Evening star., 1941-12-16
Turkey and Fire

Clt6SlllS QOlllllldllCe OF our WOFlQ
than the implications of two current
official statements affirming con-
tinuance of neutrality. On this war
torn planet, the very concept of
neutrality is becoming untenable,
and only few nations cling pre-
cariously to its pretense. The United
States, greatest of the ertswhile neu-
trails, has become full-fledged par
ticipant in the war of the world,
while under the terms Of the Havana
Declarations Latin American ma
tiOns which have not followed suit
grant us so benevolent a neutrality
that they can be better termed non
belligerents.
In the altered diplomatic lineup
that is now occurring as the result of
American hostilities with the Axis,
two Old World nations have re-
affirmed their neutral status. This
sharply contrasted pair are Turkey
and Fire. The Turkish stand has
been stated by that country's Am
bassador to Washington in a formal
communication to the State Depart
ment. Fires neutral determination
was set forth in a speech by Prime
Minister De Valera at Cork.
Turkish neutrality is gratifying to
America and Britain because such a
policy favors their interests. That
strategic buffer country has been
exposed to great pressure from the
Axis, especially since Germanys mas
terry of the Balkans last spring put
German armies almost within long
range cannon shot of the straits con-
Meeting the Mediterranean with the
Black Sea. Less than two months
ago, when the Wehrmacht seemed
likely to smash Russian resistance
and roll on to the Caucasus, it looked
as though Turkey was wavering to-
ward an arrangement with the Axis
permitting passage of the straits for
Axis warships and possible passage
OF Axis forces across its Asiatic prov
tnces for an assault on British-occu-
pied Syria, the gateway to the Near
East. The failure of Germanys cam
paign in Russia, coupled with Amer
lca's extension of lease-lend aid to
Turkey has obviously redressed the
balance. Now that Ankara is assured
of arms and munitions for its armies,
it asserts its determination to uphold
its neutral rights and responsibilities,
which implies readiness to resist Axis
aggression by force.
Very different are the implications
of Fires continued neutrality. Hence
forth, we share the handicap which
a militarily weak Fire has imposed
upon Britain since the start of the
war. Unable by its own efforts to
resist large-scale invasion, Fire with
holds ports which would now prove
as useful as they were in the last war
to combat the German submarine
menace. 1t had been hoped in many
quarters that American entry into
the war would modify Fires isola-
tioniSm and perhaps cause its gov
ernment to grant America the use
of naval bases which it had refused
to Britain, still regarded by so many
of its people as "the hereditary
enemy"
Such hopes, Premier De Valera has
apparently disappointed. In his Cork
address he stated fatty: Our policy
remains unchanged" and continued
in explanation: Our circumstances
in history, the incompleteness of our
freedom owing to partition, makes
any other policy impracticable. 1t
would divide our people, and for
divided nation to fling itself into this
war would be suicide"
For the moment, it may be that
this rigidly neutral policy can be
maintained. But with America COM
mitted to the defense of Britain and
the defeat of the U-boat menace at
all costs, and with Germany increas-
ingly bent on defeating Britain by
blockade and possible invasion, the
longrun prospects of an isolated
neutral Fire are dubious Meanwhile,
the little country is suffering increas-
ingly from the stoppage of foreign
imports which depresses it's economic
existence and threatens doUnrioht