The Daily News. SATURDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1922. FRANCE’S ATTITUDE.

Taranaki Daily News, 21 October 1922, Page 4

The Daily News. SATURDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1922. FRANCE’S ATTITUDE.

It is invariably the ease that when one-time friends have an difference that threatens on one side -to drift into enmity, the party who commits the original breach of friendship becomes the author of bitter attacks on the injured, and because of being in the wrong, vilifies the victim of his perfidy. Ever since M. Poincare became Premier of France there has been a succession of more or less alarming strains on the solidarity of the Entente, and although British statesmen have usually contrived to avoid a breach, each disagreement has made the task of retaining the alliance more difficult. First it was the reparations question, and latterly it has been the problem of the Near East. Apparently the French Cabinet has come to see that Britain’s policy as regards German reparations and the stabilising of finance in Europe is the only one that can be really effective, but the astounding attitude of France over the Near East problem, as reflected in the bitter and vitriolic attacks on the British Premier in the French Press, appears to indicate a desire to take a lone hand now that Britain has saved France from the terrible nightmare of German dominance. A great deal of the contents of most of the cabled messages appearing in the Press of late has to be carefully weighed, its probable source conjectured, and due allowance made for tainted partisanship, much of it being inspired propaganda circulated with a definite object both in France and Britain. In refer ring to Near East, matters in his speech at Manchester, Mr. Lloyd George said:—

“France sent a message stating that if either the Greeks, or the Turks invaded the neutral zone they must ho resisted by force by the Allies. We accepted that, and we thought Franco meant it. It is useless trying to bluff a first-rate fighting animal. . . It was because Britain threatened and meant it, and the Turks knew we meant it, that we had peace.”

France not only backed down

from helping Britain, but her troops were ordered to retire. Why? Because France had previously come to an understanding, under the treaty of Angora, to the effect that in future she would “refuse to participate in any demarche whatsoever, whether military or political, against Turkey.” This agreement accounted for the refusal of the French Government to take any part in the proposed inquiry into the Anatolian outrages, and yet for some months France argued with the British Foreign Office and others as to the scope and details of the conference, and even on the question of asking Amer-

ica and other neutrals to undertake the inquiry. Obvious as it was that France was doing her 'best to save the face of the Kemalists, no one could have drawn the inference that at the last hour she intended to withdraw altogether, at the risk of destroying the entire scheme. It might well have been though that M. Poincare would have realised that his rightful plea on behalf of the homeless Frenchmen in France’s devastated regions was bound to lose a good deal of its moral, force in the eyes of the world when accompanied by such an attitude towards the Christian martyrs of Turkish cruelties. It may also be stated, so as to shed a side-light on the worthlessness of French Press comments, that, with two exceptions, the reports of the American Near East relief workers were persistently and deliberately denied. France had committed herself to Kemal’s aims, and made a sorry show of herself in consequence. Recently the French High Commissioner in Turkey (M. Bouillon) adopted a very common practice by giving to Press representatives his views on Mr. Lloyd George’s Manchester speech, so far as it related to France. He professed to divulge the inner history of the Mudania conference, and then claimed that it was the intercession of France and the “political sagacity of Kemal,” and not to British reinforcements, that peace was due. Even so he could not refrain from

discharging a poisoned dart at British policy, as represented by Mr. filoyd George, by asserting that British measures of force only hindered the conclusion of the Armistice by ( forty-eight hours. Yet, if we are to believe General Harrington, he “was given a free hand, and the British Government, backed him throughout.” The fact is that the French Government know full well that, in entering into a secret treaty with the Angora Government, they virtually were guilty of an act of disloyalty—if not treachery—to an ally which had made tremendous sacrifices in order to save France from being wiped off the map. The French way of showing gratitude is to turn their backs on Britain when she needed support and countenance. It is this astounding attitude which is at the root of French bitterness, and shows itself in manufacturing grievances and otherwise behaving like a spoilt child. Happily the supply of British magnanimity is inexhaustible; she can pity and forgive, even an unrepentant traducer. All the same, France stands to lose the respect and esteem, even the confidence, of her best friend—and she cannot afford such a needless sacrifice.