged.
“While conversations are maintained in Lausanne, and since everyone
knows we must keep Constantinople, the Powers should not insist on the
armed guarantee.”
“Do you congratulate us on having secured a Conservative Government?”
“It is early days, surely, to speak! If they will help us to friendly
relations with England and the other Powers, that is all we ask. Your
parties are not our business. We are, generally speaking, against all
policies of expansion, because they lead nations into the abyss; and, in
our judgment, such policies are impolitic.”
“What are your views on the Freedom of the Straits?”
“Like the delegates at Lausanne, we want _real_ freedom, not freedom in
the hands of one Power. We are ready to discuss the problem with all who
have any interests in that quarter. There can be no freedom till
Constantinople and the Sea of Marmora are secure.
“We must have national frontiers; that is, all territories peopled by
Turks. We accept for boundaries or limit the enemy-lines as they were
when the Armistice was signed. Is that an unreasonable claim in return
for all we have given up from the old Ottoman Empire?
[Illustration:
GENERAL ISMET PASHA.
MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS.
FIRST TURKISH DELEGATE AT THE LAUSANNE PEACE CONFERENCE.
p. 176
]
“Towards ‘minorities’ we stand by the National Pact, confirmed by the
recent Treaty with France, signed at Angora. We are fully prepared, nay
anxious, to recognise all such rights as have been given to minorities
in the different treaties between the Powers—since the war. It must,
however, be clearly understood that foreign control, inconsistent with
the absolute independence we demand, is _impossible_.
“Nor can we grant any special privileges for Capitulations to the
subjects of foreign nations who may choose to live in Turkey. They are
welcome to _precisely the same rights_ as our own subjects enjoy, but we
will never recognise any such privileges to foreigners as are unknown,
for instance, in France, England, or America. Those who would still
challenge our claim to the complete independence that we are determined
to secure will have to find means to exterminate all Turks now inspired
by that ideal. But I am confident that such a slaughter would not be
permitted by the civilised world. Civilisation, on the contrary, will
soon learn that our Turkey has her place in the future. She will help,
and not hinder, civilisation. Civilisation must, therefore, be
interested in, and support, her independence.”
On December 22nd, the _Morning Post_ printed the following leading
article about this interview:
The interview which Mustapha Kemal Pasha has given our
Correspondent emphasises the one supreme result so far reached
at Lausanne, namely, that the new rulers of Turkey are willing
and indeed anxious to resume friendly relations with this
country. The compromise which is apparently on the point of
being reached at Lausanne concerning the Straits and the
demilitarised zones may not survive the touch of reality and the
sharp breath of war. But that is no reason why we should deplore
or despise such a settlement, for it is at least a sign of
goodwill, an offer on the part of Turkey to come to an agreement
with the Western Powers, who, by the strange irony of fate, are
the real friends of Turkey and yet were forced in the Great War
to call themselves her enemies. The Lausanne Conference has
dealt with and perhaps settled the Thracian boundaries, the
protection of minorities, and the guardianship of the Straits,
and there remains for it now to secure an agreement regarding
the capitulations, the Patriarchate, and the future of Mosul.
But the real importance of Lausanne lies in the fact that the
world now realises that Kemalist Turkey is not the cat’s-paw of
Bolshevist Russia, that the Turkish Nationalists did not defeat
one invader in order to put themselves at the mercy of another,
and that the ambitious plan of Moscow for using Turkey as a pawn
in the great game of destroying British dominion in the East is
in all probability doomed to failure. It is too early yet to say
that the Bolshevicks have been outwitted, but both in their
silences and their speeches there are evidences of chagrin. They
have found out that Lausanne is not Genoa and that, if we may
thus describe him, Curzon _libre_ is a very different person
from Curzon _enchaîné_. Chicherin had his Rapallo. Perhaps it
was his final triumph.
Kemal, in his interview, said: “I am certain we shall eventually
return to the traditional friendship between Turkey and Britain.
I can see no obstacle thereto.” With the fall of the Coalition
Government, the last obstacle has gone. Lord Curzon has been
firm with the Turks, but not venomous, frank but not insulting.
He can afford to leave rude harangues and offensive imprecations
to the congress of fallen angels now assembling at Algeciras.
Indeed, all the declarations of the Foreign Secretary go to show
that he is sincerely anxious to reach a durable and friendly
settlement with the emissaries of Angora, and that if he is
determined to uphold the rights of the British, he is equally
ready to acknowledge the independence of the Turkish Empire. We
are glad to see that Kemal is anxious to reciprocate, and
therein he shows himself to be not only a soldier but a
statesman. For his task is not yet ended; indeed it is only
beginning. He has saved his country from the Greek; he must now
save it from the moth and rust of economic decay. In that great
task he will find Great Britain his best friend. Fethi Bey has
doubtless made it clear to him how much Europe can contribute to
the economic reconstruction of Turkey, and a recent statement of
Mr. Morgenthau should convince him that the United States will
be a reluctant and difficult lender. In the long run he has to
choose between free co-operation with Great Britain and an
enslavement at the mercy of Bolshevist Russia. He seems already
to have chosen the better course; for the sake of his country,
and ours, we hope and believe that he will persist in it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------