THE REVEREND RALPH HARLOW ON THE LAUSANNE TREATY
In proof of the statement that many eminent followers of Christ are
not in entire sympathy with certain missionaries in their policy with
regard to the Turks, I am quoting again from the Reverend Ralph Harlow.
The following extracts are from an article and two letters written by
him. The article appeared in the _Outlook_ of October 25, 1922, and in
it, among other things, the author describes an interview with the late
Theodore Roosevelt:
“At that time, I had just returned from Asia Minor where I had
witnessed the fearful deportations on the Bagdad Railroad, and
could give him first-hand information of the awful atrocities
going on. He asked me a number of questions, continually
shaking his head and saying, ‘terrible, terrible, terrible.’
“Then with a tense expression on his face, he said, ‘Mr.
Harlow, the greatest regret that I have as I look back on my
administration is the fact that when the awful Adana massacre
occurred, this government did not take steps against the
outrage on civilization!’”
A further quotation from the same article indicates that the men on
destroyers did not fully share the pro-Turk sentiments of their officers:
“I have just listened to the contents of a letter sent by one
of our boys on an American destroyer at Smyrna. He tells of
having to stand by while the brutal Turkish soldiers seized
beautiful Christian girls and tore them screaming from their
mothers and outraged them right on the public quay of Smyrna.
He saw these brutal soldiers shooting down helpless women
with children in their arms, unarmed men beaten to death by
the butts of these Turkish soldiery. And then he tells of the
anguish that he felt because the orders of our government were
such that he had to stand by, helpless, before such atrocities.”
I have been told that many such letters were written by our navy boys
at Smyrna to relatives and friends in the United States. In a letter to
me, Mr. Harlow says that he believes it to be his duty to tell the truth
about affairs in the Near East, and he continues:
“Doctor MacLachlan and Reed demanded my resignation and said
that I ‘endangered the college.’ I resigned. I have been made
to feel that I ought to keep still, but justice seems to me
greater than buildings and institutions. At the time of the
Lausanne Conference and after, I claimed that our American
Board (of Foreign Missions) ought to have stood four square
against the wretched treaty. Dr. Barton did not like the
openness of my criticisms and I lost a position as Board
Secretary through his opposition to me.”
[Illustration: American Consular Building, Smyrna, before which Turkish
soldier poured inflammable liquids. It was completely consumed.]
The second letter referred to gives Mr. Harlow’s opinion of the Lausanne
Treaty and is addressed to the Reverend Doctor Barton, Foreign Secretary
of the American Board of Foreign Missions. As some of the missionaries
who are desirous of saving the remnants of their installations in Turkey
have come out in favor of the treaty, Mr. Harlow’s opinion on the
subject, and his reasons, may be of interest:
“At the time of the conference, and following it, I was asked
to discuss the situation in numerous addresses, so that I read
up carefully everything I could get, which would throw light
on the subject. All the evidence goes to show that the men who
went to Lausanne were influenced from the very first in all
their decisions to protect the oil interests, which featured
largely behind the scenes in the Conference discussions.
That those interests were so strong as to overshadow the
humanitarian and missionary interests I have accepted without
question, until I read your paragraph.
“I turn now to some of my sources of information, for which you
ask. Unfortunately, most of my material on this subject is in
my files at Northampton, but I have with me references which
will perhaps indicate why I have associated oil with blood in
connection with Lausanne. I would refer you to the following
articles and I might name numerous others:
“‘American Blood and Oil,’ _Literary Digest_, December 30,
1922; ‘Oil and Glory at Lausanne,’ _Literary Digest_, July
28, 1923; ‘Blind Forces at Lausanne,’ _Asia_, April, 1923;
‘Britain’s Mesopotamian Burden and Oil,’ _Literary Digest_,
December 15, 1922; ‘Issues at Lausanne,’ _Living Age_, January
6, 1923; ‘Lausanne and its Antecedents,’ _Fortnightly
Review_, January, 1923; ‘Uncle Sam Mixing in the Turkish
Broil,’ _Literary Digest_, December 23, 1922; ‘The Tragedy of
Lausanne,’ _Association Men_, March or April, 1923; ‘The World
Race for Oil,’ _Literary Digest_, January 20, 1923.
“If you will take the time and trouble, as I have, to read even
these few articles, and the _Literary Digest_ quotes from many
other sources, you will find that the main theme is that the
humanitarian interests at Lausanne were sold out, because of
oil interests, and that the missionary interests got nowhere.
“A regular official of the Standard Oil came to Lausanne before
the Conference opened. Lewis Heck, who was in the business in
Constantinople came to Lausanne as a member of the American
delegation.[13]
“‘Young MacDowell, who had many railroad concessions in Turkey
which dovetailed into the Chester concessions, was in Heck’s
Constantinople office. Heck knows Turkey well. I will be
willing to defend the thesis that the entire course of events,
which made the Lausanne Treaty possible, was determined by the
ambitions of the commercial oil interests, and that, in this
race for Turkish favors, the Americans led the way.’”
Mr. Harlow quotes many editorials and articles in the American and
British press, the general tenor of which can be gleaned from one or two
examples:
“Lausanne was all that an International Conference ought not
to be. It was the sacrifice of all human and humanitarian
questions to expediency.” _New York Journal of Commerce_, July,
1923.
“Mosul and freedom to give us a chance in the scramble for oil
has been the object of all the negotiations, but the United
States might be better occupied to-day than looking after the
interests of oil kings. Peace and civilization may be talked
about in public, but in private there is talk of oil, because
territories where the future concessionaires will be at pains
to insure their rights, are at stake.” _New York Times._
“Although America would accept no humane responsibility in
the Near East, saying that it must be free from troubles and
depravities of the Old World, America’s blood boils over the
burning question of oil. When the word ‘oil’ is mentioned, the
recluse bursts from its retirement upon the instant. America
has no concern with Asia Minor while the Turk butchers his
Christian subjects by the hundreds of thousands.” _Pall Mall
Gazette._