Mavi Boncuk |
The Armenian problem was discussed in the context of negotiations on the protection of minority rights in the sessions dated 12, 13, 14-20 of December 1922 and 6-9 of January 1923. Lord Curzon claimed in his opening speech on 12 December 1922 that the solution to this problem was smoothed by the move of a large population as a result of the war. Curzon declared that there were presumably 130,000 left in Istanbul and in Yerevan, part of Soviet Republic, there was the existence of a so-called Armenian state which could not accept any more population as it had 1,250,000 Armenians already. The Turkish delegate, Ismet Pasha, briefly summarized the condition of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire and the current situation by citing from foreign sources as well. Ismet Pasha explained the fact that it was impossible to establish an Armenian state within Turkish borders:
“Turkish Nation gives to the minorities the rights that the civilized world recognizes but cannot accept any new offer which would put its independence under risk; the best way of emancipating minorities is not to provoke them to relations which would stain them abroad and to protect them from such relations. They should not depend on a compassion coming from abroad. Then, all of them can live among Turkish citizens after the peace treaty. Both sides will recover soon if the organizations working abroad to use Armenian problem as a maintenance tool or a weapon are destroyed. Armenians who wish to stay in Turkey can live comradely with Turkish citizens. However, there is no possibility that Turkish lands can be separated from homeland for an Armenian state neither in eastern provinces nor in Cilicia. Turkey has already signed contracts with current Armenian Republic. Turkey cannot even imagine the establishment of a new Armenia”
(Karacan, 192-193)
Ismet Pasha declared clearly in this speech that Armenians who wished to stay in Turkey could continue living comradely with Turkish citizens, not even a piece of land of Turkey either in east or in Cilicia could be given to Armenians, the population of Armenians in Anatolia could never be 3,000,000 as Curzon claimed, Armenians could not be more than 2,500,000 according to British sources as well and 2,500,000 Muslims became the victims of the war during the World War. The interesting side of the story is that Curzon avoided using the Blue Book as a reference while Ismet Pasha based the numbers of population that he had on British sources and the Blue Book (Ertan, 218-219).
Turkey’s borders were drawn with the treaties of Gyumri on 3 December 1920, Moscow on 16 March 1921, Kars on 13 October 1921 and the government of the Great National Assembly closed down the Armenian problem. However, Armenians made it possible for this problem to be discussed again in Lausanne by applying to various conferences, congresses and especially the United States of America and carrying out all kinds of influences. Britain, France and Italy helped the issue to be discussed in Lausanne. Hence, on 2 February 1923 the Armenian delegation presented a memorandum to the Allies and asked for a place to be found for Armenian migrants by emphasizing that 700,000 Armenians and over 100,000 orphans are without land and helpless of earning their keep. All efforts of these committees were to get the gains they had with Sevres accepted in Lausanne. As a result of this decision, the “Combined Armenian Committee” informed their demands to the Lausanne Conference with a memorandum. According to this memorandum:
During the general war, Armenians clearly fulfilled their duties towards the Allies and were defined as good combatants and an allied nation by these states.This war took as many victims as impossible to have comparison. Out of 2,250,000 Armenians of Turkey Armenia, 1,250,000 of them have been massacred. 700,000 of them migrated to Caucasia, Iran, Syria, Greece, the Balkan countries and other places. Currently, there are only 130,000 Armenians in villages and 150,000 Armenians in Istanbul in Turkey Armenia. These are also always ready for migration.
The Armenian problem, of which the origin is very old, was born with the Berlin Congress in 1878 and is one of the fragile issues which acquired an international character. The definite and eventual solution of this issue will influence Middle Eastern peace.
The states publicly declared the independence of Turkey Armenia. This issue is currently in the Alliance of Nations Regulations and all peace contracts.Its main points have been put into voting in the first and second meetings of the League of Nations and the establishment of the “National Centre (Armenian Country) was accepted unanimously.
Ismet Pasha who attended the Lausanne Conference as the representative of Turkey presented the opinions of the Grand National Assembly in three articles:
Recovering the fates of Turkey’s minorities: first of all, is dependent on the elimination of the possibility for all kinds of foreign intervention and provocations.This goal, merely and before all, can be realized with the population exchange of Turkish and Greek people.The best guarantees for the safety and development of minorities, apart from the implementation of precautions for mutual population exchange, are the guarantees that both state laws will provide and the liberal policies of Turkey will give to all communities whose members perform their duties as Turkish citizens (Beyoğlu, 547-548).In conclusion, we can say that all propagandas and activities against Turkey were left inconclusive by the Turkish committee. It is understood that Western countries used Armenians as a tool to compress Turks and put aside the Armenian State that they wanted to establish when they saw the determination of the Turkish side on this issue.
See: Armenians in Lausanne Peace Treaty Asst. Prof. Dr. Ali Satan
