Süleyman Mazlum

Image

 

Why is it important to remember and memorialize grave human rights abuses?

This year is the 99th anniversary of the population exchange, so the 100th anniversary of the Treaty of Lausanne and subsequent exchanges coming up next year is significant. As is known, negotiators around the table in Lausanne urgently discussed prisoner exchanges as well as the exchange of people, and agreed upon the conditions before they took up further issues, with negotiations extending to July 23–24. It was a pressing situation, as the issue of population exchanges between the Ottoman Empire and Greece had been raised before. Studies were done for the forced migration of the Orthodox Christian population in the eastern Aegean to Greece and for Muslims in northern Greece/Macedonia to Ottoman territory. It was never realized, though, and then World War I erupted. A large Muslim population remained in the Balkans after the Ottoman Empire’s borders receded following the Balkan Wars. Moreover, at that time, there was blood being spilled in Macedonia as Greeks, Bulgarians and Serbs all claimed the land as their own. So, the issue of their exchange was raised, yet didn’t happen until the Treaty of Lausanne was signed. There was some migration following the Balkan Wars and First World War. In fact, the population exchange agreement took the starting date of the Balkan Wars as its basis. After that date, all those who went from Greece to Turkey and from Turkey to Greece were considered exchangees. So, the exchanges didn’t only begin with the 1923 agreement.

There were massive rights violations following the Balkan Wars, as there are in all wars. Muslim villages were burned to the ground and there was forced migration. The situation was similar in the eastern Aegean as well. But there was a much bigger problem due to the three countries’ claim to Macedonia. None of them wanted Muslims, and so Muslims were treated very poorly. Another reason why the issue was brought up with such urgency was the departure of the Greek population in the eastern Aegean and Thrace with the Greek army after Turkey’s War of Independence. The Greek population left in the country was living in villages in Cappadocia. When you think about the possibilities for communication at the time, most of them weren’t even aware of this migration and had no idea about what was going on. But quite a lot of Greeks living in the eastern Aegean left with the Greek army. Of course, there was a large increase in Greece’s population. Compared to Turkey, the population of Greece at the time was in the area of 4.5 million to 5 million, and nearly a million people migrated from Turkey. Therefore, it was very difficult for the Greek authorities to integrate them—to provide homes, shelter, jobs, and health care. They didn’t have the financial means anyway and lived in quite difficult conditions. So, with this in the background, negotiations for the population exchange were brought forward upon the insistence of the Greek negotiator, Eleftherios Kyriakos Venizelos. Turkey was of like mind, but Greece was in the most difficult situation, so the agreement was approved and signed hastily. There was no United Nations then—there was the League of Nations, which appointed Norwegian arctic explorer Fridtjof Nansen to take on the issue and also established commissions for the purpose. A commission was established in Switzerland and then the two central commissions followed, with one in Turkey and one in Greece. Subcommittees were then formed in each subject city. The commissions themselves were composed of members from neutral countries that hadn’t been involved in World War I. I don’t mean the city commissions, but the central ones. They determined the criteria for the exchange, which they agreed would be based on religion rather than ethnicity.

When the Greeks from Turkey arrived in Greece, those from Cappadocia only spoke Turkish—they didn’t know Greek, and they wrote Turkish with the Greek alphabet. They weren’t well received in Greece and were insulted, called Turkish spawn. In addition, most of the Muslims exchanged from Greece were farmers. They had large plots of land and the Greeks in Greece proper reckoned those lands would be left to them. But then, for example, let’s say that when someone living in the village of Serres (Serez) left in the population exchange, his land would be allocated to the Greeks arriving from Turkey, which led to much confusion and disorder and the exchangees were mistreated. Of course, powerful people there who already owned large areas of land seized some of the newly emptied lands for themselves. Some plots were taken back. The same thing happened in Turkey. Mustafa Necati was appointed in Turkey. If you look at the parliamentary minutes, there were serious discussions with the then minister of the interior. About a year after the Greeks left Turkey, the Muslim population from Greece came to Turkey. The war ended in September 1922, but Muslims began to arrive at the end of 1923 and beginning of 1924. This delay meant that the land and properties of the Greeks from Turkey remained empty for a year. Some of them were confiscated by the magnates of each city. But in terms of the legality of it, all the property forcibly abandoned by the Greeks had to be allocated to the Muslims coming from Greece, according to the international agreement. This is another instance of major rights violations. Many people didn’t receive monetary compensation for the properties they were forced to abandon because the delegation established there only recorded everyone’s beds and pots and pans. This was also a violation of rights. Maybe better things were allocated to those who had power, but most of them were victims.

Around 1.2 million Greeks were forced out of Turkey, many having had fled before the official population exchange. Those who fled the Black Sea first went to Russia, and from there on to Greece, although a portion of them settled in Russia. There were violent mobs and gangs from both sides during Turkey’s War of Independence and clashes between them displaced people from the area. Greeks fled from the Black Sea, the eastern Aegean, Thrace, and central Anatolia, including Cappadocia. Around 500,000 Muslims arrived in Turkey from Greece. The figures differ—some say 453,000, but let’s call it 500,000.

 

Image

 

What do you think the reason was for why the states of Turkey and Greece enforced such large population movements after the Balkan Wars and World War I?

They wanted to establish nation-states and thus get rid of any so-called foreign elements. Their thinking went along the lines of if the population is homogeneous, then there wouldn’t be any problems. Both Greece and Turkey were of the same mind on this. The main reason for so much of the suffering at that time was the desire to establish nation-states, which included the belief of the necessity of getting rid of what was considered foreign elements. But these so-called foreigners were from those lands to begin with. What this meant was to ship off people who didn’t match the identity of the new nation-state from the lands where they were born and lived and then ship in people who did fit that identity but lived elsewhere. This process has the result of impoverishing a place’s wealth of culture in favor of creating a homogeneous culture. The idea of creating a homogeneous nation—as in a its population—prevents social development, hinders the awareness of tolerance, and puts an end to influence from different cultures and the creation of synergy.

We call it the homeland—the homeland of our ancestors. Our homeland is here now, but the homeland of our ancestors is elsewhere. They were born and raised over there. How many generations lived there? It’s where the graves of their ancestors are. When you leave the people there alone, there’s no problem, they don’t get at each other’s throats. But the claims of three states—Bulgaria, Greece and Serbia—to Macedonia, and their organization and dispatching of gangs there caused people to reach for each other’s throats and kill each other. This was happening to Muslims at the time because none of those states wanted Muslims—they only wanted an Orthodox Christian population to remain there. Then they also fought against each other. The Bulgarian Orthodox Church—the Bulgarian Exarchate—was established, which then flamed into a sectarian conflict. Macedonia was the problem, but within that land was a wealth and variety of cultures.

 

How did the idea of a memorialization project concerning the experiences of the Lausanne refugees come about? Who was involved?

For that, unfortunately, the exchangees couldn’t organize after 1924. The did establish an association in 1924, but it was very short-lived. They had no organization until 1999. Still, the Center for Asia Minor Studies in Greece recorded a lot of things—their songs, music, memories—they spoke with almost everyone about what they’d gone through, how they came and where they’d lived. There was no such thing in Turkey though. They established a lot of associations and federations. In Turkey’s case, the softening of relations with Greece when Greeks came to Turkey’s aid after the earthquake on August 17, 1999, helped to organize the second- and third-generation descendants of the exchangees. A few exchangees and children of exchangees who came together after the 1999 earthquake worked to establish such a foundation, which then came to life in 2000. A lot of work was done after that to bring exchangees into the public consciousness. Meetings and symposiums were held, and it gradually became an occasion for exchangees to gain awareness. There are now nearly 80 exchangee associations in Turkey and more continue to be founded.

We held a meeting with associations in Istanbul before the Covid pandemic. We hold regular meetings in a WhatsApp group and act together. We publish a statement in which we express exchangees’ demands every year on the anniversary of the exchange on January 30. Each paragraph of this year’s declaration was read by people from different exchangee associations. It was also uploaded to YouTube. One of their most important demands is the abolition of visas to visit Greece. We visit the lands where our ancestors were born, but we have a serious visa problem. At the very least, we want them to not have this difficulty—only for when they go to Greece. Local governments in Greece also want this, but unfortunately, it’s not possible due to the EU’s visa agreements. What’s more, European tourists don’t go to northern Greece, but Turks do—Turks go there a lot. Thessaloniki, Serres, Drama, Kavala, Edessa, Ioannina—all of these northern Greek cities demand it. Our statements also correct the unfair attacks leveled at exchangees and the false information concerning the Treaty of Lausanne.

Exchangees and their children took part in the establishment of this foundation. There were 65 founders and it has a board of trustees. Some have passed away, so it’s fallen below 65. If appropriate, new people join in their place. There’s a clause in the foundation’s founding document concerning the children and grandchildren of exchangees.

We organized international symposiums for the 80th and 90th anniversaries of the population exchange and we’re now preparing for an international symposium for the 100th anniversary. Our partners at these meetings are from the Center for Asia Minor Studies and the Center for Minority Groups Studies in Greece.

In 2006, we organized a workshop and an international symposium with one foot in Mustafapaşa, Cappadocia, and one foot in Crete. We held an event called “Two Sides of the Meriç [Evros],” with one foot in Edirne and one foot in Alexandroupoli (Dedeağaç). We’ve done quite a lot on this subject. We established an exchangee museum in Çatalca and we operate it together with the Municipality of Çatalca. We have a choir that has performed over 100 concerts in Greece and Turkey. Monuments were built in Izmir, Çanakkale and other places in memory of the Lausanne refugees, and there are also memorial houses.

We have regular conversations with exchangees and their children. We had many interviews with the original refugees and recorded their memories—both audio and video. These will be important documents. As of 2009, we’ve started conversations under the name Exchangee Cities. Researchers who are experts on this subject were giving presentations at the foundation center, which we turned into a book. We also identified 10 topics on the false information regarding the Treaty of Lausanne. Expert academics who work on those subjects gave presentations, which we also made into a book. We have nearly 30 publications now. Interviews were then held over Zoom throughout the pandemic, but we haven’t been able to publish them as a book yet due to the economic developments in Turkey. We held “Hasretim Istanbul” (“Istanbul, My Longing”) on April 17, 2010, the year Istanbul was a European Capital of Culture. We held interviews with Greeks who’d been forced from Istanbul to Greece. We started with that, then published them as a book and made a documentary. We hold an exhibition on it from time to time as well. We have a project called the “Stories of Exchangees’ Families.” As the name suggests, we published the stories of the families exchanged by both countries as a book and made an exhibition out of it. For another project, we interviewed 20 people in Greece and Turkey who, due to prejudices, hadn’t visited the lands where their ancestors were born. Turks went to Greece and Greeks came to Turkey. We interviewed them again upon their return, which we also turned into an exhibition and a book.

The Greeks from Cappadocia and their descendants hold an annual event in August called “Gavoustema.” It’s organized in a different part of Greece every year. All the Cappadocian refugees and their descendants come together and organize folkloric performances, meals, songs, concerts and exhibitions. It’s a huge festival. This year, we want to hold the “Great Exchange Meeting” on July 23–24 in the Municipality of Nilüfer in Bursa. There will be exhibitions, folkloric performances, concerts, sightseeing tours, and exchangee organizations will have stands. It’s what we’ll do first.

There’s a three-day event in Lüleburgaz around June 5–6. The municipality wants to open a Migration House there and there will be exhibitions, panels and our foundation’s choir will give a concert. We hope we can hold a larger exchange meeting for the 100th anniversary.

 

Image

 

Have there been any changes or transformations in your approach and/or ideas concerning remembrance and memorialization throughout this process? And if so, can you talk about them?

I didn’t grow up in a prejudiced family. I was born in Edirne—it was a multicultural place. There were no such prejudices in my family. We had Jewish classmates in middle school and high school. So, my opinion hasn’t changed. But let me tell you what I’ve seen. The way of thinking of the people we took to Greece certainly changed and their prejudices were broken. When we go there, the exchangees from Turkey greet us and call us their brothers and sisters. They’re very nice and very hospitable. We’ve always been well received there. So, if there was a change in my thinking, I had no previous prejudices, but I also didn’t know that these people were so hospitable. That surprised me.  As for those from Turkey who we would take to Greece, we would go in May with three or four busses and again in September. We saw very well that their minds had changed after the trip. We couldn’t hold the trips during the pandemic, but we’ll start them again, even if participation is low.

 

How would you describe the impact—political, social and personal—that you expect from this remembrance and memorialization initiative? Whom do you think it addresses and who wants to be addressed?

The main motto of our foundation is “May this suffering never happen again.” All our work is for that. Of course, we want to break down prejudices and a create a climate of friendship. After we started, the other associations I mentioned started with it too. There were also those who took it on individually. There had been those people already. It created a process of mutual recognition. I think there’s a significant connection in the process. Our choir goes to Greece every year. The concerts and excursions also aren’t only on the mainland but also on Crete, Lesbos, Chios and Thassos. If you state your goals—these people experienced serious trauma—and here’s an example to better understand. Imagine the state sends you and your family to Malaysia and you’re forbidden to return for 50 years. That’s what the exchangees experienced. All of a sudden, they were forced to leave their property behind and they experienced terrible suffering, really serious trauma. Something similar is happening in Ukraine right now. People take a few of their belongings, hop on a train and go into the unknown. All our efforts are to break down prejudices, create an atmosphere of friendship, get people to know each other, and to not be hostile to each other or hold any enmity.

 

How would you evaluate the conditions for memorialization in Turkey? What were and are the difficulties you’ve experienced and what has come more easily?

We haven’t encountered any difficulties in Greece or Turkey so far, apart from the visa challenge. Together with the Center for Asia Minor Studies in Greece, we’ve realized many projects and didn’t encounter any difficulties. We haven’t received any financial aid from the state, municipalities or political parties, and we don’t intend to come under anyone’s financial or moral protection. We want to do what we want to do independently. If we start getting help from someone, we run the risk of falling into their orbit and they could start herding us in a way. Other than the abolition of visas for exchangees, we haven’t made any specific demands. Don’t get me wrong, we can have relationships with municipalities, for example, the Municipality of Şişli is hosting the symposium for the 100th anniversary. It’s going to assist in hosting the guests. But it doesn’t interfere with the content of the symposium, what will be discussed or who will speak. We also established the museum in Çatalca and its registered in our name. We can’t afford the salariy of the museum curator or the electricity and water bills, though, so we worked up an agreement with the Municipality of Çatalca, and they cover those costs. We owe them much gratitude.

 

How would you evaluate the relationship between the search for justice and the efforts for memorialization? Could such efforts play a role in the processes of ensuring justice? If so, could you explain?

There were rights violations in the first years following the population exchange. Now, there are only insults, whose origins lie with Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and the Treaty of Lausanne and their targets. They harm the exchangees. If one could call it a rights violation, then objectional speak is definitely there. There aren’t any others apart from this, if it could be called a rights violation. In terms of rights violations that took place 100 years ago, they were solved, or attempts were made to solve them, throughout the process. Now, though, there’s no current demand or fight for it.

 

If you look at examples from Turkey and around the world, how are both collective memory and memorialization initiatives considered today? What is your opinion about the future of the field?

The first forced migration in the world resulting from an international agreement was that of the Lausanne exchangees. After World War I, there were population movements partly between Poland and Germany, as well as between other bordering European states, such as Germany and France, as people migrated with the changing borders after the war. There’s no other example of a population change of this scale dictated by international agreements. Later, there was one between India and Pakistan. One had previously happened with an agreement between the Ottomans and Bulgaria after the Balkan Wars. But that population exchange was the exchange of village populations across the border. The villagers in the Turkish villages on the Bulgarian side came to Ottoman territory and Bulgarian villagers on the Ottoman side went to Bulgaria—both voluntarily. It was about 35,000 to 40,000 people from villages up to 15 miles from the border on both sides. Of course, when an entire village of Bulgarians leaves, a few families won’t want to stay and they leave as well. In a sense, it wasn’t forced, yet the people left. Think of the Turkish-Bulgarian border, Edirne, Kırklareli—this population exchange was of the people within 15 miles from the border in both directions. There was that agreement. It also happened between Greece and Bulgaria. Greeks in southern Bulgaria were sent to Greece, and Bulgarians in northern Greece were sent to Bulgaria. Therefore, there are very few examples with which we can identify ourselves in the context of rights violations. People migrate during war. Our families emigrated after the war. So, yes, there are a few examples we can identify with in terms of rights violations. People generally migrate during war. Our families did so after a war though.

Monday, May 16, 2022