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.