News & Comment
(Treaty of) Lausanne was not a Victory, it was a Defeat.
There is no Glory in the Republic, Only Misery.

News

President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan held a reception on 29th of October on the occasion of the Celebration Day of the Republic in the Presidential Kulliye (complex). President Erdoğan, who spoke in the reception, said, emphasizing that the Republic established 93 years ago, is the symbol of a nation's rise when attempted to be wiped out of history, "We should not view the Republic as separately, quite the opposite, we should view it as a continuity of a new and stronger beginning."

Comment

Approximately a month ago President Erdoğan used these exact words in one of his speeches he made to the mukhtars (elected village or district leaders) on the Treaty of Lausanne: "What did they do to us in the past. They showed us [the treaty of] Sevres in 1920. Then they convinced us to (the Treaty of) Lausanne in 1923. And some tried to deceive us by presenting Lausanne as a victory. Everything is clear. We gave away the islands a man's shout away. Is this victory? Those lands were ours." Erdoğan made this statement after the July 15 coup attempt, during a period where secularists heavily attack him due to the past alliance between the AKP and the Gulen group. In a sense he said to the secularists, ‘that’s it with the rapprochement’. But the same Erdoğan, said and published a message, precisely 9 days after the July 15 coup attempt, on 24th of July - the anniversary of the Treaty of Lausanne: "Our honourable nation has certified the victory they attained through their faith, courage and selflessness with the Treaty of Lausanne diplomatically and by carrying it to an international law platform. This agreement is like the title deed of our new found state."

Now before we get to questioning the contradictions here, let me re-quote President Erdoğan's statement, he made on the Republic in 29th of October reception and I just used to describe the situation in the news section. Erdoğan views the Republic as the symbol of the rearing of a nation that has been attempted to be wiped out of history and says; "The Republic is not a discontinuance, but a continuance and a new beginning."

Now; how will we muddle through this? Firstly, the question is; “is the (Treaty of) Lausanne a victory or not”? Having a look at the speech he made on 29th of September 2016 to the village chiefs, Lausanne is not a victory, it is a defeat. All right, we agree... But according to the message published on the anniversary of (the Treaty of) Lausanne in 24th of July 2016 he sees (the Treaty of) Lausanne as the title deed of the new founded state. He says that the Anatolian people's success attained through faith, courage and selflessness was certified with the diplomatic success of M. Kemal and Inönu in Lausanne. Also he prays blessings for the late architects of this "success". I ask you again; is the (Treaty of) Lausanne a victory or a defeat, what did you get from these?

Let us turn to the confidential issue behind (the Treaty of) Lausanne and the Republic... In other words how (the Treaty of) Lausanne came into being and how the Republic was established...

In 20th of November 1922, the Conference of Lausanne is being opened. While Rauf Orbay was determined to attend the conference in the name of the Government in Ankara, Mustafa Kemal sends Ismet Inönu. Lord Curzon, who leads the English delegation, presents four conditions in the secret meetings, in order to enable "independence" for the Turks. These conditions are 1- The complete and total abolition of the Khilafah "Caliphate". 2- The Khalif will be exiled. 3- All the property of the Khalif will be confiscated. 4- It will be made public that the state is built upon secularism.

In order to deliver all these demands of the English, M. Kemal first makes a plan to take control of all of the parliament's powers. For he knew, that most of the representatives would not accept an agreement under such conditions. In 29th of October 1923 when the parliament came together in order to solve the artificial government crises, Mustafa Kemal who took over all the power through intrigue goes up to the rostrum and says: "We have to change this system. And I have decided it to be a Republic which is led by an elected president." Even though 40% of the representatives protest this decision and abstain from voting, the Government of Ankara under the protection of the English General Sir Harrington Deputy Chief of the Imperial General Staff of the occupation forces in the Black Sea and Turkey and loyal to the word given to Lord Curzon establishes the Republic.

Let us go to the beginning now and ask President Erdoğan, which nation's rearing is this Republic that was established in 29th of October 1923? Is it the rearing of the nation that was hanged in the city squares because they opposed the revolutions? Is it the rearing of the nation that revolted against the Ankara Government when they heard the declaration of the Republic? Is it the rearing of the nation that proclaimed M. Kemal and his friends who established the Republic and abolished the Khilafah "Caliphate" as traitors? Is it the rearing of Sheikh Said, Atıf of Iskilip and Nene Hatun who gave their head for Sharia and the Khilafah "Caliphate"? Or is it the rearing of the nation that curses the Deen and Quran in their mixed balls and drinking tables?
Whose rearing is it?

Written for the Central Media Office of Hizb ut Tahrir by
Mahmut Kar
Head of the Media Office of Hizb ut Tahrir in Wilayah Turkey