أوراق بقلم كرزون بشأن الشرق الأدنى والأوسط [و‎‎٢‎٣] (٣٤٨/٤٥)

3
Bulgaria and of Turkey also. In such a case there was nothing to object to in the
request. If, on the other hand, the Turkish delegation desired to be heard, irrespective
of the terms of peace, I could not conceive why such a request should have been granted
to Turkey alone of all the belligerents ; and it seemed to me that, if this were the
case, Paris was advancing on to very delicate ground. Apart from that, however, what
I desired to complain of was the method pursued. The Supreme Council in Paris
having decided to issue the invitation, the French High Commissioner in Constantinople,
instead of acting with his colleagues, had rushed round to the Grand Vizier to explain
that the permission had been granted by the good offices of the French alone; he had
published a statement in the press to the same effect; and he had arranged for the
Grand Vizier to be conveyed to Marseilles on a French man-of-war. Such a proceeding
on his part was, I thought, not only objectionable, but distinctly disloyal.
A further incident had happened which revealed a similar disposition on the part
of the French. The Turkish Crown Prince, or Heir Apparent, bad sent a telegram
appealing for sympathy and support to the rulers of Great Britain, France, and Italy.
This Prince was in exactly the same position as the Crown Prince of Germany, that is
to say, he was the eldest son of a monarch who had been, and still was, at war with the
Allied Powers. Was it conceivable that such a telegram, coming from the German
Crown Prince, would have received any reply ? In this spirit, no answer had been
returned by our King, and the same attitude had been taken up, after consultation with
us, by the King of Italy. What was not, therefore, our surprise when we learnt that
the President of the French Republic had actually, through the medium of the French
Foreign Office, sent a telegram of thanks to the Turkish Crown Prince, and, in a
message signed by M. Pichon himself, had assured him that France would not neglect
the vital interests of Turkey. Mr. Lloyd George had already protested to
M. Clemenceau against this proceeding, the impropriety of which had been frankly
recognised by the French Prime Minister; but I could not help drawing the attention
of the French Ambassador to it, because it was an additional illustration of the spirit of
international rivalry and intrigue which the French representatives appeared once more
to be manifesting in the East. Great Britain had, I reminded M. Gambon, declared her
reluctance to assume the mandate for Constantinople or Turkey, even should it be
offered to her. France, after some hesitation, had taken the same line, as reported to
me by the Ambassador himself. In these circumstances, what excuse was there for
these backstairs attempts on the part of French representatives to depict themselves as
the particular friends of the Oriental States or Governments whose fate could be
determined only by common agreement in Paris ?
I then gave M. Cambon a third illustration of the same spirit. If there was any
region, I said, in which Fiance had good cause to be grateful for our support, it was in
Sy ria itself. Not only had Mr. Lloyd George in the Councils of Paris openly declared
that Great Britain neither desired nor would accept, if it were offered to her, a mandate
for Syria, but we had actually telegraphed an intimation to the same effect to the
Emir Feisal. Our policy, therefore, was aboveboard and known. If difficulties
remained, they were not so much between the French .and ourselves as between che
French and the Arabs, who, according to my information, appeared exceedingly reluctant
to accept France as a mandatory. Of all the French representatives in those regions,
the one who had received most encouragement and assistance from us was M. Picot, the
joint author of the unfortunate Sykes-Picot Agreement. This gentleman had on many
occasions turned to us for aid. He had been taken, under the protection < f the late
Sir Mark Sykes, to Aleppo and Damascus. Every effort had been made by our
representatives to secure him a good reception and a friendly hearing from the Arab
and Syrian population. M. Picot indeed owed his entire position to ourselves. I was
therefore very much surprised when I read that he had, on the 13th May, in a speech
to the school teachers of Beirut, expressed himself as follows : —
“ A people once asked the French to help them to gain their independence.
The French responded and within a year the desired end was achieved. These
people were the Americans and the country from which they were freed was Great
Britain. Having appreciated the help given, the Americans asked what reward
they could give. ‘ Have your independence, that is the only reward we seek, said
the French. The same attitude is now held towards Syria. To see you indepen
dent is what we long for. You have my assurance that France will help you
to this end."
Having read this extract to the Ambassador, I said that I thought the Syrians
would be greatly surprised to learn that it was to the French that they must look ror