THE H.B. TRIBUNE. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1922. CONSTANTINE GOES.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XII, Issue 244, 28 September 1922, Page 4

THE H.B. TRIBUNE. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1922. CONSTANTINE GOES.

In connection with the Near Eastern impasse that hs been reached it is a notable coincidence that the recognised Governments of both the nations more directly concerned have resigned. Beyond this we are told this morning that King Constantine has again abdicated the Greek throne, on this occasion :n favour of his son, the Crown Prince Georgios—who is now thirty-two years of age—while another message indicates that the Turkish Sultan, Mehemet VI., is trembling in his slipeprs with regard to what may happen to him. In Constantinople there is little doubt but that a new Government will be set up which will be representative of the aims and ambitions of the self-con-stituted Nationalist. Government at Angora which has really had control of Turkish destinies for the last two or three years. As to what may happen in Athens there, is still some doubt. Nearly three weeks ago the correspondent. there of the “Observer” foreshadowed what has taken place with regard to Constantine’s abdication, at the same time expressing rhe opinion that M. Vehizelos, who was so summarily ejected from power by the Greek electorate on Constantine’s recall, will be asked to resume, office. On the other hand, one of yesterday's messages quoted an “official communique” as denying a report that the great Greek democratic leader had been invited to take up the reins again. As to this we have, of course, to hear IM. Venizelos’ own side, of the question. It is only reasonable to suppose that he himself will be rather chary about accepting over-hurriedly any such invitation from so fickle-minded a people, who seem to want him only when they have got themselves into a mess and dismiss him as soon as he has got them out of it. He will therefore be more than likely to insist upon some assurance! that, should he again take up the responsibilities of political leadership he will be given opportunity to carry his policy through to some definite conclusion. Further and fuller word will be heard of this, no doubt, within the next day or two, now that Constantine has, by renouncing the crown, removed the otherwise insuperable stumbling-block in the way of .M. Venizelos entertaining the idea of again taking office. Possibly, of course, his restoration may not be regarded with anything like unanimity among the three big Powers who are most directly interesting themselves in Greco-Turkish contentions, both France and Italy being perhaps a little afraid of so strong and statesmanlike a leader in Greece. As to Britain’s attitude towards him there can be little doubt, for it was on the assumption—so quickly proved to be falsely based—that he would dominate Greek policy that Britain stood so strongly, for big concessions to his country when the Sevres Treaty came to be framed. The return of Constantine to the throne, and the institution of a Government which

had not the good sense to recognise the limitations inferentially, if not expressely, imposed upon it, have, of course, altered all this. Venizelos now sees the advantages he gained almost entirely undone, and cannot but realise that the task of rebuilding Greece has now been made doubly difficult, if not impossible. Her people, dazzled by the success that came to them sole'y through him, could not be content with the substance of what he had secured for them and with holding on to it, but must needs grasp at the shadowy vision of their country restored by a comparatively easy effort to something like its ancient glory. That illusion has now been most rudely dispelled, and the sympathy of the one powerful Government that was really well disposed to a Greece with Venizelos at the (helm has bddn very largely forfeited. While there is undoubtedly a very general disposition among British peoples, as, indeed, elsewhere, to attribute the troubles that now beset us in the Near East mainly 'o overweening Greek ambitions, there are still not a few men of well-bal-anced minds in the Old Country who are ready to act as apologists for, if not defenders of, Constantine and his Government. Among these is the well-known publicist, Mr. Harold Spender, who, while admitting the. grave mistakes which Greece has made, declares that she is by no means solely responsible for them. In an article published in a recent number of a London review he goes so far as to speak of Greece as having been “sacrificed” partly to Franco-Italian jealousy and partly to British anxieties with regard to her Indian Empire. In this article he is specially insistent in ihis condemnation of the part which France has played in bringing about the present critical situation. In fact, he assigns to. her rather than to Greece, the main responsibility for it, and asserts that Greece was at the outset greatly encouraged by the Allies themselves to enter upon the venture which has proved her undoing. He says that Greece was practically invited to assume the role of protector of the Christian populations in Asia Minor, accepting on the presumption that she would have at least the moral support of all her Chris-* tian Allies., . Far from this being the case so far as France was concerned, the Government of that country almost at once entered into secret and “unofficial” negotiations with the unrecognised Turkish National Government at Angora. These negotiations, which in their earlier stages the French Government had disclaimed, eventually ended in a formal pact between France and the Kemalists, under which France got the promise of many valuable concessions in Turkish territory, and in return gave practical promise of support to Nationalist aims against Greece, at the same time withdrawing a frontier force, thus setting loose a large body of Kemalist troops for the operations against the Greeks. All this was-done without reference to France’s Allies, and Mr. Spender goes as near as he dare to characterising it as an act of virtual treachery towards them. The subsequently published correspondence that passed between the British and French Foreign Offices when the existence of this “Angora Treaty,” as it is called, was discovered —it does not seem’ ever to have been officially “communicated” by France —shows, that the British Government regarded it much in the same light. However, this, like other “crises” threatening rupture between the two nations, was patched up. At the same time there can be little doubt that France’s attitude in this connection was one of the main originating causes of the present unhappy complications in the Near East.