NO HAREMS IN REPUBLICAN TURKEY, DECLARES NOTED OTTOMAN ARCHITECT

A vigorous denial of the existence of polygamy and harems in Turkey and an explanation of the war and Armenian "massacre" questions were the main points brought out in a recent interview by Moukbil Kemal Bey, the well-known Turkish architect who is now in this country handling negotiations for a statue of Mustapha Kemal.

Regretting the misconceptions and misunderstandings that Americans apparently have in regard to Turkey, M. Moukbil expressed his hope that the students in the universities, and especially in Harvard, would try a little to understand the new Turkey.

Polygamy No Longer Exists

"There are no harems in modern Turkey; there is no polygamy; all that has stopped with the coming of the republic. Divorce is free, with judgment, of course, and yet," said M. Moukbil, "there is less divorce than in America. Women have exactly the same rights as men, but it must be remembered that this is not the work of a mere law but is the culmination of a struggle started some fifty years ago under the old Ottoman Empire. The whole social order is completely changed." Asked how this new order is reconciled with the Mohammedan religion, M. Moukbil replied that it is provided in the Koran that the religion should change with the times.

Defends Policy Toward Armenia

In defense of Turkey's policy in regard to the Armenians and the "massacres" M. Moukbil was particularly vehement.

"The facts of the case are these," he said, "a part of our people revolted--we tried to stop them. What would you do if the negroes of your country should start an armed rebellion? Just what we did--suppress it. No massacre of the Armenians was ordered; there was no deliberate, systematic killing of Armenian Christians; the massacres that flourish in your papers are in reality battles where the Turks try to bring back a rebellious part of the people.

"You say that the Armenians revolted because they were maltreated under the Turks. That is untrue. They were not oppressed. Their representation in the government was far greater indeed than their numbers warranted. Time was when in the cabinet of the Turkish Empire Armenians held the positions of Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister of Finance, Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, Minister of Public Works. In the face of this knowledge it is hard to say that the Armenians were oppressed. Not only this, but they were happy.

"Why, then, you say, did they revolt? Because they were practically bribed to revolt. Certain of the great western powers, appealing to the religious and nationalistic sentiments of the people, offered to the Armenians the flower of Liberty, Independence, and certain Turkish territories. They revolted, Practically the same offer was made to the people of Mesopotamia--what have they now? Almost 100,000 British in their country. We pity them. The same thing happened to the Syrians. Instead of the promised liberty and so forth, they have a host of Frenchmen. It is Lloyd George's imperialistic policies that are responsible for much of the blood that was shed. It was he who was the great massacrer."

Explaining the recent expulsion of the Greek patriarch from Turkey, M. Moukbil said that the patriarch was used by the Greeks not only as a spy but also as an active agent. M. Moukbil stated that, contrary to the common supposition, this patriarch was not a Turkish subject, saying that he was born in Greece and that he did not come into Turkey until after fifteen years.

"Turkey entered the war on the side of Germany," said M. Moukbil, "in order to protect herself against the aggressions of a Russo-Franco-British entente which was planning to take Constantinople and the coasts of the Black Sea to give to Imperial Russia. This is substantiated by documents from the Russian archives recently made public by the Soviet Government."

Explaining the feelings of the Turks in regard to England. France, and the United States, M. Moukbil said that while his people liked and admired the individual English gentleman, they had a profound distrust and dislike of the English imperialistic foreign policy.

"As for the French," continued M. Moukbil, "we like them very much; we are more of the same temperament and I think they understand us better--but even they, of course, are not entirely non-imperialistic."

In talking of the Americans, M. Moukbil said that while his people did not have perhaps as much understanding of us as of the French, they had great confidence and trust in us, "For," he said, "you have never been a colonizing nation."