From interview with Fuad Önen 22 juli 2023
When entering the subject of history, it is necessary to point out an excess and a deficiency. Surplus is Turkish official history. They studied especially in Northwest Kurdistan; From their childhood, youth to middle age, they are constantly face to face with this official history. And because it began at a very early age, this official history, to some extent, permeates the human brain.
Turkish official history is not history, but a falsification of history. So, it’s a history fraud. And the official history of the Turks is more than just history, it is an ideology. It is one of the administrative instruments of the Turkish Sovereignty System: Turkish history thesis and Turkish official history. Therefore, when we think about or discuss anything, from the occupation of Istanbul to the coup attempt of July 15-16, we must first get rid of the excess of Turkish official history. Because this official history is an instrument of the Turkish Sovereignty System, which turns history upside down.
One of our shortcomings is history, the Kurdish political class, Kurdish intellectuals, and Kurdistan in general looks like a desert. We do not write our own history. Our history is mostly written by foreigners, but among foreigners, our enemies write: Turks write, Arabs write, Persians write.
Except those; There are the writings of European travelers. But in Kurdistan, we don’t have many cadres who have studied history and are working on the history of Kurdistan. In fact, when it comes to Northwest Kurdistan, almost none. Those who write history are mostly retired teachers or retired politicians. This leads to the fact that the texts, which are apparently historical texts, cannot go beyond agitation. Therefore, to the extent that we eliminate this deficiency and discard that excess, we can approach historical events more realistically and more accurately.
First of all, it is necessary to clarify the difference between treaty and agreement. There is a difference between these two: In other languages, these two disciplines are expressed with separate concepts. For example, in our Kurdish language, we call the treaty “peyman”. We call the agreement “lihevkirin”, “lihevhatin”. The treaty binds the states, the treaty does not. The Treaty of Lausanne is a peace treaty. It is one of the treaties that ended the First World War. These; It is a series of agreements and treaties. We can start this from Sykes-Picot. Sykes-Picot is also an agreement, not a treaty Whose agreement; It starts in 1915, the discussions between the parties. Some correspondence takes place between them to Britain, Russia, France and later to Italy.
in 1916; A Sykes-Picot document is issued with the names of representatives of England and France. Tsarist Russia, making some objections to this, accepts this text. It accepts the first text. However, Italy has objections; because in 1915, when Italy was involved in the war, some promises were made to Italy in the ranks of the Entente Forces; in the Aegean, in the Mediterranean. Sykes-Picot does not have them. Upon Italy’s objection; Towards the middle of 1917, a meeting was held, called Saint-Jean-de-Maurienne, in a city in the duchy of Savoia (now a province in France). This includes the Italians, the French and the British. But at that time, after the February revolution, Kerensky was in government. There is a lot of internal turmoil in Russia. The Kerensky government is unable to attend this meeting. At this meeting, the three states agreed. Konya, Aydın and İzmir are given to Italy. If the war ends and the Allies are victorious, these three important provinces in the Mediterranean and Aegean are given to Italy’s share.
Later, when the October revolution took place, Leon Trotsky was the Minister of Foreign Affairs. By breaking all the cabinets in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Leon Trotsky reaches the secret documents and reveals all these secret documents. By refusing to take the privileges of these agreements, they expose the secret agreements between these imperialist states. Therefore, Sykes-Picot remains a “deal”, not a “treaty”.
Because in order for it to turn into a treaty, the states parties must ratify it in their own authorized bodies. Once the Soviets decipher it, it remains a project. But we cannot say that it is ineffective,
After the first war, political borders in the Middle East were to some extent shaped by this Sykes-Picot agreement. Borders in the Near East cannot be arranged according to Sykes-Picot. Because in Sykes-Picot, England leaves Kurdistan. with Southern Kurdistan, called the Mosul province; now it is given to the Little South of France called Rojava. The provinces of Northwest Kurdistan, Antep, Mardin, etc., are given to France. Northern parts of Kurdistan are given to Russia. England only has a limited territory of Kurdistan around Mount Hemrin. Mount Hemrin is the easternmost tip of Central South Kurdistan. That is, when we draw the southern borders of Kurdistan, we describe it from Çiyayê Kurmanc to Çiyayê Hemrin. Çiyayê Kurmanc is the Kurdish mountain in Afrin. Çiyayê Hemrin is also the extreme point of Southern Kurdistan. Since Baghdad was given to England, England is there, a few kilometers from Kurdistan.
It has a square area.
In fact, one of the importance of Sykes-Picot is this: These entente states are also states with contradictions.
There are serious historical contradictions, especially between Britain and Russia. Russia over the Black Sea; Due to the need to land on warm seas, France acts as a kind of buffer between Britain and Russia so that no new conflicts arise after the war. Such is the arrangement in Sykes-Picot. But after the war; Britain also covets Mosul and tries to seize the share of its partners.
The real issue here is not oil. Kirkuk-Mosul has a very strategic importance in terms of energy and energy routes as a region.
Sykes-Picot has been applied in the Middle East. But it was not implemented in the Near East. As I said earlier, the reason is that England covets the lands promised to both France and Italy. This agreement is an obsolete agreement for the Near East and Kurdistan. But Palestinians, for example, lash out at the Sykes-Picot agreement. Because the geography of Palestine as a whole was shaped by the influence of Sykes-Picot in the Middle East.
After Sykes-Picot, one of the most important of these agreements is the Brest-Litovsk Agreement of 1918. Germany; Prussian; Austria, Hungary and the Ottomans want to dictate a peace to the new Soviet administration. A meeting is held.
After this meeting and discussions that lasted for a month or two, the Brest-Litovsk Agreement was signed (which also led to a serious discussion between Lenin and Trotsky) (3 March 1918). With this, a lot of land in the hands of the Soviet Union is taken. Many sanctions are imposed on them. The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk is also a peace treaty.
Then the Treaty of Versailles is made (28 June 1918). It is the agreement of the Allied Forces that took Germany over. Besides giving many lands of Germany to Poland and France; All of Germany’s overseas colonies are out of the hands of Germany. And his army had to be liquidated. Very serious war reparations are demanded from Germany. This is also a peace treaty. Why do I underline the peace treaty?
After Versailles, it’s Austria’s turn this time. The agreement signed with Austria is the Treaty of Saint-Germain (10 September 1919). Austria and Hungary are already divided. They make Austria pay the price of the first war. After Saint-Germain there is the Treaty of Neuilly (November 27, 1919). Bulgaria is next. Bulgaria is also the state of the defeated party. Right after that, there is the Treaty of Trianon (June 4, 1920). That is the treaty that took Hungary to surrender. And finally, on August 10, 1920, the Treaty of Sèvres was signed. Now let’s dwell a little on Sevres. In the history of Turkish painting, Sevres and Lausanne are considered together. Sevres’s “agreement or treaty?” is debatable.
Because Sevres is an obsolete treaty. It’s more of an agreement. Because in Sevres; that is, the subject of Sevres, the purpose of the allied powers, the allied states; again, the Ottoman Empire to pay a price, to share its lands among themselves, and to leave a small state after the Ottoman Empire. This is the main purpose of Sevres. However, this agreement; It was neither approved by the Ottoman sultan -then the Parliament in Istanbul was dissolved – nor by the parliament in Ankara. It remained an agreement as it was not ratified. Just the signing of the representatives of the states does not turn it into a treaty. If those signatures are made by the relevant institutions of the state, that is, this becomes the parliament, the congress, the senate, whatever. If it is also ratified by them and comes into force, then it becomes a treaty.
Therefore; Sevres is not an executed agreement. There are various reasons for this. But the most important reason – the most important event for our understanding after the First World War – is the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. Because Russia is the victor. However, the Soviets do not accept this victory. This was withdrawn from the conflict. And this time the war is now between the Soviets and Britain, France and other capitalist states. This is important for our understanding of the post-war period. For example, there is the Armenian problem.
There is an Armenian State project in Sevres, which covers many provinces of the Northeastern parts of Kurdistan. However, after the October Revolution, Soviet Armenia was established. What Armenians call Western Armenia; in fact, the lands of Kurdistan are also cleared of the Armenian population. Therefore; The first state to recognize the Ankara Government was the Republic of Armenia.
The British, thinking that if an Armenian State is established in Anatolia, as they say, it might unite with Soviet Armenia in the future,
They accepted an Armenia in Anatolia as a danger to them.
In Lausanne, because they accept it like this; There is no Armenian card, Armenia.
It is in the minorities section. But Armenia as a state does not exist. The main reason for this is the October Revolution and the states established after it. One of them is Armenia. For this reason, the Armenian minority, not Armenia, was the subject of Sevres.
Now we come to Lausanne. A peace agreement in Lausanne cost. Why do I underline the word peace?
Because in the last two decades, political movements based on the PKK, especially in Northwest Kurdistan and other parts of Kurdistan, have spread such a slogan. And in Northern Kurdistan it is used frequently.
It’s like this: “The worst peace is better than the best war.” This is a slogan made up to neutralize the struggle in Northern Kurdistan and bring it into the system.
For example, the Versailles Peace Treaty is a very bad peace treaty. And many thinkers say that the Treaty of Versailles was an important factor in the later development and massiveization of the Nazi movement in Germany.
So the worst peace is not always better than the best war. It is a peace treaty in Lausanne and for a hundred years; It is a peace treaty that has engulfed Kurdistan and is aimed at eliminating the truth of the Kurdish nation and homeland. And it has led 4 invading states to wage a fierce occupation war in Kurdistan for 100 years. A bad peace becomes the cause of new wars.
On the one hand, which should be emphasized, it seems to oppose Lausanne; On the other hand, fetishizing peace is not a consistent attitude. For this reason, it should be underlined that all the agreements I have mentioned are peace agreements.
Another definition is this: These are also imperialist agreements. Now you know that the word imperialism has two uses. Someone; Before Lenin, the word imperialism was used to express the expansionism of the big powers in foreign policy. This word; In fact, it is a word that can still be used today.
From this perspective; that is, when we use it in this sense of the word, the Ottoman Empire is also an imperial-imperialist state. It is a state with expansionist colonies. World War I; it is already a war waged by the imperialists to divide the world among themselves. All parties in this war are imperialists.
Since all parties are imperialist, so are their continuations. Well; for example, after Prussia there is the German Revolution of 18-19.
There is the fall of the Bismarck Republic. Its continuation is also imperialist. It is so imperialist that it started the Second World War. The Republic of Turkey, the continuation of the Ottoman Empire, is also an imperialist state in this sense. In other words, we are faced with a republic that is trying to depopulate Kurdistan, Lazistan, Pontus and Armenia and annexes the Iskenderun Sanjak. In the first sense of the word, the Republic of Turkey is also an imperialist state.
Lenin greeted the finance capital era of capitalism with the word imperialism. Since the word colonialism was coined before, this first usage meaning of imperialism is a little behind. But I still think it’s functional.
The Treaty of Lausanne is a series of conferences lasting several months. I think it was taken off the table twice. Then it came again. Treaty of Lausanne; It is the conference of reckoning with the Republic of Turkey that the Entente Powers are ready to recognize as the continuation of the Ottoman Empire.
In other words, just as they made Germany, Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria pay a price, this price was also paid to the Republic of Turkey in Lausanne. Now, several items are discussed at the Lausanne Conference. One of the most important is the issue of borders. In this matter of borders; Mosul is a special area of discussion. It’s a question of capitulations. It’s a strait issue. It is a matter of national minorities.
In almost none of these, there is no success of the Republic, as the Turks claim.
Regarding borders, the border with the Soviet Union was adopted on the basis of the 1921 Moscow Agreement.
The border with Syria, the border agreed with the 1921 Ankara Agreement, has been accepted. Since the border with Greece, war reparations are discussed, it is said that a war reparations should be given to Greece as well. And from Greece; Karaağaç and the village of Bosna are given to Turkey in return for compensation. In the previous agreements, Eastern Thrace and Western Thrace were separated and half of Thrace was left to Greece and half to Turkey.
The Straits issue has not been resolved. Although some decisions were taken there, in 1936, the deficiencies in Lausanne were corrected with the Montreux Convention on the Straits.
There are two places where the main discussions took place: One of them was Southern Kurdistan, Mosul province. The Mosul province at that time was a province that included Kirkuk, Duhok, Sulaymaniyah and the whole region. It is the entire region we call Southern Kurdistan.
There is also the Iskenderun Liva, called Iskenderun Sanjak. You need to open a parenthesis there:
In the Mosul issue, no agreement could be reached. Mainly the Republic of Türkiye; He agreed to leave Mosul to the British. However, the issue of where to cross this border was left to the negotiations between England and Türkiye. And if England and Turkey cannot come to an agreement, it has been accepted that the League of Nations will decide. Finally, with the 1926 Ankara Agreement, Southern Kurdistan was accepted within Iraq. Bu means to give to England.
Now, when we come to the Iskenderun Sanjak, it is not very well known. Everyone thinks that Syria has always been Syria, that Iraq has always been Iraq. In fact, in those years; Now, in the lands we call Syria, there are six states: Damascus State, Aleppo State, Druze State, Lebanon Nusayri State and Iskenderun Sanjak. Iskenderun Sanjak belongs to the State of Aleppo. And in Lausanne, Iskenderun Sanjak was accepted as a part of Syria. In other words, the share was accepted to France.
However, later, after France withdrew from Syria in 1938, the Republic of Turkey first declared an independent state there with the linenpere. Then he annexed it. Well; The Republic of Turkey has not achieved any success in Lausanne regarding borders.
When we look at all these, it is qualitatively different from Sevres, as the history of Turkish painting claims. It is a peace treaty and an imperialist peace treaty.
According to Sevr, in Lausanne, the Turkish Republic achieved partial gains; The westerners did not abolish it, as they thought that the Republic of Turkey would be functional as a buffer against the Soviets. They established such a state. In other words, this is a republic founded by westerners, the Republic of Türkiye. It is not a state founded with the struggle of the Kemalists against the seven heifers. On the contrary, it was established under the patronage of the imperialist states by reconciliation.
During the Treaty of Lausanne; that is, during the Lausanne conferences,
Three separate decisions were taken. These are important. To realize Lausanne; The main concern of the Republic of Türkiye is the coup d’etat they carried out,
accepted by westerners. The period of 1919-1923 was never a “National Liberation War”. A national liberation does not come out of war between imperialists.
The only armed force that the Ottoman army fought in 1919-1923; It is the Greek army. And they also fought with the Kurds in Koçgiri. with the Pontus,
They fought with the Laz. The one which; A coup d’etat was carried out through the parliament established in Ankara. And they wanted the Westerners to accept this coup d’etat and get to know themselves.
What was given to the Westerners in return? For example, on November 1, 1922, the caliphate and the sultanate were separated from each other and the sultanate was abolished. See all the speeches of Mustafa Kemal until 1922; He says that they are on the field to save the sultanate and caliphate. At the request of England, the caliphate was abolished on March 3, 1924. Britain especially has problems with India. It is a concession to England; Abolition of the Caliphate.
The conference was suspended; It must have been April 1923, the Chester Agreement with the United States was signed. This is Sivas, Van. I think it extends from Mosul, Kirkuk to Adana Yumurtalık Line; It is a four thousand kilometer railway line agreement. And on both sides of this railway, twenty kilometers on the right and twenty kilometers on the left were given to the Americans.
-The Republic has not been declared yet; but he signs the chester agreement with the Ankara Assembly in Ankara. Sivas, Van Mosul, Kirkuk
it is a railway project from there to Adana Yumurtalık Line. Previously, there was the Munich-Baghdad railway. Germany’s treaty with the Ottoman Empire; Now that Germany has been defeated, this treaty cannot be enforced. So Germany will no longer do this job. The United States takes over.
With the Treaty of Lausanne, the Kemalists ensured that the coup d’etat was accepted as legitimate by the westerners and that the Istanbul Government was no longer recognized. Against this; There are concessions they keep secret to persuade the westerners:
One of them is the abolition of the caliphate. The other is the Chester Treaty signed with the USA. The third is the Izmir Economy Congress, which was held on February 19, 1923, when the conference was suspended.
Kemalists say to the Westerners: “We will build a capitalist system. We will not go beyond capitalism. Don’t equate us with the Soviets.” Because between 1919-1922, the Kemalists were very seriously supported by the Soviets.
Since the Soviets thought that the Republic of Turkey would be a buffer against British expansionism, both Britain and the Soviets approached with the same logic.
Kemalists say: “We are capitalists. Yes, we are removing capitulations. But your privileges will continue in other ways.
We are not socialists. Our relationship with the Soviets,
limited to support us. We will not be a state along Soviet lines. And we abolish the caliphate.” they say. These are the principles of the Lausanne Treaty.
With Lausanne, the Kurdish nation’s right to nationalize was usurped.
What does the Lausanne Treaty mean for us? The meaning of the Lausanne Agreement for Kurdistan is as follows; The Safavi-Ottoman border, signed with the 1639 Kasr-ı Şirin Agreement, was updated as the Iran-Turkey Republic border.
In other words, Kurdistan, called Ottoman Kurdistan, is divided into three. In the first, the Kurdist division between Safavid and Ottoman
The moment is divided into four with the Treaty of Lausanne. This time, a new border is drawn between Iraq and Syria, and this is what I call Central-South Kurdistan, a border drawn between current Southern Kurdistan and Western Kurdistan. The border between Türkiye and Iraq separates Northern Kurdistan from Southern Kurdistan. The Syrian border also separates Northern Kurdistan from the Little South, or what we call Western Kurdistan. This is the first feature.
The second feature is that the Kurdish nation’s right to statehood has been usurped. At that time, a series of applications were made to the USA, to the Paris peace conference, both by the Kurdistan Teali Society and by many Kurdish organizations. But in Lausanne, the allies; It usurped the right of the Kurds, the Kurdish nation to become a state. The main importance for us, the importance of the Treaty of Lausanne comes from this.
Nobody uses the full name of the Lausanne Treaty. The full name of the Lausanne Conference is “Lausanne Conference on Near Eastern Affairs.” So in this conference, the borders in the Near East were discussed. The Near East is the region between Anatolia and the Middle East. These are exonames, external nomenclature. These nomenclatures are Byzantine. For the Byzantines, the center of the world was Istanbul. The Byzantine land to the east of Istanbul is Anatolia, which means east anyway.
It ends in Anatolian Kurdistan. Şemsettin Sami has Kâmûsü’l-A’lâm. He also has a Kâmûs-ı Türkî. For example, when describing Kurdistan, it says: “In the west of Kurdistan, there is Anatolia.”
When describing Anatolia: “To the east of Anatolia, there is Kurdistan.” says. In other words, Istanbul is the center of the world. Byzantine territory east of Istanbul, Anatolia. east of Anatolia; that is, Anatolia’s neighbors, the Near East. Beyond that is the Middle East, and beyond that is the Far East. And this is actually; This is how it was defined in the literature until the second world war. Because the Middle and Far East, which has no relatives, is illogical. If there is the Middle East, if there is the Far East, there must also be the Near East. Kurdistan is the central country of the near east.
-The Near East is not just Kurdistan. You have to think like this. East of the Black Sea, from there go down to the east of the Mediterranean. From there, go to the northeast of Africa, some take Egypt into the Near East. So these are not definitions with very clear boundaries. Its main importance is the Near East, a little beyond the eastern lands of Byzantium.
In other words, there is a dispute between the British and İnönü about the name. İnönü first proposes the name of the Eastern Conference. The British do not accept this. After short discussions; The name “Lausanne Conference on Near Eastern Affairs” is accepted.
Why should we dwell on this? You cannot understand the Kurdistan issue without making a distinction between the Near East and the Middle East. In the Middle East, there is too much state structure, after the first war. I mean, I don’t know how many states the Arabs have. Near Eastern Communities were left without a state. So among them; There are Pontians, there are Laz, there are Nusayris in the south, there are Arab Nusayris. There are Nusayris in Iskenderun, Latakia, Tertus region.
Near East geography; politically, geographically, socially, it differs from the Middle East and the West. That’s why, while trying to understand Kurdistan and especially the Lausanne Treaty, we need to make a clear distinction between the Near East and the Middle East.
Kurdish politicians’ approach to Lausanne is inconsistent
If you are against Lausanne by saying that Lausanne has divided Kurdistan into four, you have to defend the unity of Kurdistan. If you say that the Kurdish nation’s right to statehood has been usurped in Lausanne, then you have to defend the statehood of the Kurds. In other words, in order to be against Lausanne politically, it is necessary to defend an Independent United Kurdistan. Except for an independent United Kurdistan, all other political goals are within Lausanne.
in Lausanne, North West Kurdistan; “It did not prevent Kurdish from being the language of education.” Lausanne to the Republic of Türkiye; “You will never give them autonomy, you will never federate them.” he didn’t say.
He left the administration of Northern Kurdistan to the Republic of Türkiye. Without mentioning Northern Kurdistan. In fact, it has been discussed there from time to time, but the name Kurdistan is not in the documents. Those who are against Lausanne should defend the statehood of Kurdistan.
As far as I know, there are between 105 and 110 Kurdish-Kurdistani parties in all four parts of Kurdistan. There are between one hundred and five and one hundred and ten parties with Kurdish and Kurdistan names. All of these party members say that they are against Lausanne. But among these party members, there is either none or two or three parties that put an Independent United Kurdistan as a political-strategic goal and put it in its program.
This is the main issue of Kurdish politics. Collectively, the marches and conferences against Lausanne are upsetting, but the political demands remain within the Lausanne system.
Lausanne is not an obstacle to the creation of cantons in Western Kurdistan. in Northwest Kurdistan; in other words, asking Turkey to democratize is not against Lausanne. On the contrary, Lausanne says this.
Demand that Kurdish be the language of education in Kurdistan It is not against Lausanne. Even in Lausanne, the issue of minorities is expressed in two ways. It leads to very fierce debates.
Westerners, in those articles; in other words, it imposes that everyone who is a citizen of the Republic of Turkey should receive education in their own language. Turks translate it into Muslim-Non-Muslim.
When they say minority rights, they register as the rights of non-Muslim minorities. There are serious discussions going on here. Eventually, they agree on a compromise formula. It’s just one item, maybe the second item. Everyone living there in the Republic of Turkey has the right to receive education in their mother tongue and to defend themselves in their own language in the courts.
Therefore, these demands are not against Lausanne. In fact, about a decade ago, İbrahim Kaboğlu and those around him said: “If we apply that article of Lausanne, there will be no Kurdish problem. If we apply the article on language, there will be no Kurdish problem.” he said.
Therefore, Kurdish politics needs a consistency.
I do not reject this: A struggle for democracy, freedom and justice can be waged without opposing Lausanne. It has been given for decades. In other words, Turkish progressives, Arab progressives, Persian progressives, and Kurdish patriots in the meantime can fight for democracy, freedom and justice without objecting to Lausanne.
We, the Kurdistan issue; However, we think it can be solved strategically with the goal of an Independent United Kurdistan. And this is why we are against the Treaty of Lausanne.
But for these political goals; There is no need to be against Lausanne for their demands for sub-power, for their economic-democratic demands, for their ecological demands. If those whose political horizons are limited to the current state borders do not have any objection to these borders and there is no goal of a United Independent Kurdistan, why are they opposed to Lausanne?
In other words, the Treaty of Lausanne does not prevent the establishment of an ecological system and a feminist society in Turkey. Lausanne does not prevent the defense of LGBTI rights. Lausanne does not prevent Türkiye from saying democratization. It is hypocrisy that those whose demands are limited to this appear against Lausanne.
The only way to be against Lausanne is to defend an independent United Kurdistan. For example, “A federated structure was established in Southern Kurdistan.
who in the world; this is against Lausanne, Iraq cannot be a federal state?” said. Nobody said. Nobody objected to the independence referendum because of Lausanne.
USA, France, UK, (British-led bloc): “This is not in our interests at the moment.” said. For this, they objected. If your claims are within the existing states system:
“So you have no objection to the Lausanne system.”
Then, do not cover up the struggle for an Independent United Kurdistan with this noise! Do not block!
In other words, why should a political program aiming to democratize Turkey be against Lausanne? This is slander. And the reason is this: in Lausanne,
No one participated on behalf of the Kurds. But İnönü: “I am the representative of Kurds and Turks.” he said. And meanwhile, many telegrams were sent(t) from Kurdistan. Because they represent us. In Diyarbakir, there is a member of parliament from the Pirsci zades. He supposedly went to Lausanne as a Diyarbakır Deputy. But he acted together with İnönü. At that time, there were many deputies sent from Turkey in Kurdistan.
A friend wrote to me the other day. Here are Yahya Kemal Bayatlı (Urfa), Yakup Kadri Karaosmanoğlu (Diyarbakır). These are Kurdistan deputies.
Today, there are projects that they are trying to have a similar function. The foremost of this project is the Turkishization project.
Because when you say, we are from Turkey, you reject Kurdistan.
You are Turkish in Northwest Kurdistan, Iranian in Eastern Kurdistan,
If you are Iraqi in Southern Kurdistan or Syrian in Western Kurdistan; it means that you want Lausanne to be carried out more strictly.
This style of politics is no different from those in Lausanne, the people of rice in the area who forcefully send telegrams. And this project; that is, projects based on the sovereign state and its borders are actually an update of Lausanne.
Let me say that their opposition to Lausanne is complete hypocrisy.
Because there is no opposition to Lausanne in its political and strategic goals. On the contrary, this time again; Well, it doesn’t do anything, except to create an atmosphere that the Kurds are also represented.
In other words, when the spokespersons and officials of the Republic of Turkey come to the world, the Kurds become parliamentarians, become Presidents. They say anything is going on. They say that we do not have a Kurdish problem.
These perspectives are; these are the new Diyap Aghas. And these are the ones who updated Lausanne in the name of Kurdishness. Doing this and opposing Lausanne: Again, it’s hypocrisy. For us, this is the main importance of Lausanne. Lausanne tore our country apart and usurped our nation’s right to statehood.
We are against Lausanne because we defend the unity of our country and the right of our nation to become a state. If we didn’t have such a demand, why should we be against Lausanne?
Is Lausanne valid today or not? ir? The main imposition of Lausanne; Britain and France. USA is in the background. It should be noted that the United States of America is not a participant in Lausanne. He did not sign this treaty. However, two weeks after this deal,
Between the USA and Türkiye; Again, an agreement called the Lausanne Agreement was signed.
This agreement is an economic agreement. This is a good relations agreement. I think it was signed in the first week of August. This agreement was not subsequently ratified by the US Senate or the House of Representatives. The Treaty of Lausanne, which the United States did not approve and was repealed, is not the Treaty of Lausanne that we are talking about, but a bilateral agreement between the United States and Turkey.
This then went on: “As it was not approved by the US, that is, the House of Representatives, here it is; The USA did not approve Lausanne.” they say or something. It is the Treaty of Lausanne that he did not ratify. In the treaty at the Lausanne Conference on Near Eastern Affairs, however, the United States is not.
Britain, France, Italy, Greece, Yugoslavia, Japan. against the Ankara government. The Soviet Union is not included in this agreement. The Soviet Union sent a representative only when the issue of the straits was being discussed.
Neither the Soviet Union nor the United States of America are parties to the Treaty of Lausanne that we are discussing. Let’s fix this as well. So sometimes I come across; “The USA did not approve Lausanne, it refused.” Well, there is no such thing. The agreement, which the US House of Representatives rejected, is a bilateral agreement between the US and Turkey, signed at the beginning of August.
Neither the Soviet Union nor the United States of America are parties or signatories of the original Treaty of Lausanne.
While Britain is a party to this agreement, it sits on the table both as the winner of the war and as Iraq’s mandate. France is both the winner of the war and the mandate of Syria and Lebanon. Now today, Britain is not Iraq’s mandate. Britain has re-entered, through the international coalition, with the US and others, but Iraq has been an independent state for quite some time. France is not Syria’s mandate.
So, who are the owners of this agreement? There is a Türkiye that defends backwards. Is this currently binding? Now the first is:
Since the Kurds did not attend and do not attend this conference, it is illegitimate and null and void for us, the Kurds, as they make decisions about their fate.
Lausanne is a hollow agreement for us. Decisions made about us while we are away are null and void for us.
Those who signed this agreement are no longer in their former state. In the meantime, many changes were made: The issue was in the 1927-1930 Ararat uprising, the border between Iran and Turkey was changed. No one took care of Lausanne and said that this would not happen. Many changes were made on the Iraq-Türkiye border.
Iskenderun Sanjak was taken from Syria and added to Turkey. Therefore; politically, the Treaty of Lausanne has little value today. It has great significance as it was signed that day. And for a hundred years, it has kept us in the grip of four states. But that’s the way it is today.
For example: DAESH abolished the border between Syria and Iraq. From Raka to Ramadi, it united the Sunni Arabs and said, “I established an Islamic state here. “said. So where were these Lausanne defenders? Well, in the same period, in 2014; What Lausanne would have prevented if Kurdish politics had agreed and abolished the border between Western Kurdistan and Southern Kurdistan, especially during the Peshmerga’s visit to Kobani.
But at that time; In particular, the structure in Western Kurdistan, a structure dominated by the PKK, prevented the Southerners from crossing to the west.
And we see these borders as invading borders, as daggers pointing to the side of Kurdistan. In those years, the state border of Iraq and Syria was guarded by the peshmerga at the top and by the PYD at the bottom.
Was Lausanne an obstacle to abolishing this border? It wasn’t. It is a matter of political will. These borders are drawn by war, drawn by force
and can only be forcibly removed. Lausanne is never an obstacle if I have the strength for this.
I think Kurdistani politics should pay special attention to the issue of borders and understand that Lausanne can only be challenged from this perspective.
Comments are closed.