Chapter IX: Turkey and the Slavs (5)

With regard to the question of the Caliphate and temporal power, on which the Indian delegation had been instructed to insist particularly, M. Mohammed Ali, in order to make the Moslem point of view quite clear, wrote as follows:[20]

“The moment this claim is put forward we are told that the West
has outgrown this stage of human development, and that people who
relieved the Head of a Christian Church of all temporal power are
not prepared to maintain the temporal power of the Head of the
Muslim Church. This idea is urged by the supporters of the Laic
Law of France with all the fanaticism of the days of the Spanish
Inquisition, and in England, too. Some of the most unprejudiced
people wonder at the folly and temerity of those who come to press
such an anachronistic claim. Others suggest that the Khalifa
should be ‘vaticanised’ even if he is to retain Constantinople,
while the Government of India, who should certainly have known
better, say that they cannot acquiesce in Muslim statements which
imply temporal allegiance to the Khilafat on the part of Indian
Muslims, or suggest that temporal power is of the essence of the
Khilafat. Where such criticisms and suggestions go astray is
in misunderstanding the very nature and ideal of Islam and the
Khilafat, and in relying on analogies from faiths which, whatever
their original ideals, have, for all practical purposes, ceased to
interpret life as Islam seeks to do.”

As he had said in the course of his official interview with the British Premier, as Islam is not “a set of doctrines and dogmas, but a way of life, a moral code, and a social polity,”—

“Muslims regard themselves as created to serve the one Divine
purpose that runs through the ages, owing allegiance to God in
the first place and acknowledging His authority alone in the last
resort. Their religion is not for Sabbaths and Sundays only, or
a matter for churches and temples. It is a workaday faith, and
meant even more for the market-place than the mosque. Theirs is
a federation of faith, a cosmopolitan brotherhood, of which the
personal centre is the Khalifa. He is not a Pope and is not even a
priest, and he certainly has no pretensions to infallibility. He
is the head of Islam’s Republic, and it is a mere accident, and an
unfortunate accident at that, that he happens to be a king. He is
the Commander of the Faithful, the President of their Theocratic
Commonwealth, and the Leader of all Mussulmans in all matters for
which the Koran and the Traditions of the Prophet, whose successor
he is, provide guidance.”

Therefore, according to the Moslem doctrine—

“There is no such theory of ‘divided allegiance’ here, as
the Government of India consider to be ’subversive of the
constitutional basis on which all Governments are established.’
‘There is no government but God’s,’ says the Koran, ‘and Him alone
is a Mussulman to serve,’ and since He is the Sole Sovereign of all
mankind, there can be no divided allegiance. All Governments can
command the obedience of the Muslims in the same way as they can
command the obedience of other people, but they can do so only so
far as they command it, as Mr. H. G. Wells would say, in the name
of God and for God, and certainly no Christian Sovereign could
expect to exercise unquestioned authority over a Muslim against
the clear commandments of his Faith when no Muslim Sovereign could
dream of doing it. Mussulmans are required to obey God and His
Prophet and ‘the men in authority from amongst themselves,’ which
include the Khalifa; but they are also required, in case of every
dispute, to refer back to the Holy Koran and to the Traditions
of the Prophet, which are to act as arbitrator. Thus the Khalifa
himself will be disobeyed if he orders that which the Faith
forbids, and if he persists in such unauthorised conduct, he may
not only be disobeyed, but also be deposed.

“But whatever he could or could not do, the Khalifa was certainly
not a pious old gentleman whose only function in life was to mumble
his prayers and repeat his beads.

“The best way to understand what he is and what he is not is to go
back to the Prophet whose Khalifa or Successor he is. The Koran
regards man as the vicegerent of God on earth, and Adam was the
first Khalifa of God, and free-willed instrument of divine will.
This succession continued from prophet to prophet, and they were
the guides of the people in all the affairs of life. The fuller and
final revelation came with Mohammed, and since then the Commanders
of the Faithful have been his Khalifas or Successors. But as
religion is not a part of life but the whole of it, and since it
is not an affair of the next world but of this, which it teaches
us to make better, cleaner, and happier, so every Muslim religious
authority has laid it down unequivocally and emphatically that the
allegiance which Muslims owe to the Khalifa is both temporal and
spiritual. The only limits recognised to his authority are the
Commandments of God, which he is not allowed to disobey or defy....

“The Mussulmans, therefore, do not believe that Christ, for
instance, could have said that His was the kingdom not of this
earth but of Heaven alone; or that men were to render to Cæsar what
was due to Cæsar, and to God what was due to God. Cæsar could not
share the world with God or demand from mankind any allegiance,
even if only temporal, if he did not demand it for God and on
behalf of God. But the ordinary Christian conception has been that
the kingdom of Christ was not of this world, and no Pope or priest
could, consistently with this conception, demand temporal power. It
is doubtful if the Papacy is based on any saying of Christ Himself.
At any rate, the Pope has always claimed to be the successor of
St. Peter and the inheritor of _his_ prerogatives. As such he has
been looked upon as the doorkeeper of the kingdom of heaven, his
office being strictly and avowedly limited to the spiritual domain.
A study of history makes it only too apparent that the doctrine of
the Papacy grew in Christianity by the application to the Popes of
the epithets which are applied to St. Peter in the Gospels. Just
as St. Peter never had any temporal authority, so the Papacy also
remained, in the first stages of its growth, devoid of temporal
power for long centuries. It was only by a very slow development
that the Popes aspired to temporal power. Thus, without meaning
any offence, it may be said that the acquisition of temporal power
by the Popes was a mere accident, and they have certainly been
divested of it without doing the least violence to the religious
feelings of one half of the Christian world.

“On the contrary, the temporal power of the Khilafat in Islam is of
the very essence of it, and is traceable not only to the earliest
Khalifas, but to the Prophet himself. This is obviously not the
religious belief of Christian Europe or America; but equally
obviously this is the religious Muslim belief, and after all it is
with the Muslim belief that we are concerned....”

So, considering the ever-increasing armaments of European and American nations, “even after the creation of a nebulous League of Nations,” he asked himself:

“How then can Islam dispense with temporal power? Others maintain
armies and navies and air forces for the defence of their
territories or their commerce, because they love these more than
they hate armaments. To Islam, its culture and ethics are dearer
than territory, and it regards faith as greater than finance. It
needs no army or navy to advance its boundaries or extend its
influence; but it certainly needs them to prevent the aggression of
others.”

Then M. Mohammed Ali dealt separately with the chief clauses of the Turkish treaty in the course of his interview with Mr. Lloyd George, and made the following remarks:

“As regards Thrace, it is not necessary to support the Turkish
claim for the retention of Thrace by any further argument than
that of the principle of self-determination. Its fair and honest
application will ensure the satisfaction of that claim.

“As regards Smyrna, the occupation of Smyrna by the Greeks, who
were not even at war with Turkey, under the auspices of the Allies,
has shaken to a great extent the confidence which Muslims reposed
in the pledges given to them, and the atrocities perpetrated in
that region have driven them almost to desperation. Muslims can
discover no justification for this action except the desire of
Greek capitalists to exploit the rich and renowned lands of Asia
Minor, which are admittedly the homelands of the Turks. If this
state of affairs is allowed to continue, not only will the Turk
be driven out, ‘bag and baggage,’ from Europe, but he will have
no ‘bag and baggage’ left to him, even in Asia. He would be
paralysed, commercially and industrially, in a land-locked small
Emirate in Asia Minor, the speedy bankruptcy of which is certain.
The application of the principle of self-determination would
entirely rule out the Greek claim in this fertile region, which
obviously tempts the greed of the capitalist and the exploiter.

“As regards Cilicia, reasons similar to those that have promoted
the action of Greeks in Smyrna seem clearly to prompt the outcry
of the Christian population in Cilicia, and obviously it is the
Gulf of Alexandretta which is attracting some people as the Gulf of
Smyrna is attracting others.”

Afterwards, coming to the question of the massacres, M. Mohammed Ali declared:

“The Indian Khilafat delegation must put on record their utter
detestation of such conduct and their full sympathy for the
sufferers, whether they be Christian or Muslim. But, if the Turk
is to be punished as a criminal, and populations of other races
and creeds are to be released from their allegiance to the Ottoman
Sovereign on the assumption that the Turks have been tyrants in
the past and their rule is intolerable, then the delegation claim
that the whole question of these massacres must be impartially
investigated by an International Commission on which the All-India
Khilafat Conference should be adequately represented.”

Moreover, the delegation had already said something similar in a telegram sent to Mr. Lloyd George:

“Where casualties have in fact taken place, not only should their
true extent be ascertained, but the Commission should go fully into
the so-called massacres and the intrigues of Tsarist Russia in Asia
Minor after the success of similar intrigues in the Balkans; it
should go into the question of the organisation of revolutionary
societies by the Christian subjects of the Sultan, the rebellious
character of which was subversive of his rule; it should go into
the provocation offered to the Muslim majority in this region, and
the nature of the struggle between the contending parties and the
character of the forces engaged on either side....”

He went on:

“I have no brief for them; I have no brief for the Turks; I have
only a brief for Islam and the India Muslims. What we say is this,
as I said to Mr. Fisher: let there be a thorough inquiry, and if
this thorough inquiry is carried out, and if it establishes to the
satisfaction of the world that the Turks really have been guilty of
unprovoked murders, and have been guilty of these atrocities and
horrible crimes, then we will wash our hands of the Turks.

“To us it is much more important that not a single stain should
remain on the fair name of Islam. We want to convert the whole
world to our way of thinking, but with what face could we go before
the whole world and say we are the brethren of murderers and
massacrers?

“But we know the whole history of these massacres to some extent.
It is only in Armenia that the Turk is said to be so intolerant;
there are other parts of the world where he deals with Christian
people, and where he deals with the Jewish community. No complaints
of massacres come from those communities. Then the Armenians
themselves lived under Turkish rule for centuries and never
complained. The farthest back that we can go to discover any trace
of this is the beginning of the last century. But in reality the
‘massacres’ begin only in the last quarter of the last century.

“It is pretty clear that they begin after the success of efforts
like those made in the Balkans by Russia, which has never disguised
its desire to take Constantinople since the time of Peter the
Great. It has always wanted to go to Tsargrad, as it called it—that
is, the city of the Tsars. They wanted to go there. They tried
these things in the Balkans, and they succeeded beyond their
expectation, only probably Bulgaria became too independent when
it became Greater Bulgaria. But in the case of the Armenians,
they had people who were not very warlike, who had no sovereign
ambitions themselves, and who were also to a great extent afraid
of conversion to another branch of the Orthodox Church, the
Russian branch, so that they were not very willing tools. Still,
they were egged on, and plots and intrigues went on all the time.
These people were incited, and they understood that if they made
a compromise with Tsarist Russia they would get something better.
It was then that these massacres came on the scene. No doubt there
have been several outcries about them; some evidence has been
produced; but there has been no thorough international inquiry
which would satisfy the entire world, Muslim as well as Christian.
It is in that connection that we earnestly appeal to you, to the
whole of Christendom, to the whole of Europe and America, that if
the Turk is to be punished on the assumption that he is a tyrant,
that his rule is a blasting tyranny, and that he ought to be
punished, in that case the evidence should be of such a character
that it should be absolutely above suspicion.”

Mr. Lloyd George in his reply upbraided Turkey with fighting by the side of the Central Powers though Great Britain had never fought against her, and protracting the hostilities by closing the Black Sea to the British fleet; but he did not seem to realise that the Russian policy of the Allies partly accounted for Turkey’s decision. Only at the end of the interview, in answer to a remark of the leader of the Indian delegation, he pleaded in defence of England “that she had made no arrangement of any sort with Russia at the expense of Turkey at the beginning of the war.” Then, before coming to the various points M. Mohammed Ali had dealt with, Mr. Lloyd George, who had kept aloof for a long time from the policy of understanding with France, said:

“I do not understand M. Mohammed Ali to claim indulgence for
Turkey. He claims justice, and justice she will get. Austria has
had justice. Germany has had justice—pretty terrible justice. Why
should Turkey escape? Turkey thought she had a feud with us. What
feud had Turkey with us? Why did she come in to try and stab us
and destroy liberty throughout the world when we were engaged in
this life-and-death struggle? Is there any reason why we should
apply a different measure to Turkey from that which we have meted
out to the Christian communities of Germany and Austria? I want
the Mohammedans in India to get it well into their minds that we
are not treating Turkey severely because she is Mohammedan: we are
applying exactly the same principle to her as we have applied to
Austria, which is a great Christian community.”

As to Arabia—which will be dealt with later on together with the Pan-Arabian movement—though M. Mohammed Ali had declared that “the delegation felt no anxiety about the possibility of an understanding between the Arabs and the Khalifa,” and that the Moslems “did not want British bayonets to subject the Arabs to Turkey,” Mr. Lloyd George answered:

“The Arabs have claimed independence. They have proclaimed Feisal
King of Syria. They have claimed that they should be severed from
Turkish dominion. Is it suggested that the Arabs should remain
under Turkish dominion merely because they are Mohammedans? Is
not the same measure of independence and freedom to be given
to Mohammedans as is given to Christians? Croatia has demanded
freedom, and we have given it to her. It is a Christian community.
Syria has demanded it, and it is given to her. We are applying
exactly the same principles in Christian places, and to impose the
dominion of the Sultan upon Arabia, which has no desire for it, is
to impose upon Arabs something which we certainly would not dream
of imposing upon these Christian communities.”

With regard to Thrace, after owning it was difficult to give reliable figures and saying that according to the Greek census and the Turkish census, which differ but little, the Moslem population was in “a considerable minority,” Mr. Lloyd George stated that “it would certainly be taken away from Turkish sovereignty.” As to Smyrna, he asserted that according to his information “a great majority of the population undoubtedly prefers the Greek rule to the Turkish rule.”

Concerning the temporal power of the Khalifa, he seemed to have forgotten the difference which had just been pointed out to him between the Christian religion and Islam on this point, for he declared:

“I am not going to interfere in a religious discussion where
men of the same faith take a different view. I know of
Mohammedans—sincere, earnest, zealous Mussulmans—who take a very
different view of the temporal power from the one which is taken
by M. Mohammed Ali to-day, just as I know of Catholics who take
one view and other Catholics who take a very different view of the
temporal power of the Pope. That is a controversy into which I do
not propose to enter.”

And as if M. Mohammed Ali’s remarks had quite escaped him, he added:

“All I know is this. The Turk will exercise temporal power in
Turkish lands. We do not propose to deprive him of Turkish lands.
Neither do we propose that he should retain power over lands which
are not Turkish. Why? Because that is the principle we are applying
to the Christian communities of Europe. The same principles must be
applied to the Turk.”

Finally, without thoroughly investigating the question of the massacres, he concluded that the responsibility lay with the Ottoman Government, which “cannot, as it is now constituted, protect its own subjects”; that Turkey is a “misgoverned country”—a reproach that might be applied to many other countries, though nobody would think of declaring they must be suppressed on that account; and that as the Turks “have been intolerant and have proved bad and unworthy rulers,” the solutions proposed by the Allies are the only remedy and therefore are justified.

And so the old argument that Turkey must be chastised was recapitulated once more, and, through the mouth of her Prime Minister, England resorted to threats again, whereas she did not mean to compel Germany to carry out her engagements fully. This attitude seems to be accounted for by the fact that Turkey was weak, and was not such a good customer as Germany. England, while pretending to do justice and to settle accounts, merely meant to take hold of the Straits.

Islam has instituted a social polity and culture which, though widely different from British and American civilisations, and leading to different methods of life, is not necessarily inferior to them; and all religious sects, whether Protestant or Catholic, are wrong when they look upon their own moral conception as superior, and endeavour to substitute it for that of Islam.

If we refer to the letter which was written to Damad Ferid Pasha, president of the Ottoman delegation, in answer to the memorandum handed on June 17, 1919, to the Peace Conference, and which lacks M. Clémenceau’s wit and style though his signature is appended to it, we plainly feel a Puritan inspiration in it, together with the above-mentioned state of mind.

One cannot help being sorry to find in so important a document such a complete ignorance or total lack of comprehension of the Muslim mind, and of the difference existing between our modern civilisation and what constitutes a culture. For instance, we read in it the following:

“History records many Turkish victories and also many Turkish
defeats, many nations conquered and many set free. The memorandum
itself hints at a loss of territories which not long ago were still
under Ottoman sovereignty.

“Yet, in all these changes not one instance occurs in Europe, Asia,
or Africa when the establishment of Turkish sovereignty was not
attended with a decrease of material prosperity or a lower standard
of culture; neither does an instance occur when the withdrawal of
Turkish domination was not attended with an increase of material
prosperity and a higher standard of culture. Whether among European
Christians or among Syrian, Arabian, or African Mussulmans, the
Turk has always brought destruction with him wherever he has
conquered; he has never proved able to develop in peace what he had
won by war. He is not gifted in this respect.”

This stagnation, which to a certain extent has been noticed in modern times, may proceed from the fact that the old Turkish spirit was smothered and Islam was checked by the growth of foreign influence in Turkey. This is probably due, not chiefly to foreign intrusion in the affairs of the Ottoman State—for the latter needed the help of foreign nations—but rather to the selfish rivalries between these nations and to the mongrel solutions inherent in international régimes by which Turkish interests were sacrificed.

It is well known that the decadence of the Arabic-speaking countries had begun long before they were subjected by the Turks. It has even been noticed that Turkish domination in Arabia in 1513 checked the decline of Arabian civilisation, and roused the Syrians, who were in a similar predicament.

Besides, the prevailing and paramount concern for material prosperity which asserts itself in the above-mentioned document, together with the way in which business men, especially Anglo-Saxons, understand material prosperity, would account for the variance between the two civilisations, for it enhances the difference between their standpoints, and proves that the superiority conferred by spiritual eminence does not belong to the nations who consider themselves superior to the Turks.

The Turkish mind, enriched both by Islamic ethics and by Arabian, Persian, and Byzantine influences, has risen to a far more definite and lofty outlook on life than the shallow Anglo-Saxon morality. There is as much difference between the two as between the architecture of the Yeshil-Jami, the green mosque of Brusa, the dome of the Suleymanie, or the kiosk of Baghdad, and the art to which we owe the “sky-scrapers,” the “flat-iron” buildings, the “Rhine bridges,” and the “Leipzig buildings,” or between the taste of the man who can appreciate “loukoums” or rose-jam, and the taste of the man who prefers “chewing-gum” or the acidulated drops flavoured with amyl acetate, or even the sweets flavoured with methyl salicylate provided by the American Government for its army. In the same manner, a similar confusion is often made between comfort—or what vulgar people call comfort—and true ease and real welfare; or again between a set of practical commodities inherent in the utilitarian conception of modern life, and what makes up culture. The quality of culture evidently does not depend on the percentage of water-closets or bath-rooms, or the quantity of calico used per thousand of inhabitants, in a country where the walls of the houses were once decorated with beautiful enamels, where the interior courts were adorned with marble fountains, and where women wore costly garments and silk veils.

Before throwing contempt on Islam, despising the Arabian and Turkish civilisations, and hoping that the Moslem outlook on life will make way for the modern Anglo-Saxon ideal, Mr. Lloyd George and all those who repeat after him that the Turks have no peculiar gift for governing peoples, ought to have pondered over Lady Esther Stanhope’s words, which apply so fittingly to recent events. Being tired of Europe, she had travelled in the East, and, enticed by the beauty and grandeur of the Orient, she led a retired life in a convent near Said, dressed as a Moslem man. One day she was asked by the “Vicomte de Marcellus” whether she would ever go back to Europe, and she answered in some such words as these—we quote from memory:

“Why should I go to Europe? To see nations that deserve to be in
bondage, and kings that do not deserve to reign? Before long the
very foundation of your old continent will be shaken. You have just
seen Athens, and will soon see Tyre. That’s all that remains of
those noble commonwealths so famed for art, of those empires that
had the mastery of the world’s trade and the seas. So will it be
with Europe. Everything in it is worn out. The races of kings are
getting extinct; they are swept away by death or their own faults,
and are getting more and more degenerate. Aristocracy will soon be
wiped out, making room for a petty, effete, ephemeral middle class.
Only the lower people, those who plough and delve, still have some
self-respect and some virtues. You will have to dread everything
if they ever become conscious of their strength. I am sick of your
Europe. I won’t listen to its distant rumours that die away on this
lonely beach. Let us not speak of Europe any more. I have done with
it.”

Besides, all religions accord with the character of the people that practise them and the climate in which they live. Most likely Islam perfectly fitted the physical and moral nature of the Turkish race, since the latter immediately embraced Mohammed’s religion, whereas it had kept aloof from the great Christian movement which, 500 years before, had perturbed a large part of the pagan world, and it has remained faithful to it ever since.

If the Allies tried to minimise the part played by that religion, which perfectly suits the character and conditions of life of the people who practise it, and attempted to injure it, they would really benefit the domineering aims of Rome and the imperialistic spirit of Protestantism. In fact, the Vatican tries to avail itself of the recent Protestant effort, as has already been pointed out, and as various manifestations will show, to bring about a Christian hegemony which would not be beneficial either to the peoples of the East or to the civilisation of the world.

By doing so, the Allies would drive those peoples towards Germanism, though they have no natural propensity for it, for they are averse both to the Lutheran spirit and to the Catholic spirit; yet Germanism has succeeded in finding its way and even gaining sympathy among them, because it pretended to come in a friendly spirit.

It cannot be denied that before the war the Turks endeavoured to find support among other nations to counterbalance German influence. But as, above all things, they dreaded the Russian sway—not without reason, as the latter had already grasped several Turkish provinces in Asia Minor and represented its advance as the revenge of Orthodoxy over Islamism—they had turned towards Germany, who, though it secretly favoured Tsardom, yet pursued an anti-Russian policy.

Of course, they could not have any illusion about what a German Protectorate might be to Turkey, for at a sitting of the Reichstag a German deputy had openly declared: “In spite of our sympathy for Turkey, we must not forget that the time of her partition has come.” As early as 1898 the Pan-German League issued a manifesto under the title _Deutschlands Ansprüche an das Türkische Erbe_ (_The Rights of Germany to the Heritage of Turkey_). “As soon as the present events shall bring about the dissolution of Turkey, no other Power will seriously attempt to raise a protest if the German Empire lays a claim to a share of it, for it has a right to a share as a great Power, and it wants it infinitely more than any other great Power, in order to maintain the national and economic life of hundreds of thousands of its emigrants.” In the same manner, at the time of the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, von Aerenberg did not scruple to say: “The opening to economic life of Asia Minor and Mesopotamia will always be looked upon as a high deed of German enterprise.” And, alluding to the new field of activity which was thus opened to Austria-Hungary, he added: “The possession of Bosnia has made us a Balkan Power; it is our task and duty to discern when the time shall come, and to turn it to account.”

But if the Turks chose to side with Germany, it was because the Emperor “Guilloun” represented himself as the protector of Islam, and promised to leave the Ottoman Empire its religious sovereignty and the full enjoyment of Muslim civilisation. Now, as the Turks acknowledge only Allah’s will, it is foolish to ask a Christian sovereign or a Christian community to exercise authority over them in order to ensure peace; and yet the Western Powers, urged on by religious interests, have continued to interfere in Ottoman affairs from the Christian point of view and in order to further Christian interests.

Now we see why Germany, in order not to lose the benefit of her previous endeavours, readily welcomed the Central Committee for the Defence of Islam, whose seat was in Berlin, whence it carried on a vigorous propaganda throughout the Muslim world.

At the beginning of December, 1919, that committee held a meeting in Berlin; among the people present were: Talaat Pasha, representing the Turanian movement; Hussein Bey Reshidof, representing the “Eastern Central Committee” instituted by the Moscovite Foreign Commissariat for the liberation of Islam—which is at the head of all the organisations at work in Persia, the Transcaspian areas, Anatolia, Afghanistan, and India; Kutchuk Talaat, a representative of the Union and Progress Committee; Nuri Bedri Bey, representing the Anatolian Kurds; and delegates from Persia and Afghanistan. There they discussed what measures should be taken and what means of action should be resorted to in Muslim countries, especially in Algeria, Tunis, and Morocco.

It must be owned, on the other hand, that the Catholics in Turkey had refused—as they have always tried to do in all countries—to acknowledge the sovereignty of the Turkish Government, and had looked upon themselves as above the laws of the land, though they laid a claim at the same time to a share in the government of the country; in short, they wanted to be both Roman legates and Turkish governors.

All this does not suffice to justify the measures of oppression the Turks resorted to, but explains how they were driven to take such measures, and accounts for the state of mind now prevailing in Turkey, which has brought about the present troubles. For the foreign Powers, urged by the Eastern Christians, kept on meddling with Turkish home affairs, which caused much resentment and anger among the Turks, and roused religious fanaticism on both sides.

If the liberal Western Powers carried on that policy—that is to say, if they continued to support the Christians against the Moslems—they would make a dangerous mistake.

At the present time the Holy See, which has never given up its ever-cherished dream of universal dominion, plainly shows by its growing activity that it means to develop its religious influence and avail itself of the war to strengthen and enlarge it.

For some time the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, though always a staunch supporter of the Papacy, restrained that tendency and became a moderating influence in Rome; but now the Holy See aims at playing a more important part than ever in all the affairs of Southern Germany and the countries that have broken loose from the former dual monarchy.

In order to strengthen the Church and to realise Catholic unity, the Vatican at the present juncture is exerting all its power in Central Europe and the Slavonic countries; and is doing its best at the same time to get in touch with the Protestant world in order to reinforce its own action by coupling it with the Protestant propaganda.

Benedict XV has revived the scheme of the longed-for Union of the Churches in order to win over to Catholicism part or the whole of the former Orthodox Empire.

In New Germany the Holy See is endeavouring to bring about an understanding between Catholics and Protestants, with a view to a common Christian—rather than strictly Catholic—action. In Austria, after upholding all the elements of the old régime so long as a monarchist movement seemed likely to triumph, it now gives its support to Christian Democracy. In Hungary, where the Jesuits and the Cistercians first worked hand in hand together with an Allied mission in Budapest to maintain Friedrich, or at least a clerical government, in power, the Primate, Mgr. Csernoch, and the Lutheran bishop, Mgr. Sandar Raffaï, have now agreed to work for the same purpose. The Polish Schlachta, of course, supports these schemes and intrigues, which are being carried on at Fribourg, in Switzerland, where certain princes connected with the Imperial House and Prince Louis of Windisch-Graetz used to meet Waitz, Bishop of Innsbrück.

Uniatism, or the rite of the United Greek Church, which, though retaining the Slavonic liturgy, acknowledges the Pope as the supreme head of the Church, and is paramount in the Carpathian Mountains, Eastern Galicia, and the Ukraine, favours the extension of the Pope’s sovereignty over these territories, and naturally the Holy See takes advantage of this movement to support and reinforce the Church and bring Orthodox countries under the dominion of Rome.

Till these great schemes have been carried out, and in order to further them, the Holy See means to establish between the Orthodox and the Catholic world an intermediary zone which would be a favourable ground for its penetration and conquest. To this intent Father Genocchi has been sent as apostolic visitor to the Ukraine by Cardinal Marini, prefect of the congregation newly established for the propaganda in the East, with full powers over both Latin and Greek Catholics, or Uniates. Father Genocchi is to act in close union with Mgr. Ratti, and both stand out as powerful agents of the great scheme of the Roman Church.

While pursuing this direct conquest, Rome endeavours in all countries to gain the support of all believers in Christ, even the Protestants, in order to be able to exert an influence on the policy of the Governments, and thus serve Christian interests.

At a recent conference of the Czecho-Slovak Catholics, Mgr. Kordatch, Archbishop of Prague, declared the Catholics would go so far as to resort to public political action and hold out the hand to the Protestants, who believe, like them, in the Divinity of Christ and the Decalogue.

So any undertaking against Islam or any other Eastern religion cannot but reinforce the power of Rome, for it aims at destroying the power of the other creeds which, as well as Catholicism, gratify the aspirations of the various peoples, and thus legitimately counterbalance its dream of hegemony.

* * * * *

Finally, though any communist conception is abhorrent to the Moslem spirit, which is essentially individualist and so has an aristocratic trend, and though Bolshevism, as we have already pointed out, is a specific doctrine which suits only the Russian mind, the attitude of the Western nations threatened to drive Islam towards Bolshevism, or at least to create a suitable ground for its expansion. In spite of the enlightened leaders of Islam, the attitude of the Powers risked inducing the Moslem masses to lend a willing ear to Bolshevist promises and to adopt Bolshevism in order to defend the Moslem creed and customs. Besides, Bolshevism, which was undergoing an evolution, and was growing more wily, less brutal, but all the more dangerous, no longer required other nations to adopt its social ideal. In order to serve a political purpose, it now turned its efforts towards the Caspian Sea to communicate with Asia Minor and create disturbances in Central Asia, while, on the other side, it advanced as far as Mongolia.

After the conclusion of the Anglo-Persian agreement forced by Great Britain upon Persia, which, in spite of what was officially said to the contrary, deprived Persia of her independence, Bolshevism saw what an easy prey was offered to it by the English policy, and concentrated its efforts on Asia Minor, where it could most easily worry England. It carried on a very active propaganda in all Asiatic languages in Turkistan and even in Afghanistan—the result being that the latter country sent a mission of inquiry to Moscow.

According to the statement of a Persian reproduced in the _Journal des Débats_ of April 4, 1920, the representatives of the Soviet Government made advances to the Persian patriotic organisations and told them:

“England despises your rights. Your Government is in her hand. To
organise your resistance, you need a help. We offer it to you, and
ask for nothing in return, not even for your adhesion to our social
doctrine. The reason that urges us to offer you our support is a
political one. Russia, whether she is Bolshevist or not, cannot
live by the side of an England ruling over nearly the whole of the
East. The real independence of your country is necessary to us.”

Such suggestions could not but attract the attention of the Persians at a time when, without even waiting for the opening of the Chamber that had been elected under the influence of British troops in order to sanction the Anglo-Persian agreement, some English administrators had already settled in Teheran.

The same Persian, in agreement with the main body of Persian opinion, went on:

“Shall we have to submit to that shameful régime? Nobody thinks
so in our country. Even those who were not bold enough to protest
openly against the deed of spoliation which the Anglo-Persian
agreement is, are secretly opposed to that agreement. But in order
to avail ourselves of that discontent, to concentrate our forces,
and chiefly to act fast and well, we need help from abroad, at
least at the outset. The Bolshevists offer it to us. I do not
know why we should discard the proposition at once. What makes us
hesitate is their communist doctrine; yet they declare they do not
want at all to ‘bolshevikise’ Persia. As soon as their promise
seems to be quite genuine, it will be our national duty to accept
their help.

“Whether the Red Dictator’s action in Russia was good or bad is a
question that concerns the Russians alone. The only question for us
is how to find an ally. Now we have not to choose between many.

“We should have been only too pleased to come to an understanding
with Great Britain, even at the cost of some concessions, provided
our independence were respected. But the British leaders have
preferred trampling upon our rights. Who is to be blamed for this?”

In the same manner as the Kemalist movement, a Nationalist movement was gaining ground in Persia, like the one which had already brought on the Teheran events from 1906 to 1909.

Now, while the Bolshevists, in order to expand and strengthen their position, did their utmost to convince the Eastern nations that Bolshevism alone could free them, the Germans, on the other hand, seized the new opportunity that was given them to offer the Mohammedans their help, and sent them German officers from Russia. In this way, and through our fault, Bolshevism and Germanism united to foment disturbances in the East, and join with it against us. That is why Mr. Winston Churchill said, at the beginning of January: “New forces are now rising in Asia Minor, and if Bolshevism and Turkish Nationalism should unite, the outlook would be a serious one for Great Britain.”

Footnotes:

15: Chapter “Le Peuple.”

16: _The Times_, February 27, 1920, p. 8, col. 4.

17: _The Times_, February 27, 1920, p. 8, col. 4.

18: _The Times_, February 27, 1920, p. 9.

19: _The Times_, February 27, 1920.

20: _India and the Empire_, reprinted from _Foreign Affairs_, July
1, 1920 (Orchard House, Great Smith Street, Westminster, London,
S.W. 1), pp. 3 f.

V

THE OCCUPATION OF CONSTANTINOPLE

The Allied intervention in Turkey continued to be the subject of frequent diplomatic conversations between the Powers.

Though Italy and France seemed to favour a strictly limited action, England held quite a different opinion, and energetic measures seemed likely to be resorted to. Lord Derby at the meeting of the Ambassadors’ Council on March 10 read a telegram from his Government stating it intended to demand of Germany the extradition of Enver Pasha and Talaat Pasha, who were on the list of war criminals drawn up a few weeks before by the British Government, and who at that time were in Berlin.

As the Allies had not requested that these men should be handed over to them at the time of the armistice, and as the war criminals whose extradition had been previously demanded of the Central Powers did not seem likely to be delivered up to them, this seemed rather an idle request at a time when it was openly said the Allies wanted to expel the Turks from Constantinople, when a deep agitation convulsed the Moslem world and discontent was rife in it. What was the use of this new threat to Germany if, like the previous one, it was not to be carried into effect? What would Great Britain do if the two “undesirables” thought of going to Holland, and why did she prepare to punish Turkey when some of her statesmen seemed inclined to make all sorts of concessions, instead of compelling Germany, the promoter of the conflict, who had not yet delivered up any German subject, to execute the treaty without any restriction whatever?

At the beginning of the armistice England had deported the members and chief supporters of the Committee of Union and Progress, and later on the high functionaries who had been arrested by Damad Ferid Pasha, and were about to be court-martialled. One night fifty-four of the latter out of about 130 were suddenly deported to Malta for fear they should be set free by the population of Constantinople. Among them were: Hairi Effendi, ex-Sheik-ul-Islam; the Egyptian prince, Said Halim Pasha, ex-Grand Vizier; Ahmed Nessiny, ex-Minister of Foreign Affairs; Halil Bey, ex-Minister of Justice; Prince Abbas Halim Pasha, ex-Minister of Public Works; Fethy Bey, ex-Minister at Sofia; Rahmi Bey, Governor-General of vilayet of Smyrna; Jambalat Bey, ex-Minister of Interior; Ibrahim Bey, a former Minister; and four members of the Committee: Midhat Shukri; Zia Geuk Alp; Kemal (Kutchuk Effendi); and Bedreddin Bey, temporary vali of Diarbekir, who was deported as responsible for the massacres that had taken place in that town, though at that time he was out of office and had been discharged by a court-martial. The British even evinced a desperate, undignified animosity and an utter lack of generosity in regard to the Turkish generals who had defeated them. They had, as it were, carried away the spirit of Turkey.

Italy, who had followed a most clever, shrewd, and far-sighted policy, and who had kept some independence within the Supreme Council, had been very reserved in regard to the Turkish question.

In regard to Article 9 of the pact of London, which ascribed to Italy, in case Turkey should be dismembered, a “fair part” of the province of Adana in Asia Minor, the newspaper _Il Secolo_, in the middle of January, 1920, expressed the opinion that Italy should give up that acquisition.

“Notwithstanding all that has been written for the last seven
or eight years about the Adalia area, we do not think that its
possession would improve our present economic condition. It would
only estrange from us a nation from which we might perhaps derive
great advantages through an open policy of friendship and liberty.

“The most profitable scheme would have been to maintain the
national integrity of Turkey and to give Italy, not a mandate over
a reduced State, but a mere administrative control, and to assign
her a few zones of exploitation with mere economic privileges, for
instance, near Heraclea and Adalia.

“But at the present stage of the Asiatic problem, such a scheme
could hardly be carried out. We must then lay aside all selfish
purposes, and openly and tenaciously defend the integrity and
independence of the Turkish State.

“Let the Turks be driven away from the districts which are
predominantly Arabian, Greek, or Armenian. But let the Sultan
remain in Constantinople, till the League of Nations has become
stronger and able to assume control of the Straits. Let us not
forget that the Turks chiefly put their confidence in us now, and
that Germany, whose policy had never threatened Turkish territorial
integrity, had succeeded in gaining Turkish friendship and blind
devotion.

“Italy has not many friends to-day, and so she should not despise a
hand which is willingly held out to her.”

Italy therefore did not warmly approve an expedition against Turkey. Her semi-official newspapers stated it was owing to Italy that the Allies’ policy still showed some moderation, and they hinted that the presence of Italian troops in the contingent landed at Constantinople was to be looked upon as the best means to prevent extreme measures.

On Tuesday, March 16, the Allied troops, consisting mostly of British soldiers, under the command of General Milne, occupied the Ottoman Government offices.

It might seem strange that the Allied troops in Constantinople were commanded by a British general, when the town was the residence of General Franchet d’Espérey, commander-in-chief of the inter-Allied troops on the Macedonian front, who, in the decisive battle in which he broke through the Bulgarian front, had had General Milne under him. But, after all, it was better for France that an English general should stand responsible for carrying out the occupation.

To the student of Eastern events this was but the logical outcome of a patient manœuvre of England. The documents that have now been made public plainly show how far-sighted her policy had been.

General Franchet d’Espérey’s dispositions were suddenly reversed, for he had not advocated an important military action against Russia or Turkey when he had taken command of the Eastern army—_i.e._, before his expedition from Salonika towards the Danube—and at the beginning of October, 1918, he had arranged the French and English divisions so as to march against Budapest and Vienna, foreseeing the ultimate advance of the Italian left wing against Munich.

On October 8, 1918, he was formally enjoined from Paris to send the British divisions which made up his right wing against Constantinople under the command of an English general.

Thus, after the defeat of Bulgaria in October, 1918, the British Government required that the troops sent to the Constantinople area should be led by a British general. In this way General Milne assumed command of the British troops stationed round and in Constantinople when Admiral Calthorpe had concluded the armistice with Turkey, and as a consequence General Franchet d’Espérey, though still commander-in-chief of the Allied forces in European Turkey, was now under the orders of General Milne, commander of the Constantinople garrison and the forces in Asia Minor.

Some time after receiving the aforesaid order, General Franchet d’Espérey, on October 27, 1918, received a letter from the War Minister, M. Clémenceau, No. 13644, B.S. 3,[21] forwarding him “copy of a letter giving the outline of a scheme of action that was recommended not only to carry on the war against the Central Powers in Russia, but also to effect the economic blockade of Bolshevism, and thus bring about its downfall.” This scheme, after being assented to by the Allied Powers concerned in it, was to be “the natural outcome of the operations entrusted to the Allied armies in the East.”

Finally, in a telegram, No. 14041, B.S. 3, dated November 6, containing some very curious recommendations, it was said:

“The operations in Southern Russia should be carried on by means of Greek elements, for instance, which it might be inexpedient to employ in an offensive against Germany, or by means of the French army in Palestine.”[22]

Thus all the plans of the French headquarters were altered by England, and to her advantage; at the same time part of our endeavours was broken up and annihilated under the pressure of the Pan-Russian circles that urged France to intervene in Russia, and the French policy in the East was wholly at the mercy of England. By saying this, we do not mean at all to belittle M. Clémenceau’s work during the war, but we only mention one of the mistakes to which he was driven, in spite of his energy and determination, by the English and American policy, which had dazzled some of his collaborators.

On March 16, at 9 a.m., some British _estafettes_ handed to the Sultan, in his palace at Yildiz-Kiosk, and to the Sublime Porte a note of General Milne, commanding the Allied troops in Asia Minor and the town of Constantinople. It stated that at 10 a.m., with the agreement of the Italian, French, and British High Commissioners, and according to the orders of the British Imperial Headquarters, the Allied contingents would occupy the offices of the Minister of War and the Minister of Marine, the prefecture, the post and telegraph offices, the town gates, and the new bridge of Galata. In fact, the town had been occupied at daybreak by the Allied troops.

The note added that for a short time the political administration would be left to the Turks, but under the control of Allied officers. Martial law was proclaimed, and, in case of resistance, force would be resorted to.

The Ottoman Government gave no answer, and an hour later all the measures mentioned by General Milne were carried out. As these operations took a whole day, all the means of transport and communication were temporarily stopped.

At the War Office the soldiers on duty attempted to resist the British forces. A skirmish ensued, in which two British soldiers were killed, and an officer and three soldiers wounded; nine Turks, including an officer, were killed, and a few more wounded.

At the same hour a Greek destroyer steamed into the Golden Horn, and cast anchor opposite the Patriarch’s palace.

Before this, General Milne had had a few deputies and senators arrested, together with a few men considered as having a share in the Nationalist movement, such as Kutchuk Jemal Pasha, ex-War Minister in the Ali Riza Cabinet; Jevad Pasha, formerly head of the staff; Tchourouk Soulou Mahmoud Pasha, a senator; Dr. Essad Pasha; Galatali Shefket Pasha, commanding the Straits forces; Reouf Bey, Kara Vassif Bey, Shevket Bey, Hassan Tahsin Bey, Nouman Ousta Effendi, Sheref Bey, deputies.

Reouf Bey and Kara Vassif Bey were considered as representing in the Turkish Parliament Mustafa Kemal Pasha and the people who ensured the transmission of his orders.

All these men were arrested illegally and brutally, with the consent of the French Governor, though they had always evinced much sympathy for France, under the pretext that they corresponded with the national army; and yet their intervention might have had favourable consequences.

Among the men arrested that night, Jemal, Jevad, and Mahmoud Pasha, all three former Ministers, were insulted and sent to prison in their nightclothes, with their arms bound. Their doors and windows were broken open, and their Moslem wives were threatened in the harem. Some children of thirteen or fourteen were also arrested and thrashed. Eight Turkish soldiers on duty at Shahzade-Bashi were killed in the morning while they lay asleep on their camp-beds, and the censorship probably suppressed other deeds of the same kind.

The Ottoman Government could not understand how members of Parliament could be imprisoned, especially by the English, the founders of the parliamentary system. The deputy Jelal Noury Bey, who is neither a Nationalist nor a Unionist, was apprehended, merely because he opposed Ferid Pasha’s policy.

England, to enhance her influence over public opinion, got control over the chief newspapers which were not friendly to her. Jelal Noury Bey, the director of the _Ileri_, a radical newspaper, and Ahmed Emin Bey, the director of the _Vakit_, were deported. The _Alemdar_, the _Peyam Sabah_, the _Stambul_, edited by Refi Jevad, Ali Kemal, and Said Mollah, which, since the first days of the armistice, had praised the English policy, fell into English hands; which accounts for the varying attitudes successively assumed by those journals in their comments on current events. Their editors were mostly members of the “Club of the Friends of England,” and sought in every possible way to increase the number of the adherents of that committee, which was subsidised by the British High Commissioner, and whose chief aim was that the Turkish mandate should be given to England.

On March 21, 1920, the British at Skutari requisitioned the police courts, the law courts, the police station, the town hall, and the prison, thus almost completely disorganising the administration of the town.