Wairarapa Daily Times [Established 45 Years.] THURSDAY, MAY 27, 1920. THE TURKISH TREATY.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 46, Issue 14127, 27 May 1920, Page 4

Wairarapa Daily Times [Established 45 Years.] THURSDAY, MAY 27, 1920. THE TURKISH TREATY.

At last, eighteen months after the cessation of hostilities, the Supreme Council has presented the Turkish delegates with the terms of the Treaty. These contain few surprises. The retention of Constantinople by the Turks had been foreshadowed. The Allies’ decision has aroused a good deal of criticism in Britain and elsewhere, but it was governed by the desire to make some concession to Moslem sentiment, and also, no doubt, by the difficulty of finding any other satisfactory w r ay of disposing of the Turkish capital and its environs. Turkey in Europe, which once covered the Balkan Peninsula and extended almost to Vienna, is now reduced to a tiny tongue of land behind the lines of Chatalja—an area far smaller than the county of Cumberland. The concession saves the Turkish face, but is largely illusory, for it is discounted by the internationalisation of the Dardanelles, which are to be garrisoned by Allied troops. Any gratification the Turks may feel at being allowed to remain in Europe must be counterbalanced by their losses in Asia. The official summary rather naively declares that the boundaries in Asia remain the same, with the exception of the southern frontier, a mode of expression which somewhat inadequately conveys the fact that Turkey lias been deprived of nine-tenths of her former possessions in this continent. The new frontier, which,runs from Adana approximately east to the Persian border, cuts off Syria, Palestine and Mesopotamia, which are to be held under mandate, and Arabia, which is incorporated in the new kingdom of lledjaz. Even within the territory left to Turkey her authority is not complete. Although she retains formal sovereignty over Smyrna, the administration is in the 1 ands of Greece, while Kurdistan is to be autonomous, and provision is made for its possible eventual independence. It should be observed that Turkey’s losses do not involve corresponding gains by the Allies. Greece alone fre-

cellos any substantial advantage from the Treaty, which assigns Eastern Thrace to her, and recognises Greek interests in Smyrna. Italy’s claims in the littoral of Asia Minor do not appear to have succeeded. France will have a mandate over Syria, and Britain over Mesopotamia, but a mandate cannot be regarded as conferring a material benefit. Armenia becomes an indepenlent State, and Palestine, in ac-. cordance with the British declaration of 1917, a national home for the Jewish people. Meanwhile there has been some difference of opinion with regard to Turkey’s probable attitude to the Treaty. It has been suggested that there is a strong feeling against submitting to “oppressive terms,” especially among the Young Turks, and that Turkey may refuse to sign. The recent collisions between the Turks and the French in Cilicia and the depredations of the Kurds in Armenia have been quoted as evidence that Turkey is 'impenitent and truculent. However, General Sir Charles Townsliend, who had ample opportunities of acquainting himself with the Turkish point of view during his long captivity, and who negotiated the armistice on Turkey ’s behalf, does not subscribe to this theory.. He says that the bulk of the people have no sympathy with the aspirations of rhe Young Turks, that Turkey’s heart was never in the war, and that she will accept any terms that are offered. It is to be hoped that General Townshend is correct. Peace with Turkiv is long overdue. The delay has not onlv been responsible for much unrest in the Moslem world, but has added to the Allies’ burdens by compelling them to maintain costly garrisons in ths Near East. The sooner this anomalous interlude between war and peace is ended the better it will be for all concerned.