The Daily News. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1923. TURKISH OBSTINACY.

Taranaki Daily News, 8 February 1923, Page 4

The Daily News. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1923. TURKISH OBSTINACY.

The dramatic ending of the endeavors to reach an agreement with Ismet Pasha on all matters in dispute between the Allies and Turkey, indicates quite plainly the strenuous nature of the task which Lord Curzon undertook when he went to the Conference at Lausanne. Hoping against hope, Lord Curzon delayed his departure several times, even when he was seated in the train which was to convey him over the first portion of his return journey to England, yet all his powers of argument, persuasion and exemplary patience were of no avail, and the conference failed to accomplish the object for which it was convened. To those who have studied the -peculiar mentality of the modern Turkish leaders there is nothing surprising in their elusive ways of escaping from a definite agreement. They can be carried up to a point where acceptance seems likely, just as a horse may be led to a trough to drink, but it is just the' final act of accomplishment from which they back out. The cable message states that “Lord Curzon wrestled with Ismet for another two hours before giving up the struggle, twice deferring his departure by special train, but Israel's attitude I stiffened. ’ ’ Hours were passed in strenuous debate of the proposals regarding capitulations and economic questions, but all in vain. Probably if the truth were known it would be found that Ismet never intended to commit the Angora Government to .any written agreement, his main object being to ascertain what concessions he could wring .from the Allies as a basis for further claims. It should be noted that when Ismet was justifying his incredible mtraetibility for the edification of Turkish journalists, he asserted that he did not refuse to sign owing to the capitulations, but on account of the financial section of the treaty having the effect of re-es-tablishing economic capitulations jvhich would encompass the enslavement of Turkey. That, of course, was mere gallery play, and was on a par with his further remarks that he was not aware the conference was over, and that his conscience was clear, and so it may be —with reservations. The diplomatic correspondent of the Daily Chronicle blames the French Premier’s unfortunate and mischievous last hour intervention for the break-down of the conference, but there is nothing to justify such a sweeping charge, though it is incomprehensible how M. Poincare committed such a piece of Gallic folly. Turkey is quite aware she has nothing to hope for from France, also that Britain has much to offer her either in the direction of peace or war, and the correspondent is on much surer ground when asserting that “Britain alone has the power of life or death over Turkey.” Ismet knows perfectly well that Britain will do anything in reason to avoid hostilities, and that knowledge has been an important factor in leading him on

to see how far his demands can go without actually forcing a settlement by warfare. The reasons given by him for the failure of the conference show that the only vital points in dispute are essentially those which readily adapt themselves to decision by amicable discussion. Unhappily, behind Ismet is a bellicose coterie of Turks inspired with the mania of sweeping out of their country all foreign influence or control. Whether they will proceed to extreme measures is uncertain, yet the prospects of peace mainly depend on their amenity to reason. Possibly they may realise that bluff has its disadvantages.