MUSTAPHA KEMAL.

Taranaki Daily News, 25 September 1922, Page 5

MUSTAPHA KEMAL.

DICTATOR OF TURKEY. PEN PORTRAIT OF NEW SALADIN. The personality of Mustapha Kem* al, the leader of the Turkish Nationalists, is both interesting and picturesque; interesting because he differs bo radically from all the contemporary national leaders, picturesque (because he is the type of Oriental soldier, who, until a hundred years ago, was the maker of political history all over Asia. In any country west of Turkey the career jM Kemal would have been an in Turkey, no other type could have organised his “war of independence.” He has all the virtues and all the faults which are attributable (tqj the heroes of Turkish history. He is a soldier with a record for hri|n liance in the field, established at the Daty danelles; a man who has gained the affection of the ranks by his simplicity and by his consideration for their welfare. His honesty is acknowledged by all. A Bulgarian doctor relates how, when Turkish liason officer at Sofia during the Salonika campaign, Kemal often went without medals, because he had failed to augment his inadequate pay after the usual manner of Turkish officers. Mustapha Kemal is a slight, spare man, still young. He has the sallow drawn face of one who suffers some internal complaint. But his square jaw and his deep close-set eyes convey the impression of an invincible vitality, a persevering energy. There is in his eyes all the strength and weakness of his character— confidence which is also obstinacy; an asceticism of thought which is underlain by cruelty and sensuality; a proud aggressivenewi which covers unscrupulousness and jealousy. He is suspicious and mistrustful of his friends, yet cunning men know how to influence and use him. He is a man of force rather than of thought, and his characteristic has been contributing to his success. He threw himself into the resistance of the Treaty of Sevres, without any previoue political experience or any connection with established political parties, and without any consideration for international issues. No politician with a full knowledge of all the adverse odds would have dared to do the same. He has been lucky, for it has been the combination of exterior political events, rather than the gathering of his own strength, that has made his success. He is now established as a military dictator, a ghazi or victorious soldier, a restorer of the old Faith, a reformer of social customs, after the very heart of an Oriental. The Turks love to be driven, preferably to victory, and in Mustapha Kemal there has been given them a man with a genius for driving. The future is very doubtful. , Mus-» tapha Kemal is an effective military dictator, but he has no political instinct, and even if he should obtain eventually his integral Anatolia, it is not easy to foresee a people under his arbitrary control. He has the ability to choose good men, but he does not appear to have the wisdom or the judgment to distribute hie power and responsibilities. He directs operations in the field, although there are better strategists than he in the Turkish camp. He browbeats the National Assembly, although he has no instinct for domestic politics; he could use good diplomatists, but he conducts his foreign relations through the medium of vituperative rhetorical communications to foreign Governments by telegraph. Such a man should have lived in the days of the Grand Turk.