Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1925-12-12
BACKGROUND OF EVENTS
BY PAUL Y. COLLINS.

silva declaration. to Wit, that those
parts of territory which were peopled
exclusively by Arabs and which, at
the conclusion of the armistice re-
manned occupied by enemy forces,
should be settled by plebescite.s The
part which remained inside the lines
of the Turks and inhabited by ma
jority of Ottomans and Mussulmans
should belong to Turkey
Finding the Parliament so national.
istic, the British arrested $50 members
in one night; the other members who
escaped. fled to Angora and renewed
sessions, even after the Sultan. at the
behest of the allies, ordered Parlia-
lnent dissolved. The conflict eventu-
ally resulted in deposition of the
Sultan and the setting I'D OF the re-
public, headed by Mustafa Kemal
PaSha.
To the Sultanic constitutional gov
eminent the allies had submitted a
draft of a treaty of peace, which was
signed at Sevres August 10, 1920. On
the same date Great Britain and
France partitioned Turkish territory
between themselves as part of the
conditions of peace terms confirmed
| by the League of Nations. When this
agreement was submitted to the Grand
National Parliament sitting in Angora,
tic dl ildIucill ueCldTGu that. SuCn
terms Of peace could only be enforced
by arms.
Then came the Greek invasion and
disastrous defeat, and the allies
recognized that a new treaty must be
made, acceptable to the Parliament of
Nationalists. The conference of
Lausanne was called for that purpose
and met November, 1922
!: x x !:
It was at this Lausanne conference
that the boundary of Mosul, as claim
ed by the British, under it's mandate
from the League of Nations. first be-
came an issue. The British handed
the Turks a draft of proposed
treaty, in which it was stipulated that
the boundary of Mosul should be
line to be fixed in accord with a de-
cision to be given thereon by the
council of the League of Nations"
Turkey is not a member of the
league. She refused the proposed
treaty, which broke up the conference
for two months. In the debate pre-
ceding this break, Lord Curzon argued
that Turkey would stand on level
with her opponent before the council,
and he used this language:
Article of the covenant provides
that the decision of the council, upon
which the Turkish government will
be represented, will have to be
unanimous, SO that no decision can
be arrived at without their (the
Turks consent"
1t is on this CurZon speech that
the subsequent issues have turned
When the Lausanne conference was
reopened, the Turks presented as
counter proposition, as to Mosul, that
it should mot rest on a decision of
the council" but that it should be
referred to the council. "in the event
of no agreement being reached with
in a year"
When the Turks had refused the
original draft and broke ff-negoti-
atoms, the British served notice that
they withdrew all obligations When
the conference was renewed, no refer
ence was made to the CurZon inter-
probation of the Unanimous" condi-
ton required in the council. and it
has been ruled by the Permanent
Court of International Justice, to
which the council referred the ques-
ton for advice, that unanimity meant
not counting the parties at issue
Turkey was thus deprived of her ex-
pected power to veto whatever deci-
sion she did not approve.
(CopyriEht, 1895. BY Paul v. Colfins.)