CHAPTER XXXV
THE FUTURE—ABOVE ALL, A LASTING PEACE
Will the future bring us peace; above all, a lasting peace? Though nothing less is worth having, we cannot have war.
I saw M. Franklin-Bouillon in Paris and, though not perhaps in agreement with all he did in Syria, I maintain that his work in Moudania deserved thanks rather than criticism. He knows the Turks well, and affirms that he would have made peace at Lausanne. He possibly might have done so, but would it have been lasting peace?
On my way back to London we cross the channel in a Handley-Page Aeroplane. There is just time to prepare a conclusive answer to all questions about the harem; for no matter how eager we are to proceed, after six months’ study of the Angora movement, to more important impressions, every newspaper correspondent asks about the harem.
Just as for those who, in the States; held me personally responsible for our policy in Ireland, I stole from Life a witty answer, compressed into this dramatic “tabloid,” that “turned away American wrath”:
“Pat: Wouldn’t it be awful if England now gave us all we wanted?”
“Mike: Sure, and ’twould be like her to play us the dirty trick.”
In like manner, I prepared two shots to kill “harem” inquiries:—
One: “Why has the Turk only one wife, to-day?
“When four wives meant four tillers of the ground, there was ‘sense’ in polygamy. It is ‘folly’ now they buy their dresses in Paris.”
Two: “Why are you always so early at the Mosque?” a pious man was asked.
“As I have two wives, I leave home as soon as possible.”
The result was as I expected.
But what about the peace for which we all wait so anxiously?
What has the future in store for us? We must turn over a new page, and find our way with great care, both sides first uttering their mea culpas, with honest courage to learn the lesson of their mistakes.
Above all, may Lausanne learn the lesson of Versailles.
Which of the Big Four dared face the real problems of Versailles? They decided nothing, but, leading us into the pestilent zone of neutrality, imposed a “Government by Committees” upon the world, which could not work. Nature abhors neutrality, as she abhors a vacuum. And so it is in politics.
On the other hand, however, we ask ourselves what nation was as badly beaten as Turkey? Yet which of our late enemies has dared such open defiance to the Allies? Not, however, in consequence of their victory over the Greeks; but because she knows that, however much we may pretend, none wants to fight; and no one can win the prize of “Constantinople” save by conquest.
We had foolish visions of a new Byzantium, and thought that Greece would reward our support by a “place on the Bosphorus.” But had the Powers accepted this monstrous idea of a Greek Bosphorus, we should have found it necessary to punish the arrogance of our soi-disant fellow-burglars. The timeo Danaos, etc., of ancient Greece has still its place in modern politics.
The Allies, however, knew they could not create a “neutral” Constantinople, and had intended, before the Bolshevik regime, to present the prize to Russia. A “committee” government of France, Italy and England would mean English rule; and our blundering had been too patent.
There remained no choice. Constantinople had to be given back to Turkey. Though she was beaten in the Great War, which she has now forgotten, we could not conquer her (single-handed, as we should find ourselves to-day); and, therefore, “she has to have her own way.” The endeavour to curb New Turkey by “neutral zones” would prove as useless as an attempt to check the tides. It is only by an honest peace, carefully thought out in every detail and planned for permanent security, that we can regain our prestige in the Near East.
Perhaps, however, the greatest lesson we have still to learn from Turkey’s victory was spoken in Gœthe’s lines:—
“He who would be just must have consideration for all men.”
Or again, as it is written in the Turkish lines quoted by Professor Browne:—
Kam máta gawm un wa ma mátat makárimee pum
Wa asha gawm un was hum fi ’n—nase amwátu!
Many a people’s virtues survive when themselves are sped,
And many a people linger, who are counted by man as dead!
Turkey is not dead, but born again out of the ruins of a Great Civilisation. May there be peace again between East and West, that shall bring peace to a world so greatly needing what it so little deserves!
My final words are of sincere congratulations to New Turkey, of warmest thanks to all the friends who gave unending interest to my visit, of pious hopes for peace.
At Lausanne, Ismet Pasha always gave the toast of “The British Empire and King George,” and I responded with “Turkey and Mustapha Kemal Pasha”; then we touched glasses, coupling the names. May “coming events cast their shadows before.” Inch Allah! and again, Inch Allah!
THE END