Week 6

Week 6

Relative Autonomy 1923-1939

The Treaty of Versailles (June 28th 1919)

Supposed to ensure a lasting peace by punishing Germany and setting up a League of Nations to solve diplomatic problems. Instead it left a legacy of political and geographical difficulties which have often been blamed, sometime solely, for starting the WWII.

The International Context & Dynamics

• The struggle between revisionists (Germany, Italy, Japan) & defenders of SQ (Britain, France and the US) ; isolated communist SU as swinger

• Ramifications of the Great Depression of 1929. • Europe had been loosing its central position in

the world & ability to impose its ‘pax’ on the peripherial countries.

• Peripherial countries (like Turkey) gaining substaintial degree of ‘ relative autonomy’.

The Relative Internal & External Autonomy

• When the political level is relatively autonomous of the economy, the state will become more autonomous in decision-making.

• Internal: Autonomous of the social classes in the country.

• External: Ineffectiveness of the great powers leaving maneuvering space for mid-powers like Turkey.

International Context as Blessing for New Turkey

1) Gained relative autonomy

2) Important geostrategic location for both

camps.

3) After 1917, its historic foe Russia ceased to

be a threat.

The Domestic Enviroment and Dynamics

The Economy• The landowners and traders are the

dominant class. • Excessive depedence on foreign capital

due to the scarcity of local capital. • Try to reconcile economic interests of

both external/internal true friends and Turkey.

• Objected foreign capital operating under the protection of capitulations.

• Eliminating presence of non-Muslims from economy and subsidizing ‘Turks’.

• Law on Professions and Services Reserved for Turkish Citizens in Turkey (1932) – Turkification in economy.

• More statist economic policies and state-led enterprises based on ISS following 1929.

Politics (1923-1930) : 3 Problems to Solve

1)Elimination of the alternative leadership/the coalitions

2)Supression of the Kurdish revolts.

3)Westernizing Reforms

Elimination of the alternative leadership/the coalitions- Politics

• Following the caliphate was abolished in 1924, the Islamists were eliminated.

• Utilizing the Sheik Said uprising (1925) and the 1926 attempt on the life of Ataturk, the communists and Kurds were dealth.

• Great speech of 1927 demonstrated his undisputable leadership.

Gentlemen, I don't think it is necessary any further to compare the principles underlying the Lausanne Peace Treaty with other proposals for peace. This treaty, is a document declaring that all efforts, prepared over centuries, and thought to have been accomplished through the SEVRES Treaty to crush the Turkish nation have been in vain. It is a diplomatic victory unheard of in the Ottoman history!

1927 M Kemal Atatürk The Great Speech

2) Supression of Kurdish revolts

Westernizing Reforms – Politics

• The abolution of the caliphate (1924) • The new civil code (1926)• The Penal Code (1927)• The Adoption of the Latin Alphabet (1928)• The removal of the phase ‘ the religion of the

state is Islam’ from the constitution.

Who and/or how are Turks going to be ? (A.Kadıoğlu,1995)

• Turkish nationalism as a modernist/elitist movement in the late 19th/early 20th century to construct Turkish national-identity (B.Oran,1987 ; A.Akman,2004)• ‘Turkishness’ did not base itself on blood as in Germany, but a

culture-based territorial model (i.e.Turkish Vatan) as in France (Ernest Renan Model).

Tefik Rüştü Aras Kitabının kapağını ekle

The Foreign Policy : 3 views

1) Does the Turkish revolution belong to the Third-Word or is it Western-oriented ?

2) Is it anti-imperialist or not ? 3) Is it expansionist ?

Borders of Turkey set by the Treaty of Lausanne(24 July 1923)

Foreign Policy in the East/South: Kurdish Question

• Ensuring territorial integrity, particularly control over the Kurdish tribes • Preventing Turkey’s principal

domestic question from having international repercussions.

A number of agreements and protocols to ensure East/South Frontiers

• Iran (1926, 1932) • France (as trustee for Syria)

(1926)• Britain (as trustee for Iraq) (1926)• Sadabad Pact with Iran, Iraq, and

Afganistan. (1937)

FP in the West: SMP in btw Balance vs. Alliance

• Danger for SMP to enter alliance with major power(s): becoming satelitte

• Reliance on the balance of power among 3 groups :

1) Britain and France (sq)2)Germany and Italy (revisionist)3) the USSR (swinger)

General FP Approach to those 3 groups

1) Resolving outstanding problems ( Mosoul, Greece, LoN membership)

2) Remain distant from the 2nd and ward off the treats emanating from Italy and its policy of Mare Nostrum , despite their major trade share.

3) No threat from the USSR. Couterweight to other groups.

SMP Turkey :From balancing to aligning ?-1

• Until mid-1930s low-prioty of FP • Main concern was solve problems left by

Lausanne ( Mosul, straits regime,etc.) and Kurdish question.

• Following the rise of Hitler’s Germany and Moussolini’s Italy, T’s search for balance

• Balkan Pact (1934) • Montreux Strait Convention (1936)

Mosul QuestionA territorial dispute in the early 20th century between Turkey and the UK (later Iraq) over the possession of the former Ottoman Vilayet of Mosul.

The new Turkish Republic considered Mosul one of the crucial issues determined in the National Pact.

Britain managed to bring the issue into the international arena, scaling it down to a frontier problem between Turkey and Iraq.

The LoN Council appointed an investigative commission that recommended that Iraq should retain Mosul, and Turkey reluctantly assented to the decision by signing the Frontier Treaty with the Iraqi government in 1926.

Iraq agreed to give a 10 % royalty on Mosul's oil deposits to Turkey for 25 years.

The Strait Question: Towards Montreux-1

In 1923 the Treaty of Lausanne had demilitarised the Dardanelles and opened the Straits to unrestricted civilian and military traffic, under the supervision of the International Straits Commission of the League of Nations.

The Strait Question: Towards Montreux-2

• By the late 1930s, the strategic situation in the Mediterranean had altered with the rise of Fascist Italy.

• Fear that Italy would seek to exploit access to the Straits to expand its power into Anatolia and the Black Sea region.

• The key weaknesses of the present regime were:1) Machinery for collective guarantees were too slow and ineffective 2) No contingency for a general threat of war 3) No provision for Turkey to defend itself.

The Strait Question: Towards Montreux-3

Australia, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Greece, Japan, Romania, the Soviet Union, Turkey, the UK and Yugoslavia agreed to attend negotiations at Montreux in Switzerland, which began on 22 June 1936.

Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Straits

• The key principle of freedom of passage and navigation is stated in articles 1 and 2. Article 1 provides that "The High Contracting Parties recognise and affirm the principle of freedom of passage and navigation by sea in the Straits". Article 2 states that "In time of peace, merchant vessels shall enjoy complete freedom of passage and navigation in the Straits, by day and by night, under any flag with any kind of cargo."

• Authorising the full resumption of Turkish military control over the Straits and the refortification of the Dardanelles. Turkey was authorised to close the Straits to all foreign warships in wartime or when it was threatened by aggression; additionally, authorised to refuse transit from merchant ships belonging to countries at war with Turkey.

• A number of highly specific restrictions were imposed on what type of warships are allowed passage. Non-Black Sea state warships in the Straits must be under 15,000 tons.

• No more than nine non-Black Sea state warships, with a total aggregate tonnage of no more than 30,000 tons, may pass at any one time, and they are permitted to stay in the Black Sea for no longer than twenty-one days.

The terms were largely a reflection of the international situation in the mid-1930s.

Served Turkish and Soviet interests, enabling Turkey to regain military control of the Straits and assuring Soviet dominance of the Black Sea.

Although it restricted the Soviets' ability to send naval forces into the Mediterranean sea – thereby satisfying British concerns about Soviet intrusion into what was considered a British sphere of influence – it also ensured that outside powers could not exploit the Straits to threaten the SU.

SMP Turkey :From balancing to aligning ?-2

• Entering into alliance with Britain and France (Oct.1939) – Departure from neutrality ?

• Drawing close to Britain and France & getting the USSR to join. (Tripartiate alliance)

• USSR-Germany Non-agression Pact (August 1939)

• Resolution of Hatay question with France.

The Secret of SMP Turkey’s Sucess : Appraisal

1) Thanks to international enviroment, a broad degree of relative autonomy

2) Able to make maximum use of its relative autonomy ( rational economic policies; adhering rules to avoid complications such Lesser Mouth Ağrı in 1931, the annexation of Hatay)

3) Not deviating from the Western structure, while utilizing revisionits and the USSR as counterweight.