TENSION IN ASIA MINOR.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18674, 2 October 1922, Page 4

TENSION IN ASIA MINOR.

A highly disquieting feature in the latest news respecting the Turkish situation is the evidence furnished in them of the conditions of tension created in the neutral zone. There has, in fact, been a collision between outposts, in which casualties have occurred, and which may precipitate something more serious. In any event, a semiofficial statement on the subject reveals an extraordinary state of affairs. The Turks are right up to the British positions—in what force it is not stated—so close as to have the wire entanglements under view, and in some places they are actually on the shore of the Dardanelles. The Kemalists are either placing unbounded reliance upon British patience and restraint and are bent upon turning them to their own advantage in weconnoitring movements, or they are of set purpose giving all the provocation possible, in the hope that the British will see that it is a case of either fighting or withdrawing, and will choose the latter alternative. It is, stated that the British military authorities are of opinion that the present state of affairs cannot be allowed to continue, and that the Government has informed them that they will have complete support in demanding the withdrawal of the Kemalist forces from the Chanak neutral zone. It is to be assumed, therefore, that the British Commander-in-chief’s representations to the Turks, which have not effected their purpose, as the present situation shows, are to be succeeded by a demand for withdrawal with a time limit. If this impresses the Turks in the manner that is earnestly to be desired in the interests of peace, doubtless they will see

the wisdom of falling in with General Harington’s suggestion for a conference of British and Turkish officers with a view to the definition and establishment of a provisional neutral zone without prejudice to any line of demarcation that may subsequently be established. It is clear that the situation is extremely delicate in the Chanak area, and that the Turks are playing a dubious game. The British demand for withdrawal should comt> 1 them to show their hand. If it helps to convince them of the British determination it should apprise them of the expediency of abandoning their provocative tactics. If more disturbing consequences result it will be because these would have been unavoidable in any event. The apparent boldness of the Turks is no doubt based on a misconception of the strength of their own general position and ability to carry matters off with a high hand, though it is difficult to believe that Mustapha Kemal himself Imagines that the Allies will accept such conditions as those which he has been credited with framing as antecedent to the Turkish participation in a conference. It is pointed out that the relations between Great Britain and Turkey are still governed by the conditions of the Armistice of 1918, and if Turkey breaks these she automatically herself ends the peace. Two Labour utterances against any resort to arms on Britain’s part in the Near East are embodied in the cabled messages of this morning, one in a speech by Mr Arthur Henderson, the other a very strong manifesto by the Council of Action in Sydney. The assumption on which these protests are founded is that Great Britain is desirous of war or is adopting a provocative policy. British policy in this matter has been dictated by recognition of the necessity of checking the threatened Kemalist invasion of the Balkans, anil of safeguarding interests that are vital to the peace of Europe. No nation wants war less than Great Britain. Her hope has simply been to prevent, by a demonstration of force, a disastrous extension of the conflict in the Orient, which has been fairly described as a continuation^of the Great War,