THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES Tuesday, March 27, 1945. RUSSIA AND TURKEY

Otago Daily Times, Issue 25804, 27 March 1945, Page 4

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES Tuesday, March 27, 1945. RUSSIA AND TURKEY

In notifying Turkey of a desire to terminate the twenty-year-old treaty of friendship and neutrality which is the basis of Russo-Turkish relations, the Soviet Government is apparently proceeding as smoothly as ever upon a realistic course. There have been many developments since 1925 that might cause a treaty, in the words of Moscow radio, to correspond no longer with present requirements. One of these developments, in the case of Russia, is her emergence as the most actively influential force, both military and political, throughout the area of the Balkans, which is very emphatically a sphere of Turkish interest. Another is the matter of Turkey’s absolute control, as recognised by the Powers by the Montreux Convention of 1936, over the Dardanelles; and a further consideration is the imminence of the San Francisco conference at which Soviet Russia and Turkey will be associated with the United Nations in exploring methods for securing a peaceful settlement of international problems. It can be presumed that the Soviet Government, having regard to the many and important matters outstanding which affect Russian contacts with her neighbours to the west, is anxious to complete so far as is possible a practical system of alliances before the San Francisco conference —certainly before the detailed working out of an international security project that will doubtless be a duty assigned by the conference to various committees. Russian interest in the Dardanelles passage, which provides the Soviet with access to the Mediterranean, is very natural. It would seem to be possible that the Soviet Government might wish to affect the agreement of 1936, allowing full Turkish sovereignty over the vital area; but the convention could not properly be modified without consultation with other signatory Powers, including Great Britain and France. There is no especial reason for thinking that the Soviet should require to expand as a naval force into the Mediterranean, and therefore a guarantee of free rights to passage through the Dardanelles should satisfy present Russian requirements. But the Soviet Government’s ideas of the form of an “ improvement ” ' in Russo-Turkish relations may be concerned only secondarily with the Dardanelles question, and much more importantly with Turkey’s political attitude. This is so resplutely nonCommunist as to have been characterised in Russia as pro-Fascist. Both in sympathy and economic interests, Turkey, moreover, has leaned consistently to the west, particularly to a long-standing friend and customer, Great Britain. But the suggestion of a correspondent of The Times that the firm AngloTurkish alliance is displeasing to the Soviet deserves to be treated with reserve. There is, in fact, evidence that Turkey is not opposed to closer relationship with Russia, though possibly not on the present Russian terms. The Christian Science MonL tor’s well-informed writer on Turkey, Dr Kurd Albu, noted early in the present year the anxiety of Turkey for a strengthening of ties with Russia, provided a guarantee could be obtained of territorial • integrity on the eastern frontiers, including final renunciation by the Soviet of the two Turkish provinces which were recognised after a military occupation by the Turks in 1921. Turkey, this writer pointed out, is most anxious also to re-establish her position as a power in the Balkans, and specifically to exercise a considerable control in the JEgean, where Greece, and possibly Bulgaria, which lacks an outlet—and lacks also a seat at San Francisco—may wish to extend their interests. Russian support of Turkish claims could be particularly valuable in the near future since Turkey, though recognised as an associate of the United Nations, has certainly not established any belligerent claim to be heard as a leading voice in the fight for freedom.