ملف ١٩١٦/٣٥٧٩ "تركيا: مستقبل القسطنطينية" [و‎‎٣‎٥] (٥٣٠/٧٨)

[This Doctjffient is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.]
4
Printed for the War Cabinet. January 1919.
C ONFIDENTIAL.
P.-85.
THE FUTURE OF CONSTANTINOPLE.
56
Memorandum by Lord Curzon.
THE Eastern Committee having discussed at some length the future of
Constantinople, Mr. Balfour asked me to place on record the arguments that had been
used for or against the various solutions. . . r i
Upon one point all were agreed, viz., that the Straits should be internationalised,
that there should be a free passage for all merchant ships and men-of-war through the
Dardanelles, the Sea of Marmora, and the Bosphorus ; that the forts which command
ail or any of these waters should be either dismantled or razed to the ground and that
under whatever control Constantinople were left or placed, guarantees should be
provided that the above conditions were not either evaded or infringed Similar
strategic considerations would probably demand the prohibition either o a unne
beneath or of bridges over the Straits.
The following larger questions then emerged:
(I.) Whether the Turk should or should not be allowed to remain as a governing
* Power in Europe. , , -p
(II.) Whether, in the event of his being expelled, any, and if so what, Cower
should be invited to take his place; or ^ _ ,
(III.) Whether an international body, or Commission, should be set at
Constantinople to supervise the execution of the suggested _ conditions,
and if so, whether this would be compatible with the retention m any lorm
of the Turk, or whether it would necessitate his expulsion.
I.
It was pointed out that the expulsion of the Turk from Constantinople was
one of the avowed objects of the war. Great Britain and France agreed m l 915
to hand it over—together with the Straits and a considerable stnp^ of land on bo
European and Asiatic shores-to Russia, as the prize o victory m tp conflict At a
later date, in the Statement of the War Aims of the A1 hes, promulgated m reply to
President Wilson in January 1917, the ejection ot the Turk from Europe was explicitly
included, la^ ^ President Wilson pointed to a similar conclusion. Neither the
Turk nor anyone else could therefore have any ground for surprise if the rea
were now carried out. It has been made known both to him and to the entire
The arguments that were used in favour of its fulfilment were the following. For
nearly five centuries the presence of the Turk in Europe has been a source of distraction
intrigue, and corruption in European politics, of oppression, and “ Isrule . t0 .p 6
nationalities, and an incentive to undue and overweening ambitions in the Moslem
world. It has encouraged the Turk to regard himself as a Great Power, and
enabled him to impose upon others the same illusion. It has placed him m a position
to play off one Power against another, and in their jealousies and his own machinations
to find pretexts for his continued immunity. It has been an inexpugna ile barrier o
the solution of the Balkan problem or the full emancipation of the Balkan peoples.
It has been an equal obstacle to the proper or good government of his own peop 1 ^.
whose resources have been squandered in the polluted coulisses of C onstantinople or
in the expenditure required for the upkeep of military and naval forces dispropoiDonate
to the real strength or requirements of the Turkish nation. „ , ,
An opportunity of cutting out and getting rid for ever o: this plague spot
such as has not arisen for centuries, has now presented itself. It may not recu
for generations. The world is looking for great solutions. Let not this occasion it was
argued, be missed of purging the earth of one of its most pestilent 100 s o evi .
[7511