§ 22. Lieut.-Colonel Sir EDWARD GRIGGasked the Secretary of State 24 for Foreign Affairs whether the obligations contained in the Straits Convention were discussed at the recent Imperial Conference; and whether he can now give the House any information upon the attitude of the Dominions towards the absolute assurance regarding her future security given to Turkey, according to Lord Curzon's statement, under Article 18 of that Convention?
§ The PRIME MINISTERIn reply to the first part of the question, I will remind the hon. and gallant Member that it was decided at the Imperial Conference that no particulars of its proceedings should be made public without the consent of the Conference as a whole. I regret that I can, therefore, give him no information beyond what is contained in the published proceedings. As regards the second part of the question I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which was given him on the 20th instant. All the instruments which together form the peace settlement with Turkey have been laid before the Dominion Governments.
§ Sir E. GRIGGAre we to understand that the House is to have no information whatever about the attitude of the Dominions towards the Straits Convention when it is discussed in this House?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThe question was as regards the giving of information. If my hon. and gallant Friend will repeat the question when we have got the reply of the Dominions, I shall be able to inform him. Our intention is to give the House all possible information that we can lay before it.
§ 49 and 50. Sir E. GRIGGasked the Prime Minister (1) whether the Government have taken note of the statement made by Lord Curzon to Ismet Pasha at Lausanne, that, under the Straits Convention annexed to the Treaty of Lausanne, Turkey will receive an absolute assurance regarding her future security from Great Britain and three other Powers (Official Report of Lausanne Conference, p. 268); and whether the Committee of Imperial Defence have considered the military and other liabilities which that assurance may entail;
(2) whether the assent of Parliament is to be asked to the ratification of the 25 Straits Convention, which may at some future time involve the people of this country in a moral obligation to participate in a Balkan or Russo-Turkish war, without opportunity being given for a separate discussion of the Convention, adequate to its importance, in this House?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThe specific guarantee to which the hon. and gallant Member no doubt refers is that contained in Article 18 of the Straits Convention of 24th July, 1923, and runs as follows:
The High Contracting Parties, desiring to secure that the demilitarisation of the Straits and of the contiguous zones shall not constitute an unjustifiable danger to the military security of Turkey, and that no act of war should imperil the freedom of the Straits or the safety of the demilitarised zones, agree as follows:In my view, neither Lord Curzon's statement of the 19th December nor any of the other statements made in the course of the lengthy discussions which preceded the signature of the Convention in any way modify or extend the scope of this guarantee, which applies solely to such dangers to Turkish security as may arise in the area of the Straits from a violation of the provisions of the Straits Convention. I regret that I can give no information as to the nature of the subjects discussed by the Committee of Imperial Defence, the proceedings of which, obviously, cannot be made public.Should the freedom of navigation of the Straits or the security of the demilitarised zones be imperilled by a violation of the provisions relating to freedom of passage, or by a surprise attack or some act of war or threat of war, the High Contracting Parties, and in any case Prance, Great Britain, Italy and Japan, acting in conjunction, will meet such violation, attack, or other act of war or threat of war by all the means that the Council of the League of Nations may decide for this purpose.
§ Sir E. GRIGGDoes the Prime Minister endorse Lord Curzon's interpretation of that Article, Lord Curzon's statement having been made at the Lausanne Conference as an interpretation of the Article which the Prime Minister has read out?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI think notice should be given of that question.
§ Mr. PRINGLEIs it not the case that the guarantee which the Prime Minister has just quoted is a joint guarantee, and not a joint and several guarantee?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat, again, is a question which should be put down.