The Daily News. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 1922. THE CRESCENT AND THE CROSS.

Taranaki Daily News, 4 September 1922, Page 4

The Daily News. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 1922. THE CRESCENT AND THE CROSS.

Although little or no sympathy is likely to be extended to Greece in her rupture with Turkey, Christian nations will be inclined to view the hostilities between these two countries in the light of past experience of terrible atrocities committed by the Turks on Christian enemies. The Greeks declare that if their troops are withdrawn from Asia Minor the Christians will be left to a terrible fate, because the Allies do not provide alternative protection. Now that the Greeks find Kemal’s army superior to their own, they appear to be keenly stirring up the Allies to action, but it has to be remerabere. that they flouted the Allies in taking a lone hand against the Turks and expressing their determination to oceup Constantin iple. According to General Townshend, who recently interviewed Kemal Pasha, although the visit was objected to by the British authorities, the Kemalists are well armed and organised, besides being determined. He contends that Mr. Lloyd George’s recent Near East speech killed all hope of peace, but allowance has to be made for the friction between the general and the British Government, which is likely to color his views. Tne British Premier certainly objected to being drawn into another war merely to save the pride of the Greeks, whose duplicity and treachery were startlingly exemplified in the great war. It must not be forgotten that action by Britain has been made extremely difficult owing to France having sided with Kemal. There is. therefore, some force in General Townshend’s assertion that “Britain and France must of necessity march together as regards the Near East, for so long as France is pro-Turk and Britain pro-Greek, we cannot hope for peace.” Without doubt the Kemalists, or National Turks, would be in a better position at the forthcoming Vienna Conference if they held the Greeks in the hollow of their hands, but that peace or war should depend on France abandoning her pro-Turk attitude and joining hands with Britain is far too slender a thread to contemplate with equanimity. The serious nature of the position consists, not in Turco-Greek hostilities (for it might be to the advantage of civilisation if they fought to the last man) but in the menace to Christians. But for the effect in India of a war against the Crescent there would not be a moment’s hesitation in putting both the Turks and Greeks where they belong and making them stay there. France has no interest that aspect of the question, so feels at liberty to back Turkey, yet it should be possible for these two Allies to march together and put an end to the present deplorable hostilities. There is little or nothing to choose from as between Greece and Turkey, except in the matter of fanaticism. Obviously a definite policy will have to be evolved in regard to the future of the Near East, otherwise it will be like an open powder magazine that any chance spark may explode, with far-reaching disaster. At the present time the question of German finance is overshadowing all lesser complications, yet the time must come when the unsatisfactory position in the Near East is brought under review with the object of arriving at a settlement on a permanent basis. Very little reliance can be placed on the official communiques issued by the Greeks and Turks, but it appears to be fairly clear that the Greeks have met their masters. The question is not what will happen unless there is intervention, but when will intervention take place? Here, again, is where America could be of much service in finding a solution of the existing problem.