TURKEY AND THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS—THE PARLIAMENT OF NATIONS MUST BE TRULY
IMPARTIAL AND INTERNATIONAL
FOR those of us who pinned their faith on the League of Nations, it is a
matter of the deepest regret that Turkey has lost her trust in the great
Parliament of All Nations, especially now that it could have played so
important a part in settling our differences at the Lausanne Conference.
It is not entirely the Turks’ fault; indeed, considering all things, one
can scarcely urge them to any other attitude.
To them, at least, the League must seem definitely anti-Islam, and (as
founder of the Lyceum Club ‘League of Nations Circle,’ of which Lady
Gladstone is president) I have continually endeavoured to impress upon
Lord Robert Cecil the danger of allowing such an idea to remain
uncontradicted, that it may spread more widely and be more firmly held.
Turkey never interfered with British property during the war, and
British merchants continued their business in Smyrna throughout the
hostilities. Yet we not only confiscated, but sold enemy property. In
one case, for example, the business of a man, brought up in England and
a pronounced Anglophil, was sold to a Greek for a quarter of its value,
and the money sequestered by the Government. Had the Bey even been a
traitor he should have been given the full value of his business, and
then expelled, instead of being driven to exist on money borrowed at an
exorbitant rate of interest. On the other hand, Ottoman “Christian”
property was freed from sequestration; a distinction between
“neighbours,” hardly consistent with the teaching of our faith.
The “pick-pocketing” habit of confiscating enemy property—Turkish,
German, or Austrian—is surely beneath an Empire with our reputation; and
the plea from France and Italy’s example does not strike one as a
dignified defence. As a matter of fact, France emphatically denies ever
having taken a penny from the Turks.
Is not such flagrant injustice an obvious case for the League’s
authority to intervene? When visiting the “League of Nations”
headquarters in Geneva the other day, Sir Eric Drummond asked me why
Turkey should be so suspicious of the League? I could only refer him to
the public speeches of our most responsible statesmen. When Mr. Lloyd
George hurled insults at Islam, it only meant one more item in the big
bill of Moslem grievances against England; when Lord Balfour and Lord
Robert Cecil speak in similar strains, Islam listens. While _they_
refuse justice and mercy, Turkey mistrusts the League.
Because the League stood aside, and left the Greeks in Smyrna, as
Britain refused discussion with Turkish emissaries, Mustapha Kemal was
driven to arms, which gave Turkey, indeed, the victory, but spread ruin
throughout Anatolia.
Should not a careful consideration for the _feelings_ of all nations be
an outstanding characteristic of the League, which is the expression of
the world-brotherhood? Yet it suggested that a man, a Mr. Pitt, should
be allowed to search the harems for enslaved Greeks and Armenians! An
incomprehensible insult that, if Turkey ever forgives, she cannot
forget. The Turks are a proud and aristocratic race, with venerable
traditions, which, if we will not understand, we should, at least,
respect. To them, home-life is a sealed and sacred book.
Why, again, was the preparation of a full report on “harems” entrusted
to a Roumanian poetess, rather than to such a woman as Halidé Hanoum, of
tried experience and world-wide reputation for liberal broadmindedness?
We have depended, in the past, chiefly on nursery governesses whose
exaggerations and misconceptions on this subject are invaluable to
sensational writers. Hence the sordid colouring for Western eyes thrown
on a system of delicate lights and shades and very complicated nuances.
The Greek and Armenian servants in Turkish harems would be themselves
the first to resent interference. For they are treated in Moslem homes
with an equality, consideration, and leniency no Christian mistress
would dream of permitting. They, often, practically control the
household, and are, indeed, sometimes given an unwise preference in the
Pasha’s affections. They hold the purse-strings, direct, advise, and
administer domestic affairs, as they also, so largely, manage the
commercial life of the country. In return, naturally, the Turk expects
absolute loyalty; and woe to those who refuse, or betray, it.
It is true, of course, that backstairs propaganda—from American Relief
Workers, among others—has been at work to misinform the League; and had
reliable information been available, those unfortunate mistakes would
never have been made.
Indeed, the honestly impartial head of its own Press department now
reports: “We have tested the real value of Greek and Armenian
propaganda, and sympathise with the Turk in consequence.” Such
repentance comes rather late in the day, but may even yet produce a
wiser policy.
It was one of the Fethi Bey’s many humiliating experiences, on his visit
to London, to see the harem misjudged by an ex-governess, and to read
the assertion of a lady from Boston that “beautiful Greek girls had to
disfigure themselves to prevent the Turks from stealing them!”
Statements that might have been treated with the contempt they deserve,
had they not been accorded such prominence by the Press.
On the other hand, one must acknowledge that the Turk’s attitude towards
his detractors is more lofty than practical. Pride forbids him to answer
accusations, or disseminate the truth; which he, as a fatalist, firmly
believes “must out”! They will, certainly, never hoist the propagandist
“on his own petard,” since, to their thinking, the man who accepts money
to defend a cause is no better than a “political prostitute.” They argue
that “he who works for me, must believe in me, as a true friend, eager
to help.” And for the moment, Europe has made them feel that “facts”
would avail them nothing—“whatever we do is wrong.”
In the East news spreads with accurate rapidity without the assistance
of newspapers; but the foreigner who needs chapter and verse for every
statement may be, to some extent, excused for suspecting their obstinate
reticence about statistics and exact figures. I should, myself, have
welcomed more information about a story I quite believe, but cannot
substantiate, that came from an Italian lady at Broussa. She said that
the Greeks burnt a Turkish prison, _with all the prisoners in it_, and,
“to her dying day she would never forget their awful screams,” but no
one will give me the least idea of how many prisoners were slaughtered.
I called on a Vali whose palace was burned to cinders before I had the
information. And I could discover no precise details, despite inquiry at
Angora, Constantinople, and Lausanne!
The Norwegian head of the Minorities Committee, a man given to wise and
just decisions, has said: “It is no use expecting Asiatics to be
Europeans. They have as much right to do things in their Asiatic way, as
we have to act like Europeans. There are standards of right and wrong,
against which neither may transgress, but for the rest, nothing can be
done.” He also agreed that to secure protection from a minority, you
must enforce loyalty to the majority. I told him the head of the
Armenian community had begged the Pope to see that they “were left to
the mercy” of the Turks, which _is_ merciful.
The League can really help Christians in Turkey by putting a stop to
pro-Christian propaganda, for which Armenians in Anatolia will have to
suffer.
There is so much that the League of one’s dream could do for Turkey, as
for all the peoples; and we criticise only from hope and desire of some
hastening in its approach to perfection, and the establishing of its
supreme authority. As Sir Eric Drummond pointed out, the high-handed and
retrograde attitude towards Eastern problems would not be possible were
Turkey represented on the council: as others have seen, that while the
so-called “enemy” peoples are unrepresented, the League cannot be truly
either impartial or international.
To secure equal justice for all, it must stand outside, and above,
divisions of race, creed or prejudice.
Nevertheless, we hope that Turkey will trust the “imperfect” League.
Maybe, after all, in dealing with Mosul, it would grant the plebiscite
which Lord Curzon declares is “impossible.”
* * * * *
It is not generally known why Colonel House chose Geneva, in preference
to Lausanne, as the seat of the League of Nations.... After long and
careful deliberation, which yet produced only indecision, I am told that
he asked his valet’s advice.
Joseph replied: “Geneva would be much better for your rheumatism!”
Once installed, however, Colonel House discovered another reason. At
Geneva, lived Josephine!
------------------------------------------------------------------------