THE NEAR EAST.

Taranaki Daily News, 6 December 1922, Page 5

THE NEAR EAST.

PROBLEM OF THE STRAITS.

TURKS REMAIN SILENT.

A DIFFICULT POSITION, By Telegraph.—Press Assn.—Copyright. Received Dec. 5, 5.5 p.m. Lausanne, Dee. 4. Lord Cuzron, in an introductory address, opened a discussion at the Near East conference on the Straits question, after which Ismet Pasha was the first to speak. He merely rejoiced that the Allies accepted his Note inviting the Russians, when he sat down without further explanation.

A feeling of uneasiness was created. Lord Curzon remarked that he wished Ismet would give further details, but Ismet flatly refused. M. Tchitcherin next spoke. Up to now the best possible diplomatic tone had been preserved at the conference, but M. Tchitcherin changed that. He addressed the Assembly in that irritating tone and with harsh, cynical gestures well known to those who met him at Genoa. M. Tchitcherin said that while the Russians reserved the right to participate in the other conference debates, he for the moment would dwell on three points: Firstly, permanent liberty of commercial traffic through the Straits must be assured; secondly, the maintenance of peace in the Black Sea and the security of its shores if peace is to be permanently guaranteed; thirdly, the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus must be closed to all warships and military aircraft in peace as well as war-time, for all Powers except Turkey. Lord Curzon said he was much surprised that the Turks declined to give a complete exposition of their views. It was remarkable that the programme should be proposed by the Russians. M. Tchitcherin, who represented Russia, the Ukraine and Georgia, might as well represent Turkey. Could the conference conclude that Ismet accepted the Russian view as a complete exposition of the Turkish viewpoint? A long and impressive pause followed, and a pin-drop could have been heard. Ismet, after consulting his own and the Russian delegations, asked that the other Powers offer suggestions. Russia’s view most nearly coincided with Turkey’s views, but the Bulgarian did not approve the same.

Lord Curzon emphasised that Ismet was trifling with the conference, which had worked harmoniously for a fortnight and now, at the most important point, was Turkey unable or unwilling to give her own full views? That was not treating the conference with proper respect. He regretted the impression created and proposed the adjournment of the commission. M. Tchitcherin thought it would be advantageous if Britain, France and Italy advanced their views. It was strange to ask the Balkan delegates to speak while the big Powers remained silent. The commission adjourned with a bad impression. Lord Curzon advised the Turks to meet the inviting Powers and examine the situation.

Roumania declared for the freedom of the Straits, It was not her policy to put the key in the pocket of one Power, but there should be a regime operating in the. interest of all Powers. M. Duca, the Roumanian delegate, therefore proposed a demilitarised coast-line and the establishment of an international commission to preserve the freedom of the Straits. Roumania would show her bona tides by proposing disarmament in the Black Sea.

M. Stampoulisky (Bulgaria) urged the necessity for the freedom of traffic. M. Venizelos said he would await the Turkish views before presenting the Greeks’ programme, but he was willing to accept an international commission.

M. Tchitcherin, interviewed by journalists, replied to Lord Curzon’s conference speech. He stated: “If, as Lord Curzon said, I represent Turkey as well as Russia, Georgia and the Ukraine, I also represent Britain, for the ideals set forth by me are those which the British Government always defended, up to 1918, with the greatest energy.” He made it clear that Russia would accept an international commission of control of the Straits, providing it was purely technical and similar to the Danubian commission.