The Daily News. THURSDAY, MARCH 25, 1920. CONSTANTINOPLE'S FUTURE.

Taranaki Daily News, 25 March 1920, Page 4

The Daily News. THURSDAY, MARCH 25, 1920. CONSTANTINOPLE'S FUTURE.

According to a recent cable message, a delegation from'a conference held at Calcutta to consider matters relating to the Khalifate, urged upon Mr. Lloyd George the restoration of the territorial status quo in Turkey, including the undisturbed presence of the Sultan as Khalif at Constantinople, and no transference of authority over Moslem holy places. The reply of the British Premier was in every way worthy of his statesmanship. He said: — '"We are not going to abandon, in the I case of Moslem countries like Turkey, 1 those principles we ruthlessly applied J to Christian countries, such as Geri many and Austria. The same inde--1 pendence will be given to MohamrneI dans as to Christians, and the principle 8 of self-determhration will be applied to S non-Turkish people hitherto under TurI kish rule. In the interests of civilisaI tion the Allies are bound to exercise I control in Armenia, where the Turks I have shown incompetency to protect I their own subjects, who were massacI red wholesale." I Admittedly, no more difficult proB blem has faced the Peace Con--8 fc-renee than settling the future of ! Constantinople. Those who predict that awful disasters will visit the British Empire if anything is done to outrage Moslem sentiment entirely fail to grasp the outstanding phases of the question. Practically, the reply of Mr. Lloyd I George is a direct enunciation of the main principle which actuates B the Allies in their great task of reconstructing Europe in such a way as will be most likely to ensure peace, protect all nations and creeds, and give free scope for development along the right lines. This policy has always been pursued by Britain without being deflected one iota by fear of results. Writing on this subject recently, the London Spectator puts the position tersely and convincingly. It must be remembered, it says, there was no need for Turkey to join Germany in the great war. She did it deliberately; there was no question of a Holy War; she did not fight for religious reasons. Turkey joined herself with Lutheran Germany, with Roman Catholic Austria, and with Orthodox Bulgaria in order to attack Great Britain, Russia and Prance, and thereby prolonged the struggle by two years, besides committing terrible cruelties or. British and Indian soldiers. The fact cannot be ignored that the Mohammedan troops of Britain | and the Arabs of Hedjaz were not _ alone fighting against the Sultan, for the Mohammedan soldiers of France and Russia did the same '•' thing. K. therefore, the argument that we must now restore the territorial status quo in Turkey were sound, Britain ought ~ not to have allowed a single bulr' let or shell to be. fired at the ;E "holy" persons of the Sultan's troops. The idea is preposterous, especially in view of the allegiance of Mrtlmmmedan subjects to Britain and their complete faith in

iritish tolerance and justice—a 1 olerance that is a settled prin- 1 iple and not a mere expedient 1 or appeasing Islam. The Turks ( o not understand tolerance; they ' lersecute on principle. History 1 epeats itself. The same fear of ' ff en ding Mohammedans as that 1 i'hich is now being raised was ! oiced in 1856 when Lord Can 1 ling went to war with Persia, and 1 hough that war Avas heartily dis- 1 iked by Indian Mohammedans, 1 Britain was not deterred from ! arrying it out. In the Crimean 1 War, continues our distinguished iontemporary, Britain unfortunitely backed the Turk against lussia and sacrificed thousands of 1 ives on the terrible plateau of Sebastopol, being rewarded soon liter by the Moslem rising and the ilutiny in India. Hence the apjropriatcness of Mr. Lloyd ■reorge's statement: "We are not joing to abandon in the case of Moslem countries like Turkey ;hose principles we ruthlessly ap)lied to Christian countries such is Germany and Austria." For sleven hundred years Constantin>ple was the centre of Eastern Christendom, and for several cen;uries was a more important place n the Christian world than Rome tself. The Turkish occupation since 1453 has not transformed the Christian city into a city that belongs solely to Islam, though it lias made it a hotbed of intrigue and festering sores in the whole body politic of the Continent. It is no more a Holy Place than Budapest, Belgrade, or Sofia, each of which has been conquered and temporarily held by the Turks. At the same time neither Britain nor her Allies have any desire or intention to be other than considerate to Moslem feeling, but there are limits to forbearance, and Turkey has deliberately courted a day of reckoning. There appears to be some merit in the suggestion, made early in the present year in a letter appearing in the London Times, that. Constantinople should beeome the permanent, seat of the League of Nations, or, the grounds that the city would be, historically and geographically, a perfect seat of authority, being the junction of East and v' while its historical and religious associations would appeal to all creeds aud all countries. Such a solution should certainly satisfy all but those who insist on Constantinople remaining in Turkish hands. As the international capital of reconstructed Europe, Constantinople would be purged of its past iniquities aud take on a glorified future, while the removal of the seat of Turkish Government to Asia need not necessarily mean that Constantinople would not retain its religious influence, and it would still be open to visits by all Moslems from the Sultan downwards. A purified Constantinople freed from its past dangers, would be the grandest war memorial that could be desired, and would be the coping stone of the high ideals which animated the Allies in their great struggle for the predominance of right over might.