Papers written by Curzon on the Near and Middle East [‎101r] (201/348)

f
[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty s Government.]
9
EASTERN (Turkey). [November 25.]
CONFIDENTIAL. Section 1.
[E 12924/1/44] No. 1 .
I ke Marquess Curzon of Kedleston to M. de Montille.
Sir, b'oreiyn Office, November 25, 1921.
HIS Majesty’s Government have considered with the utmost care and attention
the note which you addressed to me on the 17th November regarding the agree
ment negotiated by M. Franklin-Bouillon at Angora. They have observed with
satisfaction the detailed character of the reply which the French Government has
returned to my note of the 5th November, and they desire to reciprocate the concilia
tory tone in which that reply has been couched. If further observations are required
it can only be with the object of removing still outstanding misconceptions, and of
passing, if it may be, from the sphere of a common understanding to that of common
action.
2 . It gives pleasure to His Majesty's Government to take note of the emphatic
assurances contained in the reply of the French Government with regard to the
scope and consequences of the Angora Agreement as understood by its signatories.
These assurances are so important, and it is so essential that no doubts as to their
nature should exist between our two Governments, that it appears desirable to sum
marise them as they are deduced from your note as follows :—
( 1 .) The agreement is not a treaty of peace, and implies no recognition de jure
or de facto of the Government of Angora.
(2.) The agreement is of purely local scope, and is " dominated by that idea.
The French Government, as hitherto, reserves the question of peace with
Turkey and has never contemplated any engagement in that direction
without a close agreement with the Allies and especially with Great
Britain. In particular, the rights of Italy and Great Britain recognised
in the Tripartite Agreement are not in any way touched by the Angora
Agreement.
(3.) No facilities will be given by France for hostile designs against a territory
under the British mandate; and in particular, in the case of armed con
flict, France, as a neutral, would not permit the transfer of Turkish
troops across Syrian territory under article 10 of the agreement.
( 4 .) No reply beyond a formal acknowledgment was returned by M. Franklin-
Bouillon to Youssouf Kemal's letter of the 10th October, and that letter
—the official publication of which in these circumstances it seems some
what difficult to understand—was not the counterpart of any secret
understanding written or oral with M. Franklin-Bouillon on matters
which must be settled in agreement between the Allies, and especially
the question of Thrace and Smyrna. M. Franklin-Bouillon held—and
would have consented to hold—no conversation on territorial questions
other than those implied in tho evacuation of Cilicia. As proof of this,
mention is made of a proces-ver'bal of questions reserved by the Kemalist
negotiator at Angora.
(5.) The rumours as to the French monopoly for gendarmerie organisation, a
French loan, the supply of French war material to the Kemalists, and in
particular as to the encouragement of an anti-British agitation in
Mesopotamia are baseless, and the views exchanged orally and in writing
between M. Franklin-Bouillon and Kemalist representatives add nothing
to the substance of the agreement, which includes no secret arrangement.
( 6 .) The French Government admits the principle of adjusting in the final
treaty of peace the different agreements negotiated : “ Treaty of Sevres,
Tripartite Agreement, agreements for the liberation of prisoners, and the
Angora Agreement.' ’
3. Confidently believing that this summary accurately represents the views and
intentions of the French Government. His Majesty's Government express their
sincere gratification at the full and frank nature of these assurances, and they
[7234 bb—l] f