Human angle

Lasting value of the Lausanne Treaty

by  Prof. Dr. Özer OZANKAYA

In commemoration of the victims of terrorism in London and throughout the world

July 23 and 24 July are the anniversaries of the two important breakthroughs which helped to lay the foundations of the Republic of Turkey. On July 23, 1919, the Erzurum Congress convened against the occupation by the Political West. And on July 24, 1923, the International Lausanne Peace Treaty was signed.

The strategy which was launched at Erzurum and succeeded at Lausanne is of pioneering value for all civilisation in the fields of democracy and peace. It demonstrated that military colonialist attacks could be confronted not by terrorism but through an administration which is the real representative of the nation and which is accountable for every action. It also sets out the political, social, economic and cultural conditions which are required if the nation is to be truly liberated and not attacked again: “No oppression or protection of any foreign power can be accepted. The country is a whole within the national borders; it cannot be divided. These targets can be attained only by the strength and will power of the nation.”

In today’s world conditions, in which colonialism and terrorism have taken on global dimensions, this initiative of a democratic culture is exemplary in its national and international dimensions.

Source of strength

According to the architect and builder of the strategy, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk: “I believe that the best policy is to be as powerful as possible in every field. Do not think that being powerful refers only to force of arms. On the contrary, I believe that this force comes last one among the factors which constitute the whole. I believe that being powerful means being strong in the scientific, technical and moral areas. For if a nation is devoid of these values, even if we imagine all its members are equipped with the most advanced arms, it would be wrong to regard it as powerful. To be armed is not sufficient to take one’s place as a human being in today’s community of humanity… I believe that for my country and my nation to achieve the progress of which I am well aware and of which we have gone without, it is necessary to work hard and continuously - in peace and tranquillity, and above all while establishing freedom and independence.”

German philosopher Herbert Melzig describes the Kemalist strategy in the following way: “Atatürk gave a magnificent example to humanity via the war of independence, which he launched together with the Turkish nation, and via the peace which protected the rights of other nations. With Atatürk, the New Turkey has not only surpassed the Islamic mentality and views but also the European way of thinking. Turkey pursues a policy of honesty, sincerity and realism, and for this reason it has not met with any opposition or failures.”

Prisoner of capitulations

The victory which the Turkish nation won at Lausanne on July 24, 1923 under the leadership of Ataturk is a veritable monument of democracy and peace. Ataturk himself noted that “The Ottoman State was the prisoner of a series of capitulations. The Christian people had many privileges and priorities. The Ottoman State did not have the right to try foreigners on its own territories. It was barred from collecting from foreigners the same taxes which it collected from its own kind. It was prevented from having recourse to the means that would enable the Turkish nation which founded it to live in a decent manner. It could not carry out public works. It could not build railways. It was not even free to construct schools. The foreigners always got in the way…

“I had no doubt that the basics which the Turkish nation was obliged to secure, whatever the cost, for the sake of its existence, its independence and sovereignty would be approved by the world (at Lausanne). Because, all we asked for at the Conference table was nothing other than the recognition and approval of the rights which we had in any case acquired in reality. We had the power to safeguard and defend our rights. Our biggest strength and most reliable source of support was the fact that we gained our national sovereignty, and placed it directly in the hands of the people, and proven through deeds that this right would remain vested in our nation… This Treaty is a document, which speaks of the collapse of great act of destruction prepared against the Turkish nation for long centuries and thought to have been completed by the Treaty of Sevres.”

Defining land and people

The concepts of the democratic “Turkish nation” and the “Turkish Homeland”, which form the basis for the International Lausanne Peace Treaty on the national plane, constitute a whole with the principles that it pursued on the plane of international relations: The definition of the Turkish nation is based on the principle that: “The Turkish people, who established the Republic of Turkey, is called the Turkish nation.” This definition does not discriminate on the basis of ethnic origin, religion, sect or social position. The concept of “Turkish homeland” is defined in the National Oath Document as the piece of geography on which the nation has lived in history with its legal, cultural, economic and spiritual values, and upon which it has earned the right to live, so rejecting any kind of expansionism and irredentism. These definitions – the way in which the Turkish nation perceives itself and its homeland – have been cleansed of all the Turanic and Islamic expressions, which the British and German states in particular, in line with their colonialist goals, had sometimes encouraged the Ottoman State to follow and sometimes punished it for whenever they so saw fit.

This definition of democratic homeland and nation, recognized by the world in Lausanne, made the Republic of Turkey the greatest factor of peace and security in the Middle East. It also enabled the Turkish nation live in peace uninterruptedly for 82 years, becoming one of the rare nations of which the political borders have remained unchanged. Today, the political West, for the sake of its own global aims, wants the Republic of Turkey to assume a leadership role as a “moderate Islamic democracy” in its Great Middle East project - a role which is in conflict with the definition of the democratic nation and homeland which ensured the liberation and the establishment of the Republic of Turkey. It is well to remind the political West, and those who have taken it upon themselves to pursue its policies, such as the advocates of the Turkish-Islamic synthesis who only recently sought to deceive the Turkish nation with the demagogy of placing one and taking three” of the comments made by Atatürk 85 years ago concerning Pan-Turanism and Islamism. Atatürk described these two approaches as “duplicities which run after great and empty dreams, and appear to achieve things which they cannot achieve.”

Dreams or peace?

“For running after great and empty dreams, we drew upon this country and this nation the hatred and antagonism of the whole world. Instead of running after the concepts of Nationalism (Turancılık) and Islamism, which inspire fear and agitation to the world, and doing our best to multiply our enemies, let us live within our natural and legitimate borders and know our limits. We are a nation which wants to be free and independent and we will expend our lives only to that end.”

The foreign policy of the Republic of Turkey, which won a victory in Lausanne, is a realistic foreign policy, which never forgets to say: “War is murder unless the life of the nation is threatened… Peace at home, peace in the world… I am the merciless enemy of those who want to make my nation a prisoner until they abandon their aims.” It is also a policy which acknowledges that full independence - a real liberation from international colonialism - cannot be restricted to the political and military spheres. It realizes that complete independence cannot be limited to the political and military spheres but that it also requires full freedom and independence from the economic, financial, judicial, educational and cultural angles.

Vital principles

The culture of democracy is what makes it possible for a nation to be the master of its own house, so to speak. The Turkish delegation at Lausanne, headed by İsmet İnönü, was guided by two basic principles which can be summarised using Atatürk’s words as follows:

First, a nation should base its foreign policy on legitimate aims which it determines freely for itself on its own territory. It should not seek to adapt the internal structure of the nation to – or make it a vehicle for - a foreign policy shaped under pressure from other nations or formed in accordance with the personal assessments of certain administrators.

Secondly, no concession should be made unless the problems which prevent the establishment and maintenance of peace or stand in the way of cooperation and partnership are solved, or unless evidence is prevented to support the belief that they will be resolved, in a satisfactory manner. If the nations with which we are in disagreement or wish to cooperate are not willing to solve problems of vital importance to us in a way that will serve our interests, this means that they intend to drag out the talks for as long as possible, to wear us down with various issues and finally to force us to make concessions for their own benefit. Moreover, in such circumstances, it should be known that there is no end to demands for concessions.

The waiving of these principles in the solution of disagreements with Greece and with the Greek Cypriot Administration and in efforts to achieve full EU membership have led the Republic of Turkey and the Turkish nation into difficult and embarrassing situations such as the one-sided Customs Union Agreement, the disregard of our rights in Cyprus based on the 1960 London and Zurich International Agreements and the open-ended nature of the EU accession talks, replete with permanent exemptions.

(DIPLOMAT  -  July 2005  -  Ankara)