LAUSANNE CONFERENCE

Waimate Daily Advertiser, Volume XXIII, 6 February 1923, Page 2

LAUSANNE CONFERENCE

BREAKDOWN OF NEGOTIATIONS Press Assn.—By Tel.—Copyright. LONDON, Feb. 4. The “Morning Post’s Lausanne correspondent says that the French and the Italians are more annoyed than the British over the Turkish obstinacy in connection with finances and capitulations, which touch them more than us. The difference is illustrated by the final words at the Conference, Lord Curzon telling Ismet Pasha that Turkish intractability was incredible, and M. Bompard saying that it was a crime to talk of separate treaties. Ismet inf or med Turkish journalists that he did not refuse to sign owing to capitulations, but financially the section of the treaty meant the reestablishment of economic capitulations and enslavement of Tur key. He claimed that he was unaware that the Conference was over, and declared that he expected further communications from the Allies. \ Ismet concluded: My conscience is clear. The French delegation is lea ving for Paris. —A. and N.Z. LAUSANNE, Feb. 4. At the last moment, when the feeling was optimistic, and the conclusion of the Treaty was regarded as imminent, the Turks refused to sign, and an agreement could not be reached on the ques tion of capitulations and economic points. After deliberating for an hour, the Allies adjourned and sought, further particulars from the Turks. A special train, in which the Allied delegates intended to leave, was held back. LAST HOURS. LAUSANNE, Feb. 4. The last hours of the Conference were most dramatic. Lord Curzon and the Allied delegates, contested the Turks, point after point, and to a certain stage, it seemed likely thau an agreement would be reached, but the capitulations and economic questions proved the deathblow. Hours were passed in strenuous debate of the proposals regarding capitulations, which included the Turkish nomination of foreign legal advisers to watch foreigners’ interests in Turkish courts. Lord Curzon, Rumbold and Bompard discussed this for two hours, the two latter eventually going to' Lausanne Palace. Another battle with Ismet Pasha then took place after which they appointed Lord Curzon in further discussion. At the conclusion of that, they telephoned, requesting Ismet’s*attendance. Lord Curzon wrestled with Ismet Pasha for another two hours before giving up the struggle, twice deferring departure by special train. But Ismet’s attitude stiffened. Lord Curzon went to the train at nine o’clock, and M. Bompard remained to make a last minute attempt to save the situation. Lord Curzon waited in a carriage, detaining the train for the third time, until nearly ten, when M. Bompard breathlessly dashed into the station and dejectedly reported a final failure.—A. and N.Z. Cable. NO COMPROMISE. I The Turks replied and agreed to accept the proposals for sharing the Turkish debt, but reserved the rights to collect debts due to Turkey. The reply concluded: “In the interests of peace, we propose to sign essential clauses on which agreements have been reached, leaving the others for further negotiation.”— A. and N.Z. Cable. GENERAL’S DENUNCIATION. LONDON, Feb. 5. General Townshend, interviewed by the “Westminster Gazette," describes tire agitation over Gallipoli graves as an unworthy effort to excite the British publie. He does not know what Lord Curzon imagines the Turks might do regarding the graves, but points to the British cemetery at Waidarpasha, opposite Constantinople where there arc many 01 o;ir Crimean dead, which were kept well bv the Turks.—A. and N.Z. Cable.

LAST HOUR INTERFERENCE LONDON, Feb. 5. The diplomatic correspondent of the "Daily Chronicle returns to the old question oi F reach responsibility. "Without unfairness, and prejudice, the. blame for the breakdown can be- attributed, mainly to M. Poincare’s unfortunate mischievous last hour intervention, but there the I'rench power for mischief possibly might have been exhausted. France would have nothing more to offer. Her power in helping the Turks is exhausted. Britain has much to offer in peace or war. II the Turks want peace, Britain is the sole Power with money and political power to assist them, or to bring them to their feet if they want war. Britain alone has the power of life and death over Turkey. All this is known to the Turks. Their object, it may be presumed, is a separate peace with Britain.” The “Daily Express” says it is ridiculous to imagine that we will use the British Navy, or recall to the trenches men of the British race in order to change the complexion of the Turkish judicature. This would only happen if the Turks are mad enough to attack British troops. There is no reason to believe that they w'H be mad enough for that.—A. and N.Z. Cable. ANOTHER RUMOUR. PARIS, Feb. 4. Loudon intimated that in the event of the Turks declining to renounce Karagatch, Greece will recommence hostilities. LAUSANNE, Feb. 4. The Turkish reply expresses the conviction that the unanimity of views between the Allies and the Turkish delegation on fundamental points is sufficient establishment of peace. It declares that the Turks are prepared to agree to great sacrifices for the preservation of peace. They accept the western frontier as proposed by the Allies, and, in order to testify to goodwill, will not insist upon obtaining Karagatch and the railway thence to Kuleliburgas and Demotika. Briefly, they renounce the frontier of 1915. They renounce the policy in regard to the closing of the straits and agree to their demilitarisation and surrender the claim to garrison Gallipoli. They will leave cemeteries in the Anzac zone undisturbed. They suggest that the future of Mosiil will be decided between Britain and Turkey within the year. CAIRO, Feb. 4. It is understood that, as a result of conversations between the King of Egypt and Lord Allenby, accord was reached regarding differences between the ritish and Egyptian Governments over the Soudan clauses in the new Egyptian constitution.— A. and N.Z. Cable. “THE TIMES” VIEW. LONDON, Feb. 4. “The Times” in an editorial dealing primarily with the confusion raised by the mystery of French Notes to Angora, examines the advantages of the AngloFrench unity, and concluded: It is very natural that the British people should wish io know the real motive of a Power with whom we have been accustomed in late years closely to co-operate. We are accustomed to regard treaties as binding, and a plighted word as a contract that cannot be lightly ignored at the convenience of either party. In the policy the French are pursuing in tire Ruhr, a policy inspiring England witu the greatest alarm as to the future of Europe and the world, the French Government, knowing that Britain entirely disapproves, invokes sanctions under the Treaty. That was the product of the joint efforts of all Powers who were allies in the war. The French have aroused in Germany a spirit of resistance, reckless disregard of all obligations, and an imposed peace treaty which seemA likely to throw the whole 1 work of peace into complete confusion. We have no part in this, yet we must, bear the consequences. The tradition of close relationship with France, and especially the vivid memories of comradeship in the war, will still prevent many people in England from perceiving the full consequences to ourselves and the world of the headstrong action of France. If, however, the French Government, in blind infatuation for some obscure schemes of their own, go so far as to wreck the hope of peace in the Near East, encouraged by the Labours of the Lausanne Conference, then the people of this country will begin to feel that for all practical purposes the Entente is ended”—“The Times”