by Tim Drayton » Tue Dec 18, 2007 1:39 pm
After the Turkish Republic was founded, one of the core principles became adeherence to what were known as the "Misak-ı Milli" (National Pact) borders, i.e. the doctrine that the Turkish Republic would henceforth exist within what de-facto had become its borders and renounce irredentist claims of any kind over any other territory. This is a period in which Greek Prime-Minister Eleftherios Venizelos signed a treaty of friendship with the new Turkish state (1930) and then went on to nominate Mustafa Kemal Atatürk as a candidate for the Nobel peace prize in recognition for his bold actions in abandoning territorial claims against his country's neighbours and instead promoting friendly relations with them. How far we have come from the spirit of those days to judge by the hate-filled posts about Turkey we sometimes see posted on this forum, usually by mainland Greeks.
Yes, there have been two major departures from the National Pact border policy since the Turkish Republic was founded, and these are both notable because they constitute such extreme departures from a policy that in general has been firmly adhered to. The first of these was the annexation of Hatay. At the time, this was a reprehensible act but I don't see how it can now be undone. I worked in the Gulf state of Qatar for two years and became acquainted with quite a few ethnic Arabs from Hatay who were working there. They all tell me that if a referendum were held there today not even one percent of the population would vote to join up with Syria. They are happy to be Arabic-speaking citizens of the Turkish Republic - in fact one Hatay Arab friend of mine told me that he and his wife deliberately only spoke Turkish at home so that their children would grow up monolingual Turkish speakers. People from Hatay are also staunch supporters of Atatürk and his reform programmes. You only have to look at the size of the vote gained there by the CHP, the party that embodies these reforms. A further important factor is that Hatay Arabs belong to the Alawite sect, which is considered to be heretic by many main-stream Muslims, and for this reason they fully embrace the secular nature of the Turkish Republic without which they would face persecution. They would not receive the same liberal treatment in Syria. So, I am afraid that the Arabs of Hatay have no wish to leave the Turkish Republic, and as such that sorry episode of history is closed.
The second major departure from the National Pact border policy was obviously Cyprus post 1974. This particular episode of history is definitely not closed, and I find the statement that "if Turkey gives back Hatay (to France?) then she can keep twenty percent of Cyprus" to be dangerously misconceived, even if made in jest. Personally, I think Turkey has become hoisted by its own petard in Cyprus. She calculated that the EOKA-B coup would lead to Enosis, and she wanted to make sure that this was double Enosis. Instead, various processes were set in motion that strengthened the Republic of Cyprus rather than leading to its demise, and Turkey has been left holding the illegitimate baby of north Cyprus without really knowing what to do with it. Unlike Hatay, I do not believe that the status quo represents the will of the majority of Cypriots, so this episode is certainly not closed, and I would question the usefulness of drawing parallels with Hatay.
I am concerned that we may be seeing the beginnings of a third departure from the National Pact border policy in the north of Iraq. In fact, a lot of developments in Turkey nowadays trouble me greatly. I thought that when Erdoğan was re-elected this was supposed to send a strong message to the army to stay out of politics. The deep state, far from retreating to lick its wounds, seems to have come back with renewed vigour. Using the recent upsurge in the Kurdish separtist guerilla activity, people are apparently being worked up into a frenzy of nationalist fervour, with attacks on coffee houses frequented by Kurds and stonings of long-distance buses travelling to Kurdish regions. To say nothing of the recent murder of a Catholic priest. The Cyprus card is also being used - not long ago Denktash senior was wheeled out to give a series of lectures at various venues in the north of Cyprus, and these lectures were very well publicised in the mainland Turkish press. It is as though the stage is being set for some kind of radical new move. I wonder what. Do other observers of developments in Turkey share my worries? (I mean serious observors, not the "Turks are animals and their capital is Wankara" school of thought).
As to Mustafa Kemal Atatürk himself, yes, a lot of his pronouncements in the fields of linguistics, history, ehtnography etc. are highly suspect if not downright fallicious. However, you have to draw up a balance sheet and list the positive as well as the negative. Just because he made a lot of specious statements about the history of the Turkish people and their language does not detract from the great service that he did to his people in creating a modern, law-based country.
