أوراق بقلم كرزون بشأن الشرق الأدنى والأوسط [و‎‎١‎٠‎٢] (٣٤٨/٢٠٣)

article 294 of the Treaty of Sevres and article 4 of the Tripartite Agreement, it is
necessary to point out that these stretches of the railway which were previously in
Syria but are now surrendered to Turkey, although placed in the French zone of
’economic interest, ought naturally to fall to he divided among the Allies in accordance •
with the above-mentioned article of the Tripartite Agreement and the Treaty of
Sevres, and accordingly it is not relevant to claim that, had they remained in Syria,
they could, by article 293 of the treaty, have been liquidated by the French Govern
ment as mandatory for Syria. Nor does the transfer to a French company of that
part of the railway which still remains in Syria in itself fulfil the provisions of
article 293 of the Treaty of Sevres, which stipulates for liquidation by the mandatory
and the assignment of the proceeds to the Financial Commission as an Allied asset.
8 . There remain a number of subsidiary questions concerning which I am most
reluctant to pursue a controversy that can only divert our two Governments from
larger and more important issues, and which are mentioned here solely with the
object of correcting certain errors of fact. These questions relate, firstly, to the two
missions of M. Franklin-Bouillon, concerning which the French Government is
mistaken in thinking that His Majesty’s Government were fully informed either by
the French Government or by M. Franklin-Bouillon himself, and secondly, to the
explanations alleged to have been given to the British Government concerning the
abortive agreement concluded by M. Briand with Bekir Sami Bey. His Majesty's
Government had no certain knowledge of the terms or even the general character of
this agreement until they were presented with the text. As soon as this had been
received I stated very fully and explicitly the objections entertained by His
Majesty’s Government in a conversation with the Count de Saint-Aulaire on the
19th April last; and these objections (which I gave no undertakings to record or
repeat in a note) were only not pursued because it was a matter of public knowledge
that the Angora Government had already declined to accept the agreement.
9 . In the concluding paragraph of the note under reply the French Government
admits that when peace is finally concluded the different agreements which have been
negotiated up to date, including the Angora Agreement, will require to be adjusted with
a view to taking their place in a general settlement. On this understanding it appears
to be no longer necessary for me explicitly to reserve the attitude of His Majesty's
Government with regard to the Angora Agreement in general. These subjects will
come up again for discussion later on, and more especially will this be the case with
regard to those articles of the agreement, such as articles 6 , 8 and 10 , which appear
to infringe the provisions of the Treaty of Sbvres and the Tripartite Agreement.
10 . Of greater importance is it to turn to the question of that larger settlement
which both Governments must continually hold in view and the prolonged postpone
ment of which is a source of ever-growing injury to all the parties concerned.
11 . I have already acquainted the French Government with the satisfactory
results of the conversations which I have held with the Greek Ministers in London.
The acceptance by the Greek Government without reservations of Allied mediation
of which the French Government has already been informed, is the first and necessary
step towards some general Allied intervention. The French Government will readily
appreciate, however, that if such intervention is to be made at an early date with
reasonable hopes of success, both combatants in the present struggle must be made
clearly to understand that the three Allies are loyally united and firmly agreed upon
the terms of their mediation and the manner in which it is to be put forward. It is
this paramount consideration which renders particularly gratifying to me those
passages in your note which indicate the importance which the French Government
attaches to Franco-British co-operation in the Near East, and in which,
acknowledging the spirit of “ complete collaboration '' which characterised my
conversations with the Greek Ministers, it expresses its satisfaction at the perfect
identity of principles " existing between the two Governments. His Majesty s
Government, for their part, are convinced that it is only on the basis of such a
collaboration, bearing fruit in acts rather than in words, that a speedy, just and
general settlement in Turkey—essential alike for the prosperity of Europe and Asia
—can be secured. . . . TT . ^
12. In the firm hope that the identity of principles, which His Majesty s Govern
ment have always felt to underlie the Eastern policy of the Great Allied Powers,
may at no distant date be translated into identic action. I reserve for another
communication the proposals which, on behalf of the Biitish Go\einment, I am
prepared to make.
1 I have, &c.
CURZON OF KEDLESTON.