Understanding and internalising Lausanne

In order to understand Lausanne, let us take a look at what happened before it.

At the end of World War I, armistice and peace treaties were signed between the victorious Entente states and the defeated Alliance states. Let us remember these treaties.

1. Thessaloniki armistice and Nöyyi peace treaty with Bulgaria (1919).

2. The Villa Cousti armistice with Austria and Hungary and the Traionon peace treaty with Austria and St. Germans and Hungary (1919).

3. The Retandes armistice and the Versailles peace treaty with Germany (1919).

4. The Armistice of Mondros and the Peace Treaty of Sevres with the Ottoman Empire (1920).

5. Of these peace treaties, only Sevres was never realised, and while the other alliance states submitted to the treaties, the great Turkish nation tore up this horrible post-war treaty, which was imposed on it and would destroy itself, through the national struggle, that is, the war of liberation under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal.

The power that tore Sevres and legitimised the establishment of the new Turkish state in the international arena with the Lausanne signed in its place is the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, where the representatives of the great Turkish Nation are located. That is why its name is great.

The heavy clauses of the Treaty of Versailles gave birth to Nazism in Germany and caused a leader like Hitler to grow up and drag the world into a second world war catastrophe, worse than the first one.

The Treaty of Lausanne was the most important turning point in the history of the Republic, just before the establishment of the Republic. It is the last major stakeholder in the formation of the Republic. It is the title deed of Turkey. It is the herald of the birth of the Republic. It is essential to commemorate, explain and understand. The attempt to loosen, devalue and dilute this success, which should be celebrated as a holiday, is at least unpleasant.

It should be well understood by the majority of the society that our history, culture, national and religious values and leaders are our richness as a whole. In this respect, in order to understand Lausanne, it is necessary to know what happened afterwards. 

Istanbul was conquered by Mehmet the Conqueror on 29 May 1453, but after the Armistice of Mondros, signed between the Ottoman Empire and the Allied Powers, declared the end of the First World War between these countries, it was occupied this time.

The occupation took place twice, first on 13 November 1918 and then on 16 March 1920. Following the Lausanne Treaty of 24 July 1923, the 100th anniversary of which we celebrate as a nation, the Allied forces began to leave Istanbul on 23 August 1923.

On 4 October 1923, the last Allied troops saluted the Turkish flag with a ceremony in front of Dolmabahçe Palace and left the city. On 6 October 1923, the 3rd Corps under the command of Şükrü Nail Pasha, whose headquarters is now located in Maslak, entered Istanbul and the occupation, which lasted 4 years, 10 months and 23 days, officially ended. Thus, 6 October of each year was determined as the liberation day of Istanbul and started to be celebrated. In other words, 29 May is the day of conquest and 6 October is the day of liberation for Istanbul. Both are special and important. It is absurd to try to make one important and the other unimportant. 

Now, the Republic of Turkey is the continuation of the Ottoman Empire, the foundations of which were laid with the Treaty of Lausanne, the 100th anniversary of which we are celebrating. Therefore, Turkey paid the debts of the Ottoman Empire. The flags of both countries are similar. The capital of the previous country, Istanbul, is within the territory of the new one. When we add the international recognition of other states, it is clear that Turkey is the continuation and continuity of the Ottoman Empire. The events that took place between the dissolution of the last Ottoman Parliament and the opening of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey also support this continuity. The negotiations on the Agnam tax were the last law negotiations of the former and the first law negotiations of the latter, which also explains the continuity.

On the other hand, it is also a fact that a new state has been established with its law and new administration, revolutions and leader, and that this new state has very different basic qualities from the old one, and that the old one has now collapsed and disappeared. 

In other words, there is both a rupture and a continuity. 

Both are together. It is not correct to emphasise only the rupture or only the continuity.

While this is the case, the fact that some groups emphasise only the continuity of the Ottoman Empire and ignore the rupture, while others ignore the Ottoman Empire and its history is an indication that the philosophy of both continuity and rupture has not been internalised.

As long as the supporters of rupture, who ignore the Ottoman Empire, and 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 exist.

The failure to achieve this unity is one of Turkey's obstacles in reaching the level of contemporary civilisations.

This unity can only be possible with a libertarian and democratic political understanding that respects and shows sensitivity to both ideas and does not see one as superior to the other, in other words, does not marginalise.