Lausanne, rupture and continuity

Istanbul was conquered by Fatih Sultan Mehmet on 29 May 1453. However, after the declaration of the end of the First World War between these countries with the Armistice of Mudros signed between the Ottoman Empire and the Allied Powers, Istanbul was occupied this time.

The invasion took place twice, first on 13 November 1918 and then on 16 March 1920.

After the Treaty of Lausanne on July 24, 1923, whose 98th anniversary we are celebrating today, Allied forces started to leave Istanbul on August 23, 1923.

The last Entente unit saluted the Turkish flag at a ceremony held in front of the Dolmabahçe Palace on October 4, 1923 and left the city.

On October 6, 1923, the 3rd Corps under the command of Şükrü Nail Pasha, whose headquarters is now in Maslak, entered Istanbul and the occupation officially ended.

The occupation lasted 4 years, 10 months and 23 days. Thus, the 6th of October of each year was determined as the liberation day of Istanbul and started to be celebrated.

In other words, May 29 is the day of conquest and October 6 is the day of liberation for Istanbul. Both are special and important. It is futile to try to make one important and the other unimportant.

Now; The State of the Republic of Turkey, whose foundation was laid with the Treaty of Lausanne, whose 98th anniversary we celebrate today, is the continuing country of the Ottoman Empire before it. Therefore, Turkey paid the debts of the Ottoman Empire. Both flags are similar. The capital of the previous country, namely Istanbul, is within the territory of the new one. When we add the international acceptance of other states, it is obvious that Turkey is the continuation of the Ottoman Empire and its continuity. The closure of the last Ottoman Parliament and the events that took place during the opening of the Turkish Grand National Assembly also support this continuity. The discussions about the Agnam tax are the last law talks of the first and the first of the second, which also explains the continuity.

On the other hand, it is a separate fact that a new state has been established with its law and new administration, revolutions and leader, this new state has very different basic characteristics than the old one, and the old one is now destroyed and disappears.

That is, there is both a break and a continuity.

Both are together. It is not right to emphasize only the rupture or to emphasize only the continuity.

While this is the case, some sections only emphasize the continuity of the Ottoman Empire, ignoring the rupture; the ignorance of the Ottoman Empire and its history by some groups is an indication that the philosophy of both continuity and rupture could not be internalized.

The supporters of the break, who ignore the Ottoman Empire; Unless the supporters of continuity, who emulate the Ottoman Empire, do not pay attention to the sensitivities of the other side, problems arise in the unity and solidarity that should be.

The failure of this union to come to fruition is one of the obstacles for Turkey to reach the level of contemporary civilizations.

This unity can only be possible with a liberal and democratic understanding of politics that respects both ideas, shows sensitivity, does not see one as superior to the other, that is, does not marginalize.