Turkey’s foreign policy towards Bulgaria and the Turkish minority (1923–1934)

Abstract

This article sets out to study relations between Turkey and Bulgaria during the Inter-war period of 1923–1934 and its effects on the Turkish minority living in Bulgaria. In bringing international, national and community level dynamics together, it will attempt to show how the relations developed between the Republic of Turkey and Bulgaria affected the conditions of the Turkish minority. Once the diplomatic relationship was established between the two states, Ankara and Sofia made efforts to constrain deliberately the influence of the minority issue on these relations. Consequently, this article asserts that the Turkish minority in Bulgaria constituted rarely, if ever, a factor in its own right that could influence the nature and the direction of the two countries’ bilateral relationship for much of the Inter-war era. However, the Bulgarian government began to exert pressure on the Turkish minority, when bilateral relations showed signs of deterioration. Additionally, this article also demonstrates how the reaction of other Balkan countries to regional and international developments had an impact on Turkish–Bulgarian relations and made minorities susceptible to ebbs and flows in bilateral relations.

Keywords:

• Turkey
• Bulgaria
• Minority
• Diplomacy
• Inter-war

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Zafer Toprak, Serhat Güvenç, Mehmet Polatel and Nesrin Ersoy McMeekin for their comments on the previous versions of this paper.

Notes

1. Although Muslim was the term used in international treaties, Turkish groups increasingly emphasized their distinction from other Muslim groups such as Roma, Tatar and Pomaks in Bulgaria. After the foundation of the Republic of Turkey, the use of ‘Turk’ and ‘Turkish’ gradually replaced Muslim in the Turkish Press in Bulgaria. To represent this self-identification of the community, the term ‘Turkish minority’ issued for the 1923–1934 period in this paper. For earlier periods and in the context of Bulgarian regulations are discussed, ‘Muslim’ is used to emphasize this difference.

2. Rogers Brubaker argues for a relational study of national minorities, the nationalizing state and the external national homeland (Brubaker 1995, 118). This paper follows his argument in studying minority politics by analysing how host states, kin states and minority groups interacted but emphasizes the impact of foreign relations on minority politics. We employ kin state as ‘a state which has perceived kin – however defined – outside its borders’ (Poulton 1997, 194).

3. For a similar argument that links state’s minority policies to its foreign policy goals and its relations to the external patron states of minorities for the Balkan countries, see (Mylonas 2013).

4. According to 1927 Census, Bulgarian-speaking population was 20,544 in Turkey (Dündar 1999, 157). According to 1926 Census, there were 577,555 Turks and 825,774 Muslims in Bulgaria (Şimşir 1986, 18).

5. Since Bulgaria was not among the Allied powers, it had only ratified the articles pertaining to the status of the Straits and on the demilitarized zone in Thrace.

6. T.R. Aras said to the Bulgarian Associate Counsel that this treaty was also a success against other Balkan countries which did not take into consideration Bulgaria (T.C. Başbakanlık Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü 2002, 247).

7. According to its 37–45 clauses. The protocol regulating the property issues concerns emigrants but not the minorities in both countries (Soysal 1983).

8. The 1913 Treaty regulated rights and administration of the Muslim minority. By abrogating its clauses, Turkey lost its rights on endowments and the appointment of the Chief Müfti (Peeva 2006, 137).

9. Most notable members were the Commander of the Sofia garrison General Lazarof, the Chief metropolitan Stefan, a Parliamentary deputy Gregor Vasilef, the director of the People’s Bank Tantilof, the head of Bulgarian news agency Popof and some other deputies. See (Rehber, 6 April 1929).

10. Twenty-two Turkish newspapers were published between 1923 and 1928. They were short-term publications (a year or two at most) with the exception of Dostluk and Rehber. See Ali Eminov. Bulgaristan’da Yayınlanan Türkçe Gazeteler: 1880–1990. Academia.edu. https://www.academia.edu/4165129/Bulgaristanda_Yayinlanan_Turkce_Gazeteler_1880-1990.

11. Earlier organizations which were founded on national ideals did not last long. The Islamic Party (Islam Fırkası) was founded in 1909–1910 but dissolved shortly afterwards.

12. Turkish newspapers received financial aid from Turkey to be published in Latin letters, and this caused tensions with Bulgarian state authorities. As an example, in 1929, Rehber was funded by the Turkish state to buy new print (BCA, 30.10.0.0/83.547.17, 5 December 1928). The Bulgarian state attempted to prevent import of textbooks and new letter types from Turkey (Boyar and Fleet 2008, 784).

13. 11 of 150 lived in Bulgaria (Boyar and Fleet 2008, 778). Others were spread mostly to neighbouring countries of Turkey including Greece, Romania, Syria, Jordan and Egypt.

14. For the treaty, see (Soysal 1983, 53).

15. Both Italy and Bulgaria had territorial demands over Yugoslavia. Italy had demands on the Adriatic Coast and Bulgaria on Macedonia. Mallett writes that Mussolini stated that he had initiated moves to encircle the Yugoslavs by forging alignments with countries like Bulgaria (Mallett 2003, 20). Moreover, the Duce was financially supporting the activists in Yugoslav Macedonia who intended to join Bulgaria (Milza and Berstein 1980, 318).

16. An example of these organizations was Rodina which attempted to turn Pomaks into proper Bulgarians in the late 1920s and the early 1930s (Neuburger 2004, 52–3).

17. According to Velikov, Aras dropped by Sofia many times in his way to Europe (Velikov 1982, 27).

18. The Bulgarian nationalists contended that the Neuilly Treaty’s territorial sacrifices had left almost one-third of their countrymen in neighboring Yugoslavia, Rumania, and Greece. In fact, after the Balkan War and WWI more than 300,000 people from Yugoslavia and Greece fled into Bulgaria and exerted enormous influence on Bulgarian policy-making (Rothschild 1990, 323).

19. Later, the Bulgarians participated in the conference, not as a delegation, but as an observer. The Yugoslav delegation rejected the Bulgarian proposal of incorporating in a Balkan pact clauses related to minority issue, in Istanbul as well as in Bucharest, arguing that it could create nationalist propaganda in foreign territory (Revue de l’Esprit International, 1 January 1931–1 April 1932, 131).

20. 5 cases were observed by Özdilek in 1933.

21. He did not forget to add that there was no question of the existence of tripartite alliance (Bulgaria, Turkey, and Greece) (BCA, 30.10.0.0/241.629.12, 17 June 1933).

22. Zveno was a small organization which was ‘self-avowedly elitist, étatist and authoritarian’. Its supporters (zvenari) were ‘the disillusioned professional and intelligentsia elite and amongst sections of the Military League’ (Crampton 2007, 244).

23. Migration to Turkey has existed since the foundation of the Bulgarian Principality. In the 1923–1934 period, a total of 110,189 people migrated from Bulgaria to Turkey. See (Şimşir 1986, 211).

24. Some Turkish officials were suspicious that the new Bulgarian government took over the duty of the Thracian committee which was dissolved after the coup (Mehmet Asım, Ayın Tarihi, October 1934).

25. Thrace newspaper, the main publication of the Thrace organization, was responsible for this propaganda, but the newspaper was finally shut down in March 1935 (Son Posta, 7 February 1935).

26. In 1923–1924, many Turkish sports clubs – especially soccer clubs – flourished in Bulgaria. The Turkish Sports Association was established to bring these clubs under a single umbrella in 1925. This organization was renamed as Turan in 1926 and became the symbol of solidarity among Turkish youth (Şimşir 1986, 98–106).

27. The economic crisis was also manifest in the decreasing price of tobacco given by the Bulgarian government. Most Turks in Bulgaria were peasants, and many of them made their livelihood from tobacco production. Drop in prices meant worsening conditions for Turkish peasantry

28. The opposition of the Chief mufti to the Republic of Turkey was so strong that when the Prime Minister of Turkey İsmet İnönü visited Sofia, the Chief Mufti refused to meet him (Özdilek, 21 September 1933).

29. Tahir Nuri, the editor of the conservative Dostluk was stoned by villagers during his visit to Kızanlık (Özdilek, 1 July 1933).

30. Among them were Arif Oruç and Osman Nuri (Boyar and Fleet 2008, 778).