|
ARMENIANS
IN THE SÉVRES TREATY AND THE LAUSANNE CONFERENCE
Treaty of Sévres, which was signed upon the defeat of Ottoman
Empire, gave new hopes to Armenians. In this treaty it was
provided that Armenia would be recognized as a free and independent
country, and its borders would be determined by US President
Wilson. However, there was no provision concerning Armenians
in the treaty of Lausanne dated July 24, 1923, which made
the Treaty of Sévres invalid and founded the Turkish Republic.
As a result of the success of Turkish advanced operations
on the East Anatolia Front towards the end of 1920, The English
representative Lord Robert Cecil in the League of Nations
submitted a motion in order to improve the life conditions
of Armenians, to take necessary precautions to protect the
Armenians in Turkish territory against so-called dangers and
to create an environment which would not change according
to rules and time; upon this a Plenary Meeting was held.
In this meeting it was decided that one of the states would
be assigned to find immediate solutions to the Armenian Problem
and to settle the conflict between Armenians and Turks by
coming to an agreement with related governments, also a committee
would be formed to prepare a report on this issue.
A conference was held in London on February 27, 1921. In this
conference Bogos Nubar and Aharunyan, two of the Armenian
representatives, made a speech. Both Armenian representatives
insisted that the Sévres Treaty should remain in force and
they gave several reasons for this. Armenian representatives
demanded autonomy for Cilicia. The French representative
stated that it would be hard to change the situation in Cilicia;
however, French Government would give the necessary importance
to the minority there. The summary of the Article 9 concerning
Armenians and determined in the Conference was as follows:
“ The promises given to Turkish Armenians until today lead
to the right to establish an Armenian home in East Anatolia;
for its realization the Board of the League of Nations gave
some privileges to Armenians and they were in compliance with
their decision about the suitable territory.”
In London Conference, the word of “home”, the meaning
of which was not clear, was used instead of “free and independent
Armenian State” used in the Treaty of Sévres. This different
word was created by American missionaries referring to the
kind of settlement, in order to provide autonomy for Armenians
under the administration of the Turkish government. On September
21, 1921 the League of Nations decided that the “home” had
to be independent of Turkey.
Armenian representatives opposed the decision about “home”;
they defended the idea of founding an independent, united
and integrated Armenian State. The foreign affairs ministers
of Britain, France and Italy came together in Paris in 1922.
They discussed the Armenian land, which the London Conference
in March 1921 decided to establish. The decision of the League
of Nations would be adopted. However, before that date, on
March 16, 1921 the Treaty of Moscow; on October 13, 1921 the
Treaty of Kars between Turks and Caucasian Republics; on October
20, 1921 the Treaty of Ankara with French Government were
signed. It was understood that Cilicia would be left to Turks.
Lord Curzon said that “ the majority in Cilicia was Muslims
and Turks , therefore Cilicia could be left to Turks” in
the House of Lords in April 1921. This situation was protested
during the Peace Conference in Paris on behalf of the minorities
in Cilicia.
British, French and Italian Ministers of Foreign Affairs held
a meeting in Paris on March 26, 1922. The rights of Armenians
given in the Treaty of Sévres were abolished and the project
of founding a national Armenian land, instead of an independent
Armenia, was put forward during London Conference for the
first time. England suggested that this national land (home)
should be founded in Cilicia, but France suggested that it
should be founded in East Anatolia. The decision below was
made in the meeting:
“ The position of Armenians should be taken into consideration
due to the disasters they faced and the favors they had done
to the allied states during the war. Therefore, it is requested
that the League of Nations help to find a national home in
order to protect Armenians and to find a solution to their
problem.”
So the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Allied States who
gathered in Paris gave up their demands stated in the Peace
Treaty of Sévres and the London Conference and transferred
the issue to The League of Nations .
The victory of Turkish armies started, on August 26, 1922
on the Western Front and ended on August 30, 1922 with the
Battle of Dumlupinar. The treaty of Mudanya was signed on
October 11, 1922. The representatives of the Government of
Turkish Republic were invited to a peace conference which
would be held in Lausanne, Switzerland on October 28, 1922
by Entente Powers.
The Armenian Issue was discussed among “the issue of minorities”
in Lausanne. The summary of the articles put forward in favor
of minorities were as follows:
- Providing some rights for
the minorities in Turkey about language, religion and similar
matters and inspection of these rights by The League of
Nations
- Christians’ being excused
from military service, in return for this they would pay
some amount of money
- Keeping the privileges
related to religion and sect exactly the same
- Granting general amnesty
for minorities
- Recognizing the freedom
of transportation
- Allowing Armenians who
had immigrated to the other countries return their to old
houses
- Giving Armenians land in
East Anatolia and Cilicia
In the meeting
dated December 13, 1922 of Lausanne Conference, about the
protection of minorities, Lord Curzon, English representative,
said that:
“Now I will talk about Armenians. These deserve to be taken
into consideration due to the guarantee given to them about
their future, but not due to the cruelties which they faced
through several generations, which horrified the modern world.
In Erivan, which is now one of Soviet Republics, there
is an Armenian Government. As I heard their population is
1.250.000. Because of great numbers of immigrants coming from
various regions, the country is over-populated and cannot
accept any immigrants. On the other hand, Armenians in Kars,
Ardahan, Van, Bitlis, Erzurum were harmed.
When the French withdrew from Cilicia, Armenian people
living there followed the French army due to fear. Now they
live in Iskenderun, Aleppo, Beirut and along the Turkish border
of Syria scattered here and there. In my opinion, the number
of Armenians living in Anatolia was three million previously
but now there remained 130.000. Most of them immigrated to
the Caucasus, Russia, Iran, and the other neighboring countries.
(...) I think it would be necessary to add special articles
in the treaty concerning the protection and the security of
Armenians who would be in large numbers in Anatolia and Thrace
in the future.
Now I will mention the demands of both Armenians and their
sympathizers in order to found an Armenian land. It is so
natural that Armenians want to live in their own land. The
territory of Armenia Republic would not be sufficient for
them. Because of this, the Armenians living in Turkey demand
the land in either Northeast or Southeast of Cilicia. Circumstances
make it impossible to realize those demands now when compared
to the past. However we would be pleased to find out the thoughts
of Turkish representatives on this issue.”
Lord Curzon demanded that a sub committee be formed to examine
the issue in detail and to explain their views on it. M. Barer
and Marki Garoni expressed their thoughts about the same principles.
Ismet Inönü, the chairman for the Turkish delegation, made
a statement about other issues with detailed documents, and
then emphasized especially the following matters:
“Turkish people and Turkish government always tried to
settle the rebellions and reacted to them when their patience
came to an end. The reasons for the evil actions Armenians
are faced with in Turkey, were their own atrocities. Adana
events in 1909 and rebellions provoked in many towns of Anatolia
during the First World War were the continuation of the same
horrible tragedy. As it is understood from the events mentioned
here, unless the non-Muslim subjects of the Ottoman Empire
misused the good will of the administrators of the country
where they lived in peace and wealth, for hundreds of years,
Turks never denied their rights. The Jewish community who
has never complained about any inhuman treatment of the Turkish
government and people is an example which proves for the tragic
events that happened. Armenians and Byzantine Greeks were
responsible. Therefore, history emphasizes that the two principle
factors of the minorities issue should be borne in mind.
Firstly, foreign political influences by some states emerging
with the desire to interfere with the domestic affairs of
the country under the cover of protecting the minorities,
and hence the creation of the desired disorder with provocation
and riot; secondly, domestic political factors which emerge
after the tendency the minorities concerning their freedom
in order to found an independent state.
When we consider Armenians: the relations which were consolidated
with the treaties between Turkey and the Armenian Republic,
removed the possibility of a siege by the Armenian Republic.
On the other hand, Armenians who decided to stay in Turkey
should take into account the necessity of living as decent
citizens. As a result, the representatives of Turkish Grand
National Assembly think that:
- First of all, improvements
in the life conditions of minorities in Turkey depends on
the removal of all the provocation caused by all foreign
interference.
- In order to reach this
target, firstly, it is necessary to exchange Turks and Byzantine
Greeks.
- The best guarantee for
the reliability of the minorities which are excluded from
the mutual exchange measures and for reforms, was the legal
guarantee provided by Turkey for all the communities who
have given up the duties to be undertaken by Turkish citizens.”
As Armenians’
problems were not dealt with in the Treaty of Lausanne, disappointed
representatives of the Armenian delegation made speeches about
the policies to be followed. Then, although the efforts of
the Entente powers in favor of Armenians did not conclude
in constructive results, a decision was taken about following
the political principles to repeat those efforts at the right
time. Armenian representatives delivered a declaration to
participant countries while leaving Lausanne.
“Due to the explanations by the committees in Lausanne
Conference and the peace treaty project published in newspapers,
Armenian representatives understood that the Entente Powers
had left the Armenian issue to its fate. We would like to
put forward the position of Armenians has become worse because
their problem remained unsolved.
During the Treaty of Versailles, the Treaty of Sévres,
London Conference in 1921, Paris Meetings in 1922 some decisions
were taken in order to save the minorities from the Ottoman
Empire and provide a land for Armenians. No decision was made
concerning to standing by the promises and commitments given
in Lausanne to Armenians who were recognized as a war factor
by allies during the war and an ally after the war. Under
these circumstances, we, the Armenian representatives, on
behalf of the Armenian people ask you to take a decision to
find a solution for our troubles to obtain our rights and
justice. We state that such a peace would not last long in
the East.
A. Aharonyan, the chairman of Armenian Republic Commission,
applied to The League of Nations on August 9, 1923, and said
that existence of Armenians hadn’t been recognized in the
Peace Treaty of Lausanne and thus claimed that the Armenian
issue should be included in the agenda of The League of Nations.
Furthermore, they sent a protest letter to the representatives
of Allied States on August 9, 1923 and complained that they
were not considered in the Peace Treaty of Lausanne and that
the treaty ignored Armenians; they claimed that this treaty
would not help them gain their rights and obtain justice so
they announced that they were opposed to the treaty. (*)
REFERENCE:
Uras, Esat,
Tarihte Ermeniler ve Ermeni Meselesi, Istanbul, 1987, p. 422-438
|
