This is how the second phase ended with the settlement of the second government of the country in Ankara, making it the holder of the reins of power and the effective authority. Meanwhile, the Istanbul government turned into a powerless and deficient authority. No sooner than this second government had settled and took control of the country, Britain called in the wake of these events for the conference of London, to be attended by a host of deputies from Greece and Turkey. Britain said: “The purpose of holding this conference is to seek a solution for the Eastern crisis.” This could only mean a review of the peace terms of the Sèvres Treaty signed in Paris because the holding of a conference to look into the Eastern Issue, which had been settled at an official peace conference, could only mean that the Sèvres Treaty which had been ratified in Paris would again be the object of discussion and study before it could have any effect, or before it could be implemented altogether. Indeed the Treaty had not been applied and not one single article of it was implemented.

This confirms that Britain concluded the Treaty in order to threaten Turkey and use it as a means to carry out her aims, not to implement it. The proof for this is that it had been concluded for about a year during which time it was kept secret; it was only broadcast when Mustafa Kemal was surrounded and was nearly destroyed and his rebellion almost crushed.

The mere fact that the British called for the London conference to review the Sèvres Treaty was seen as bizarre because the Treaty was in favour of the British. Even though France was not satisfied with the Sèvres Treaty in the slightest and she had been coerced into agreeing to that Treaty; she deemed that the Ottoman legacy had become the property of her ally Britain, who had gained from it the lion’s share. Thus France had to be content with Syria and Cilicia. Still, Syria and Cilicia were, as far as France was concerned, a gift that was open to debate. Italy was also angry about the Treaty, for she was averse to the Greek sovereignty in the Mediterranean, especially because the Greek expansion in Asia Minor was in fact at the expense of the Italian areas of influence which had been drawn up between the allies during the war. Therefore, it was due to the greed of these two states, France and Italy, in gaining more spoils that they had signed the Treaty reluctantly.

Accordingly, when Britain chose not to implement anything from the Treaty, despite that fact the it would have yielded for her the largest spoils in comparison with her allies, this attracted attention and was deemed unnatural. When she afterwards demanded a review of this Treaty, it came as a surprise and was deemed most odd. What was more surprising than this was for a delegation representing the new Ankara government to attend the conference alongside the delegation which came to represent the Ottoman government, which clearly no other institution whether Turkish or Ottoman alike had the right to take part in apart from it, because the Ottoman government was the legitimate government that had entered the war and had been defeated. After all, it was that government that had signed the Treaty of Sèvres which this conference was held in order to review. Hence, it is to be asked what was the position of the new Ankara government which no one had yet recognised, and why was it attending this international conference held to review the terms of peace? Was this alone not ample proof that the establishment of this government in Ankara was staged by the British in order to make it first take part in the peace negotiations and then allow it to become the sole negotiator over the final terms of peace?

The Ottoman government, the Khilafah government, should have rejected the participation of the Ankara government alongside it in the negotiations, for its acceptance would have meant recognising it officially before other states, and because the presence of two governments in one country, facing the enemy and negotiating over peace terms demonstrates extreme weakness and devastation. Hence, it would have been natural for the Khilafah government to reject the attendance of the representatives of the Ankara government, but in fact it accepted it. Its weakness even led it to use Mustafa Kemal’s invitation to attend the conference as a means to try and win him over and reconcile him. In this regard, Tawfiq Pasha approached Mustafa Kemal with the European states invitation to attend the London conference and said: “In the name of the Turkish state and for the sake of the Ottoman Empire, the Turkish delegation attending the conference should present a strong united front, and the agenda which the Turks are proposing should also be one, indicating the co-operation and the unity of the Ummah as a whole, rather than her conflict and division.” However, Mustafa Kemal refused this and said: “It is only the National Assembly in Ankara that enjoys the constitutional sovereignty, and which enjoys the exclusive power and rule in the country. The European countries should have sent the invitation through this Assembly.” During that time, the National Assembly turned itself into a permanent assembly. It also drafted a new constitution whose drafting lasted nine whole months. The main obstacle that faced the drafting of the constitution and which generated a great deal of debate and deliberation was the issue of the “Sultanate and the Khilafah”. Mustafa Kemal was forced under the pressure of the overwhelming consensus and the sweeping trend in the National Assembly - which was considered to be the Assembly of Ata Turk, for its members were all from among his supporters, was forced to state explicitly in the constitution that the Sultanate and the Khilafah would be maintained. Hence, Mustafa Kemal said in reply to the Prime Minister Tawfiq Pasha when he invited him and urged him to let the Turkish delegation show unity and harmony, “The National Assembly has in the first article of its constitution stipulated that there would be no prejudice to the Sultanate and no detriment to the sanctity of the Khilafah; the Sultan should recognise the National Assembly so that the Ankara government could participate with its delegation with the delegation of the Sultan’s government.” However, the Sultan refused to recognise the National Assembly and the constitution that it drafted, because recognising it would imply the removal of the Khilafah even if the constitution mentioned the nominal safeguard of the Khilafah. Additionally, the constitution stipulated that the authority as a whole, without any preconditions, had gone down to the nation as a whole and that the nation had become the source of legislation; also that the National Assembly had acquired the exclusive and absolute right to represent the sovereignty of the people, and it is the Assembly that decides on the issue of war and peace. Clearly, it was impossible for the Sultan to accept this. Thus negotiations between the Khaleefah’s government and the Ankara government about the forming of the delegation were cut off.

However when the European countries realised that Mustafa Kemal had refused the invitation because it had reached him through the Sultan’s government, Britain sent him a direct invitation to Ankara on behalf of the allied states. This invitation was regarded as a clear recognition from her of the Ankara government. Hence, the two delegations travelled separately. Tawfiq Pasha was the head of the Khaleefah’s delegation, while Bakir Sami Beik was the head of the Ankara delegation. The London conference was held in February 1921.

The head of the Sultan’s delegation abdicates to the head of the Ankara delegation the right to speak on behalf of the two delegations When the two delegations sat at the negotiating table, Premier Tawfiq Pasha stood up and said that in his capacity as head of the Istanbul delegation, he was abdicating his right to speak to Bakir Sami Beik, who would speak on behalf of the two delegations and would defend the national aspirations of the Turks. Upon this Istanbul remained silent and only the voice of Ankara was raised.

Then Lloyd George of Britain, Brian of France and Count Sforza of Italy set about explaining the purpose of the conference, stating that it merely aimed at harmonising relations between the nations which had clashed in the war, and that the allies were prepared to introduce certain modifications to the terms of peace, especially those pertaining the privileges offered to Greece. They decided to establish a special committee and assign to it the task of reviewing the situation of the local residents in the region of Izmir, stating that the decisions reached by this committee would be binding upon the two parties. The head of the delegation Bakir Sami agreed to the idea of the sending of the committee but the Greeks categorically rejected it. Upon this the Ankara representative and the head of the delegation, speaking on behalf of the two delegations, suggested during the conference that Izmir could be turned into a domestically independent Wilaya under a Christian ruler. However, the British rejected this proposal and so did the Greeks, the French and the Italians. The French delegation agreed to evacuate Cilicia and hand it back to the Turks, giving their assurances to honour this promise. Bakir Sami for his part agreed to grant France a commercial privilege which would give her preference over the other states which Turkey traded with, to which effect Turkey and France concluded a treaty.

However, the London conference failed and was wound up without achieving anything apart from what the French and the Turkish delegations had agreed upon. No sooner had the two delegations returned, than Mustafa Kemal rejected the treaty which Bakir Sami had signed with France. Bakir Sami was then forced to resign his post as foreign minister and he immediately joined those who opposed Mustafa Kemal.

Mustafa Kemal then wrote to the French government stating that the delegation he had dispatched to the conference had acted in a manner which exceeded the powers with which it was delegated, thus all the resolutions it had adopted were null and void and the country would not accept them nor would she be liable to honour them.

Negotiations then took place between the Ankara government and France at the end of which the Ankara government signed an agreement on 20th October 1921 with France, under which Turkey undertook to surrender Syria to France. They also agreed to determine the borders between Turkey and Syria. Pursuant to this agreement, France also evacuated her troops from Cilicia. Hence, Mustafa Kemal assumed contacts with other states and other states in turn contacted him and dealt with him, signing treaties with him despite the presence of the Khilafah government.

The European states thereafter started to display their inclination towards him. France and Italy started attempting to win him over and get closer to him, while Britain started to openly support him in international issues and seemed to have snubbed Greece and started to show resentment towards her.

Mustafa Kemal also contacted Russia, which had withdrawn from the war and where the communist government had been established, and sought her help. He surrendered Batum to her and endeavoured to make her sign a treaty of friendship with him on behalf of Turkey, so as to consider it as an official recognition of his government. Russia agreed to this, as she did not loose anything by it and because she was against Islam and against the existence of an Islamic Khilafah. Hence, she supported Mustafa Kemal against the British and against the Khilafah, then she took Batum without loosing anything, and this was on 16th March 1921. Prior to this, Italy had relinquished Altalia out of her own free will and evacuated it in January 1921. Hence, France, Italy and Russia sided with the Ankara government and this strengthened the hand of Mustafa Kemal.