![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
Abstract
This article examines how the economic concessions given to foreign companies during the Ottoman Empire were assumed by the new Turkish Republic and readjusted under the new circumstances that arose after the First World War. Using mainly the documents of the French diplomatic archives and of the Turkish state, the article focuses on the negotiations between the Turkish government in Ankara and the representatives of the French companies, in the summer of 1923. Taking into account the nationalist ideas of the new Turkish government, the European governments and companies were concerned about the economic path that young Turkey would follow and they were worried about their economic interests in this country. The article puts forward that the rigorous attitude of the Turkish government regarding national sovereignty and political independence was a determining factor in these first years of the new regime but did not constitute an obstacle to the privileges of the foreign capital in Turkey.
Acknowledgments
This article has been partly developed from a report that I wrote while I was preparing my PhD dissertation. It was not included in my thesis. I would like to thank Professor P. Dumont and Professor M. Reinkowski for their comments on it. I also would like to thank Campus France who financed my visits to the French diplomatic archives. I owe special thanks to Dr C. Örnek for her comments, Dr N. Gürboğa for her guidance and Mr B. Kayabek for his help with the documents in Ottoman Turkish. Finally, I would like to thank the referee(s) for their valuable comments.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes
Notes
1 The article refers to the leadership of the War of National Liberation (1919–1922) as the ‘nationalists’. During this war, the nationalists formed a parliament in Ankara in April 1920 and constituted a government denying the government of the Ottoman State in Istanbul. This administration, also called the ‘Ankara government’, just before the Lausanne Peace Treaty, abolished the Sultanate in the Ottoman Empire together with its government in Istanbul. Thus the Ankara government became the government of the new Turkey after the victory of the War of Liberation. Accordingly, the article uses – beside ‘nationalists’ – ‘Turkish government’ and sometimes just ‘Ankara’ to designate the political power in Turkey which conducted the peace negotiations in Lausanne and the concession negotiations with the foreign companies.
2 For example, in a speech that Mustafa Kemal Pasha gave right after the interruptions of the peace negotiations in Lausanne, he emphasized that one of the reasons that entailed the Ottoman Empire into the World War was its economic dependency. Atatürk’ün Söylev ve Demeçleri [The speeches and declarations of Atatürk] (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1997), vol. II, p.123. The economic independence of Turkey was also emphasized by Turkish authorities during the Lausanne Conference. B.N. Şimşir (ed.), Lozan Telgrafları: Türk Diplomatik Belgelerinde Lozan Barış Konferansı [The Telegrams of Lausanne: the Lausanne Peace Conference in Turkish Diplomatic Documents] (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1990), vol. I, p.233.
3 For some examples, see K. Boratav, Türkiye Iktisat Tarihi, 1908–1985 [Economic History of Turkey, 1908–1985] (Istanbul: Gerçek Yayınevi, 1995); S. Yerasimos, Azgelişmişlik Sürecinde Türkiye [Turkey: An Underdevelopment Process] (Istanbul: Belge Yayınları, 1986), 3 vols; T. Çavdar, Türkiye Ekonomisinin Tarihi, 1900–1960 [The History of the Turkish Economy, 1900–1960] (Ankara: İmge Kitabevi, 2003).
4 For more information on how and in which fields these concessions were given in the nineteenth century, see C.P. Issawi, The Economic History of Turkey, 1800–1914 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980); M. Malhut, Meclis-i Mebusan’da İmtiyazlar Sorunu ve Tartışmalar, 1908–1914 [The Issue of Concessions and the Discussions in the Ottoman Parliament, 1908–1914] (Konya: İlkim Ozan Yayınları, 2011); S. Shahvar, ‘Concession Hunting in the Age of Reform: British Companies and the Search for Government Guarantees: Telegraph Concessions through Ottoman Territories, 1855–58’, Middle Eastern Studies Vol.38 (2002), pp.169–93.
5 K. Fleet, ‘Geç Osmanlı Erken Cumhuriyet Döneminde Yabancılara Verilen Ekonomik İmtiyazlar’ [The economic concessions given to foreigners during the late Ottoman and early Republican period], Kebikeç, Vol.39 (2015), pp.345, 350. For an example of local reaction against a British company asking for a marine trade concession on the Euphrates and Tigris rivers, see M. Malhut, Meclis-i Mebusan’da İmtiyazlar, pp.77–86. For the reactions of tobacco producers and merchants against the concession of the Régie company see M. Akpınar, ‘II. Meşrutiyet Meclisince Reji’nin Sorgulanması’ [The Questioning regarding the Régie at the Parliament in the Second Constitutional Period] in G. Eren (ed.), Osmanlı, 3: İktisat (Ankara: Semih Ofset, 1999), pp.608–615.
6 For the policies of ‘national economy’ see Z. Toprak, Türkiye’de ‘Millî Iktisat’, 1908–1918 [‘National Economy’ in Turkey, 1908–1918] (Ankara: Yurt Yayınları, 1982); M. Koraltürk, Erken Cumhuriyet Döneminde Ekonominin Türkleştirilmesi [Turkification of the Economy in the Late Republican Period] (Istanbul: İletişim, 2011); F. Ahmad, ‘Vanguard of a Nascent Bourgeoisie: The Social and Economic Policy of the Young Turks 1908 – 1918’ in O. Okyar and H. İnalcık (eds), Social and Economic History of Turkey (1071–1920): Papers Presented to the First International Congress on the Social and Economic History of Turkey, Hacettepe University, Ankara, July 11–13, 1977 (Ankara: Hacettepe Üniversitesi, 1980), pp.329–50.
7 Z. Toprak, Türkiye’de ‘Millî Iktisat’, pp.116–117. Capitulations are the excessive economic rights granted in the sixteenth century to the citizens of European countries, such as the French and the British in their economic relations with the Empire.
8 K. Fleet, ‘Geç Osmanlı Erken Cumhuriyet’, p.352.
9 Ibid., pp.353–4.
10 I.T. Berend, An Economic History of Twentieth-Century Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp.50–2. As Berend puts it, the economic circumstances after the First World War allowed many poor or industrially less developed countries to follow nationalist economy policies and revolt against the Western capitalist countries in order to ‘set new rules of the game’. Ibid., p.53.
11 J. Thobie, Une Dynamique de Transition: Les Relations économiques franco-turques dans les années 20 in P. Dumont and J.L. Bacqué-Grammont (eds), La Turquie et la France à l'époque d'Atatürk (Paris: Association pour le développement des études turques, 1981), p.142.
12 Centre of Diplomatic Archives at the Ministère des Affaires Etrangères (MAE), Fond: Turquie, Serie E, Cardboard 320, Folder 13, Letter of Mougin from Ankara, 26 June 1923.
13 During the negotiations in Lausanne, İsmet Pasha, the leader of the Turkish delegation, had a very steady attitude on this issue of national sovereignty. This constant insistence of the Turkish delegate on the sovereignty and independence of Turkey and the wish to be treated equally with the Allies annoyed the Allied leaders, such as Lord Curzon, at the Conference. R. H. Davison, Essays in Ottoman and Turkish History, 1774–1923, The Impact of the West (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1990), pp.225–32.
14 At the Izmir Economic Congress, a ‘national oath on the economy’ (misak-ı iktisadi) was approved by the delegates which emphasized some moral principles concerning the working life of the Turkish nation. The ninth article of the oath states that ‘The Turks […] are not against the foreign capital. However the Turks do not do business with those companies which do not respect their language and their laws in their own country’. A.G. Ökçün, Türkiye İktisat Kongresi 1923-İzmir Haberler-Belgeler-Yorumlar [The Turkish Economic Congress – Izmir: News-Documents-Comments] (Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Yayınları, 1971), p.389.
15 Y.S. Tezel, Cumhuriyet Döneminin İktisadi Tarihi [The Economic History of the Republican Period] (Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 2002), p.153.
16 Ibid., p.153.
17 A.G. Ökçün, Türkiye İktisat Kongresi, p.434.
18 S. Örsten Esirgen, ‘Lozan Barış Görüşmelerinde İmtiyazlar Sorunu’ [The Question of Concessions During The Lausanne Peace Negotiations], Atatürk Araştırmaları Dergisi Vol.28 (2012), pp.87–114. The article dealing with the debates on the concessions at the peace conference is based on the telegram correspondence between the Turkish delegates in Lausanne and the government in Ankara.
19 J. Thobie, ‘Une Dynamique de Transition’. The article focusing on the economic relations between France and Turkey in 1920s also deals with the negotiations on the concessions, referring to the documents in the French archives.
20 J. Thobie, French Investments in Public and Private Funds in the Ottoman Empire on the Eve of the Great War in P.L. Cottrell, M.P. Fraser, and I.L. Fraser (eds), East Meets West: Banking Commerce and Investment in the Ottoman Empire, (Burlington: Ashgate, 2008), pp.140–2. Thobie provides the list of 52 companies with French capital operating in the Ottoman Empire, within its 1912 frontiers.
21 For the speeches and discussions at the Economic Congress of Izmir, see A.G. Ökçün, Türkiye İktisat Kongresi.
22 The company, Omnium d’Entreprise, which possessed other concessions on Ottoman territory claimed that they obtained the concession for the establishment of a tramway line on the Anatolian shore of Istanbul as the result of an auction made by the Ottoman government in 1914 and in June 1923 asked the Turkish government to recognize this concession. However the government responded that the concession could not be considered as valid since an agreement relative to this concession was not approved by the Ottoman Parliament. On the other hand, the government invited the company to make a new appeal for this concession. Turkish State Archives, Republican Period [BCA], 30-18-1-1/7-20-6, 10 June 1923.
23 Turkey, Parliamentary Debates, vol. 2, Session 25 (7 July 1920).
24 S.L. Meray, Lozan Barış Konferansı: Tutanaklar-Belgeler [Lausanne Peace Conference: Minutes and Documents] (Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Yayınları, 1973), set I, Vol. III, pp.397–9, 83–4. Translated from French.
25 B.N. Şimşir, Lozan Telgrafları, Vol. I, p.312.
26 MAE, E/320/13, Letter of General Pellé from Istanbul, 12 April 1923.
27 BCA, 30-18-1-1/7-15-9, 10 April 1923.
28 Lozan Barış Konferansı: Tutanaklar-Belgeler, set I, Vol. III, pp.397–9, 83–4.
29 S. Ilkin, 1922-1923 Yılları Türkiye’sinde Bir Yabancı Sermaye Girişimi: Chester Demiryolu Projesi [An enterprise of foreign capital in Turkey in 1922–1923: Chester Railway Project] in İ. Tekeli and S. İlkin (eds), Cumhuriyetin Harcı: Modernitenin Altyapısı Oluşurken (Istanbul: Bilgi Ünivresitesi Yayınları, 2004), p.264.
30 MAE, E/320/13, Letter of Mougin from Ankara, 6 April 1923.
31 MAE, E/320/13, Letter of Mougin from Ankara, 20 April 1923. General Poincaré responded to this statement very austerely by saying that Turkey should resolve the question of concessions either in Ankara or in Lausanne but if they wished the peace to become permanent they should resolve it definitively. MAE, Letter of Poincaré from Paris, 21 April 1923.
32 MAE, E/320/13, ‘Visite de M. Charles Laurent à M. de Peretti’, 18 April 1923; MAE, E/320/13, Letter of Poincaré from Paris, 21 April 1923.
33 MAE, E/320/13, ‘Visite de M. Charles Laurent à M. de Peretti’, 18 April 1923.
34 MAE, E/320/13, Letter of the Société des Quais, Docks et Entrepôts de Constantinople from Paris, 18 April 1923.
35 MAE, E/320/13, Letter of F. Granel, 19 April 1923.
36 Ibid., MAE, E/320/13, Letter of F. Granel, 2 May 1923.
37 MAE, E/320/13, Letter of G. Pellé from Istanbul, 5 April 1923.
38 Ibid.
39 Ibid.
40 MAE, E/320/13, Letter of F. Granel from Paris, 2 May 1923.
41 MAE, E/320/13, Letter of E. Metzger from Lausanne, 27 June 1923.
42 MAE, E/320/13, Letter of G. Pellé from Istanbul, 12 April 1923.
43 B.N. Şimşir, Lozan Telgrafları, Vol. II, p.204.
44 Ibid., pp.148–9.
45 MAE, E/320/13, Letter from the British Embassy to G. Poincaré, 12 April 1923.
46 MAE, E/320/13, Letter of M. de Peretti, 16 April 1923.
47 MAE, E/320/13, Letter of G. Pellé from Lausanne, 4 May 1923.
48 MAE, E/320/13, Letter of F. Granel, 17 April 1923. The companies’ sense of nationalism is expressed as the following: ‘In the present circumstances, they [the companies] have the duty to put their efforts, their patience, and even their ordeal in the service of the French government.’
49 B.N. Şimşir, Lozan Telgrafları, Vol. II, p.435.
50 MAE, E/320/13, Letter of Mougin from Ankara, 23 May 1923.
51 MAE, E/320/13, ‘Liste des représentants désignés par les Sociétés en vue des négociations directes avec le Gouvernement Turc’ [List of representatives nominated by the companies for direct negotiations with the Turkish Government]. According to this list, the French companies who sent delegates for the negotiations were: Railway companies of Jonction Salonique-Constantinople, Chemins de Fer Orientaux, Smyrne-Casaba, Damas-Hamah, Tramways Libanais, Chemins de Fer Cilicie-Nord Syrie, Consortium ‘Réseau Mer Noire’, Régie Générale de Chemins de Fer; port companies of Quais de Constantinople, Port de Beyrouth, Consortium de Ports Ottomans; lighthouse companies of Administration Générale des Phares, Groupe Intéressé à des Prêts Gagés sur les Recettes des Phares; urban services companies of Eaux de Constantinople, Consortium Constantinople; mine companies of Mines d’Héraclée, Mines de Balia-Karaidin, Syndicat d’Argana; and the companies of Docs de Sténia, Société Nationale pour le Commerce, Société Immobilière (Taxim), Syndicat de Tchoucour-Ova, Régie des Tabacs Ottomans, Banque Ottomane. Most of the French companies operating in Turkey before the war contacted Ankara for the negotiations. For the list of all these French companies operating in the Ottoman Empire, see J. Thobie, ‘French Investments’, pp.140–2.
52 MAE, E/320/13, Letter of Jesse-Curely from Constantinople, 27 April 1923.
53 MAE, E/320/13, Letter of Mougin from Ankara, 23 May 1923; Letter of Mougin from Ankara, 31 May 1923.
54 MAE, E/320/13, Letter of Mougin from Ankara, 23 May 1923, Letter of Mougin from Ankara, 5 June 1923, Letter of Mougin from Ankara, 16 June 1923, Letter of Mougin from Ankara, 29 June 1923.
55 MAE, E/320/13, Letter of Mougin from Ankara, 26 June 1923.
56 According to Paul Dumont, Colonel Mougin had a good knowledge of the issues concerning Turkey; Dumont describes the French emissary as an advocate of French big capital who conserved a ‘colonizer mentality’. P. Dumont A l’Aube du Rapprochement Franco-Turc: Le Colonel Mougin. Premier Représentant de la France auprès du Gouvernement d’Ankara (1922-1925) in P. Dumont and J.L. Bacqué-Grammont (eds), La Turquie et la France à l'époque d'Atatürk (Paris: Association pour le développement des études turques, 1981), pp.76, 87.
57 MAE, E/320/13, Letter of Mougin from Ankara, 1 June 1923, Letter of Mougin from Ankara, 5 June 1923.
58 MAE, E/320/13, Letter of Mougin from Ankara, 1 June 1923.
59 MAE, E/320/13, Letter of the Société des Quais, Docks et Entrepôts de Constantinople from Paris, 8 July 1923.
60 MAE, E/320/13, Letter of G. Pellé from Lausanne, 10 June 1923. It is true that the Turkish Council of Ministers in its relative session accepted the agreement under the condition that ‘all the employees would be Turkish’, BCA 30-18-1-1/7-20-1, 5 June 1923.
61 MAE, E/320/13, Letter of the President of the Groupement des Intérêts français dans l’Empire Ottoman from Paris, 29 June 1923.
62 MAE, E/320/13, Letter of Mougin from Ankara, 5 July 1923.
63 MAE, E/320/13, Letter of Mougin from Ankara, 29 May 1923; BCA, 30-18-1-1/7-19-16, 27 May 1923.
64 BCA 30-18-1-1/7-19-19, 3 June 1923.
65 BCA 30-18-1-1/7-20-1, 5 June 1923.
66 BCA 30-18-1-1/7-20-7, 10 June 1923.
67 BCA 30-18-1-1/7-20-14, 14 June 1923.
68 BCA 30-18-1-1/7-20-13, 14 June 1923.
69 Düstur (İstanbul: Milliyet Matbaası, 1929), Üçüncü Tertip, Vol. 4, pp.102–6; MAE, E/320/13, ‘A.S. de l’arrangement intervenu entre la Régie des Tabacs et le gouvernement Turc’ [On the arrangement reached between the Régie of Tobacco and the Turkish Government], 29 June 1923.
70 BCA 30-18-1-1/7-20-20, 17 June 1923.
71 BCA 30-18-1-1/7-21-15, 19 June 1923.
72 BCA 30-18-1-1/7-22-7, 28 June 1923.
73 Düstur, pp.107–13.
74 BCA 30-18-1-1/7-23-19, 1 July 1923.
75 Düstur, pp.131–4.
76 BCA 30-18-1-1/7-24-1, 3 July 1923. At the beginning of June, a French report provides a similar list for the companies who signed and were about to sign an agreement with the government; MAE, E/320/13, ‘Résultats des pourparlers engagés à Angora entre le gouvernement turc et les délégués des sociétés étrangers’ [Results of the talks between the Turkish government and delegates of foreign companies in Ankara], 2 June 1923.
77 E. Eldem, Osmanlı Bankası Tarihi [A History of the Ottoman Bank] (Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 1999), p.395. Translated from English.
78 For the demands refused and accepted by the Turkish government: MAE, E/320/13, Letter of Jesse-Curely from Istanbul, 23 June 1923; MAE, E/320/13, Letter of Mougin from Ankara, 1 June 1923; MAE, E/320/13, Letter of Mougin from Ankara, 26 June 1923.
79 For example, the agreements of the companies Tunnel and Quais de Smyrne, BCA 30-18-1-1/7-19-19, 3 June 1923; BCA 30-18-1-1/7-20-1, 5 June 1923.
80 MAE, E/320/13, ‘Accord passé à Angora entre la Société des Chemins de Fer Orientaux et le Gouvernement Turc’ [The agreement reached between La Société des Chemins de Fer Orientaux and the Turkish government in Ankara], 10 July 1923.
81 Düstur, p.112.
82 Murat Koraltürk explains in detail how the Turkish government, in the 1920s, put pressure on the companies in order to implement this clause and to expel non-Muslims and foreigners they employed. Erken Cumhuriyet Döneminde Ekonominin Türkleştirilmesi, pp. 229–64.
83 BCA 30-18-1-1/7-20-14, 14 June 1923; BCA 30-18-1-1/7-22-7, 28 June 1923.
84 Düstur, p.132.
85 For more information on the history of Régie, see F. Doğruel and A. S. Doğruel, Osmanlı’dan Günümüze: Tekel [From Ottomans to Today: the Monopoly] (Istanbul: Tekel, 2000); F. Georgeon, Osmanlı-Türk Modernleşmesi (1900–1930) [Ottoman-Turkish Modernization (1900–1930)] (Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 2006). Translated from French.
86 Turkey, Parliamentary Debates, Vol. 17, Session 167 (28 January 1922), p.184.
87 MAE, E/320/13, Letter of Mougin and of Jesse-Curely from Ankara, 1 June 1923.
88 MAE, E/320/13, ‘A.S. de l’arrangement intervenu entre la Régie des Tabacs et le gouvernement turc’, 29 June 1923; Düstur, pp.102–6.
89 Later, the concession of monopoly given to the Régie would be abolished due to the pressure exerted by the deputies of the Grand National Assembly.
90 MAE, E/320/13, Letter of Mougin from Ankara, 26 June 1923 (2).
91 Ibid.
92 MAE, E/320/13, Letter of Mougin from Ankara, 26 June 1923 (1).
93 MAE, E/320/13, Letter of Mougin from Ankara, 20 June 1923.
94 MAE, E/320/13, Letter of Jesse-Curely from Istanbul, 5 July 1923.
95 ‘Actes Signés à Lausanne’, Journal Officiel de la République Française, 31 August 1924. For the negotiations on the protocol draft see Lozan Barış Konferansı: Tutanaklar-Belgeler, set II, Vol. I, book II, pp.151–5, 163–70.
96 Y.S. Tezel, ‘Birinci Büyük Millet Meclisi Anti-emperyalist miydi? Chester Ayrıcalığı’ [Was the First Grand National Assembly Anti-imperialist? The Chester Concession], Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi, Vol.25 (1970), pp.294–5. For details of this concession, see also B.C. Bilmez, Demiryolundan Petrole Chester Projesi (1908–1923) [From Railway to Oil: Chester Project] (Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 2000).
97 Y.S. Tezel, ‘Birinci Büyük Millet Meclisi’, pp.304–5. For the discussions on the Chester concession before its approval in the National Assembly see Turkey, Parliamentary Debates, Vol. 28, Session 20 (8 April 1923), pp.436–515.
98 S. Ilkin, ‘1922-1923 Yılları Türkiye’sinde’, pp.242–3.
99 B.N. Şimşir, Lozan Telgrafları, Vol. I, p.324.
100 Ibid., Vol. II, p.566.
101 Ibid., Vol. I, p.324.
102 Ibid., Vol. I, pp.245, 320; Vol. II, pp.227, 430.
103 Ibid., Vol. II, p. 237.
104 A nationalist writer, journalist and bureaucrat of the period, Yakup Kadri Karaosmanoğlu depicted in detail these ex-soldier and deputy intermediaries in his novels where he narrates the Ankara of the 1920s and 1930s. Y.K. Karaosmanoğlu, Ankara (Istanbul: İletişim yayınları, 2009); Panorama (Istanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 1987). Also see D. Avcıoğlu, Türkiye’nin Düzeni: Dün, Bugün, Yarın [The System of Turkey: Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow] (Ankara: Bilgi Yayınevi, 1973).
105 MAE, E/320/1, ‘Situation économique de Samsun au début de 1927’ [Economic situation in Samsun at the beginning of 1927], 29 February 1927.
106 MAE, E/320/1, ‘Rapport sur la situation économique et financière de la Turquie’ [Report on the economic and financial situation of Turkey], 2 September 1927.
107 MAE, E/320/1, ‘Envoi de rapport sur l’activité économique à Angora’ [Dispatch report on economic activity in Ankara], 15 February 1928.
108 MAE, E/320/1, ‘Situation économique de la région de Kutahia’ [Economic situation in Kutahya region], 21 February 1929.
109 MAE, E/320/1, ‘Industries locales, mines et entreprises européennes dans les régions de Trebizonde et de vilayets orientaux’ [Local industries, mines and European companies in the regions of Trabzon and eastern cities], 21 December 1929.
110 For more information on the economic role and political attitude of the Muslim-Turkish merchants and entrepreneurs in the 1920s, see N.L. Başaran, ‘The Muslim-Turkish Merchant and Industrial Bourgeoisie in Turkey in the 1920s and their Relation with the Political Power’ (PhD thesis, University of Strasbourg and the University of Marmara, 2014).
111 K. Boratav, Türkiye Iktisat Tarihi, p.69.