ISTANBUL – Commenting on the ongoing debates about the Treaty of Lausanne, historian Sedat Ulugana said, “The resolution of the Kurdish issue does not lie in abolishing Lausanne. The solution is the establishment of a democratic and pluralist constitution.”

 

Following Kurdish Leader Abdullah Öcalan’s “Call for Peace and Democratic Society,” the PKK held its 12th Congress and decided to dissolve itself. In its statement, the PKK said, “Our party, the PKK, emerged as a Kurdish freedom movement in opposition to the denial and annihilation policies rooted in the Treaty of Lausanne and the 1924 Constitution”

 

Some nationalist and Kemalist circles, known for their consistent opposition to a peaceful and democratic solution to the Kurdish issue, targeted this discourse. Evaluating the historical context of Lausanne and its role in the unresolved Kurdish issue, historian Sedat Ulugana explained that Kemalists interpret Lausanne as “the title deed of Turkey”.

 

In contrast, neo-Otoomanists argue that “the treaty restricted Turkey.” Ulugana highlighted two crucial points for Turkey in Lausanne: “First, the abolition of capitulations; second, ensuring no concessions were made on borders, particularly aiming to include Mosul and Aleppo withing Turkey’s borders.”

 

Ulugana emphasized that a consensus favourable to Turkey had been formed prior to the treaty and said: “Lausanne was not a negotiation process that started from scratch. Kurds were not even mentioned during the talks. The Turkish side argued, ‘We are here on behalf of both Turks and Kurds.’ This is stated directly by Ismet Pasha. Within this international consensus, Kurds were left without status. That is the treaty’s historical significance.”

 

TWO MAIN ISSUES FOR TURKEY IN LAUSANNE

 

Ulugana elaborated, “The first issue was the abolition of capitulations, heavily negotiated with the French, who had significant economic interests in the Ottoman infrastructure. The second issue was border definitions, particularly with Syria, for which Turkey sought guarantees from France.”

 

THE CURZON–INONU DEBATE

 

Ulugana recalled the negotiations between Ismet Inonu and Lord Curzon, the British representative chairing the conference. “Turkey claimed Mosul belonged to them due to a Kurdish and Turkmen majority. Inonu argued Kurds were a Turanic people, while Curzon insisted they were of Iranian origin. Inonu proposed a referendum on the matter, to which Curzon responded that Kurds ‘would not understand what a ballot box is.’ Inonu retorted, ‘You cannot insult my Kurdish brothers this way.’” Ulugana noted, “This exemplified the duplicitous nature of the talks. Ultimately, Mosul was left to Britain, solidifying the partition of Kurdistan.”

 

KURDISH REACTION TO LAUSANNE

 

According to Ulugana, the main Kurdish grievance was the partitioning of Kurdistan. “Kurdish MPs in the Assembly, such as Hasan Hayri Bey and Yusuf Ziya Bey, harshly criticized Ismet Pasha, calling it betrayal,” he said. These MPs had believed in a joint Turkish-Kurdish state. However, with the 1924 Constitution and the dissolution of the first parliament, “the republic began to be built solely on Turkish identity.” The exclusion of Kurdish MPs and ensuing repression led to covert organization among Kurdish officers, culminating in failed military uprisings such as those linked to the Azadi Committee.

 

'THE ISSUE IS NOT LAUSANNE, BUT A DEMOCRATIC CONSTITUTION'

 

Ulugana stressed that Lausanne itself is not what restricts Kurds: “What restricts the Kurds is the internal structure of the state. First, the dissolution of the parliament. Second, the undemocratic nature of the 1924 Constitution,” he continued, “The expectation that the Turkish delegation would defend Kurdish rights in Lausanne was misguided. We’re still seeing the same process today. Will foreign powers like the U.S. or Israel defend Kurdish rights, or will the Turkish state, founded jointly with the Kurds, write a new democratic constitution to enshrine genuine brotherhood?”

 

He concluded: “The resolution of the Kurdish issue is not the annulment of the Treaty of Lausanne. It lies in the formation of a democratic, pluralist constitution.”

 

MA / Melik Celik