In pursuit of homogeneity: the Lausanne Conference, minorities and the Turkish nation

Abstract

Following World War I, the Allied Powers signed Minority Treaties with a number of Central and Eastern European states. These treaties delineated the status of religious, ethnic and linguistic minorities in their respective countries. Turkey would be one of the last states that sat down to the negotiation table with the Allied Powers. In the Turkish case, the Lausanne Treaty would be the defining document which set out a series of rights and freedoms for the non-Muslim minorities in the newly created nation. The present article explores how and why the non-Muslim minorities were situated in the fringes of the new nation. In doing so, the article highlights the content of the discussions in the Lausanne Conference and in the Turkish Grand National Assembly with an emphasis on the position of the Turkish political elite.

Keywords:

• Lausanne
• Turkey
• minorities
• nation-building

Notes

1. In this article, I confine the usage of the term “political elite” to the members of the Grand National Assembly.

2. At this point, it should be noted that during the First Assembly period (1920–1923), there were divisions and hence different voices in the parliament. While one group (First Group) sided themselves with Mustafa Kemal, the other group (Second Group) largely composed the opposition. Before and during the Lausanne proceedings, this divide also revealed a high level of contention between the government and the opposition. During the period under analysis, heated debates in the parliament revolved mostly around the issues of the selection process of the delegates, Ottoman debts, and the demarcation of territories including the Mosul problem. On the main issues that pertained to the non-Muslim communities, both groups seemed to have consensus on how the parliament should tackle them. The examples I use in the text come from both of these groups and reflect the majority viewpoints. Finally, it should be added that the main critique that was brought to the table by the opposition members stressed the Lausanne delegation's (hence the government's) lenient attitude toward the Allied Powers' demands during the negotiations. This critique more particularly was directed toward the issue of population exchange where the opposition demanded that the Lausanne delegation should insist on it without any exceptions (such as exempting the Istanbul Greek Orthodox population from the exchange). For some examples, see (TBMM 1985, 2.3.1339/1923, 9–13; 4.3.1339/1923, 80).

3. The Convention and Protocol on the Exchange of Greek and Turkish Populations was one of the 18 instruments created and ratified in Lausanne. The Convention was signed on 30 January 1923. The final version of the Convention stipulated compulsory exchange of populations between Greece and Turkey to be executed along religious lines: the Muslim population living in Greece (with the exception of those in Western Thrace) and the Greek-Orthodox population living in Turkey (with the exception of those in Istanbul) were required to leave (Arı 2000).

4. For some of the influential works which defined the parameters of this debate, see Gellner (1983), Hobsbawm (1990), Smith (1986), Hutchinson (1994), and Armstrong (1982). For a detailed discussion of this debate, see Özkırımlı (2010).

5. It should also be mentioned that some of these articles were geared toward guaranteeing protection to all inhabitants of Turkey. For example, Article 38/1 stated that “the Turkish government undertakes to assure full and complete protection of life and liberty to all inhabitants of Turkey without distinction of birth, nationality, race or religion” (Meray 1969–1973, Set 2, Vol. 2, 11).

6. For detailed discussions of the failure of the system established by the League of Nations, see, for example, Finney (1995), Mazower (1997), Fink (2000), and Sierpowski (1991).

7. For similar examples, see (TBMM 1961, 25.1.1339/1923, 510; 3.11.1338/1922, 349–50).

8. The representatives of Assyrian and Chaldean communities, along with the representatives of other non-Muslim communities, were invited to Lausanne to voice their concerns and demands. It is sometimes suggested that the Turkish state has not treated Assyrians and Chaldeans as minorities since their representatives had refused a minority status in Lausanne and instead requested to be treated as one of the “founding members” of the Turkish nation. Even though I could not find any documentation verifying this, it certainly is the case that the Turkish state has used this argument to exclude Assyrians and Chaldeans from the protections stipulated under the Treaty. I thank the anonymous referee who brought this debated issue to my attention.

9. Inönü's addresses at the Conference would also echo these sentiments. For example, see Meray (1969–1973, Set 1, Vol. 1, Book 1, 197).

10. For similar examples, see TBMM (1961, 4.10.1336/1920, 478; 25.1.1339/1923, 510; 22.91339/1923 271; 1.11.1338/1922, 311). Also see Rıza Nur's statements cited in the previous section.

11. For an example of the support given to Armenians to procure land, see Lord Curzon's speech (Meray 1969–1973, Set 1, Vol. 1, Book 1, 183).

12. In the case of Armenians, the Turkish government had informed the delegation the goal should be to negotiate a population exchange between Armenia and Turkey (Şimşir 1990, 38). However, Inönü would air his concerns about this position once the deliberations commenced. One difficulty was the absence of any Armenian officials to negotiate with. The other,  possible, difficulty could be the great interest of the Allied Powers on the Armenian issue. Hence, Inönü suggested to the government that it would not be possible or wise to pursue the government's decision in Lausanne and as a result the plan was dropped (Şimşir 1990, 126, 174).

13. During the period under analysis, the non-Muslim communities as well as foreign investors and businessmen still held the upper hand in certain economic initiatives and activities including exports and manufacturing. This state of affairs started to change especially with the 1923 population exchange between Greece and Turkey (Aktar 2000, 25).

14. The argument by Inönü and the statements made by statesmen in Ankara also reflect the tension between the inclusive and exclusive understandings of nationhood which characterized these early years of nation-building.

15. On his main arguments presented in Lausanne also, see Meray (1969–1973, Set 1, Vol. 1, Book 2, 188–189, 262).