NATIONAL AND KAPODISTRIAN UNIVERSITY OF ATHENS FACULTY OF LAW, ECONOMICS AND POLITICAL SCIENCES

DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

MA Southeast European Studies

Term-paper submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement of the module

Politics and history of Southeastern Europe in the twentieth century

“The Muslim minority of Western Thrace

during the interwar period”

Instructor: Dr. Dia Anagnostou Student: Vassilis Stavrakakis

ATHENS JANUARY 2008

2

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................3 THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS MINORITY SYSTEM.............. ..............................5 THE TREATY OF LAUSANNE (24/07/1923)..........................................................6 THE MUSLIM MINORITY AFTER THE LAUSANNE TREATY-ALLEG ED ABUSE ..........................................................................................................................9 THE GREEK-TURKISH FRIENDSHIP ................................................................12 THE MINORITY DISPUTE- CONSERVATIVES VERSUS REFORMIS TS ...15

THE MUSLIM MINORITY AND THE GREEK POLITICS ......... .....................18

CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................20

REFERENCES...........................................................................................................22

3

Introduction After the end of the First World War, the new established League of Nations

took a historical initiative to guarantee and to secure the minority protections, trying

to prevent the predictable violations of the minorities after the tremendous territorial

and political changes that the Peace Treaties implicated. It was the first time that

minorities were subject to an international, comprehensive and fundamental

framework. In this paper, I examine the League of Nations system as regards minority

protection and how it applied in the interwar period taking as case study the Muslim

minority of Western Thrace.

The hypothesis, in which this paper is based, can be summarized as follows;

Despite the attempt of the League of Nations to set a comprehensive instrument, to

internationalize the problem for the protection of minorities and to exclude

bilateralism, the case of the Muslim minority of Western Thrace confirms the failure

of the system, since its number, rights and status was subject to interstate negotiations

between Greece and Turkey. The major change which the League of Nations tried to

bring about, encountered serious obstacles in its implementation, and this is so clear

in the case of the minorities who continued living in Turkey and in Greece.

The Ottoman Empire was one of the defeated nations and lost substantial part

of its territory and eventually after the First World War it was dismembered. After its

dismemberment, the new secular Kemalist authority questioned and finally achieved

the essential amendment of the Peace Treaty related to Turkey, the Sèvres Treaty,

leading to the signature of the Lausanne Treaty, which applied until nowadays. The

Lausanne Treaty included significant provisions related to the minorities in Greece

and Turkey and it was part of the League system it was recently established.

Part of the main core of this paper is attributed to an overall assessment of the

League of Nations system as regards minorities and the Lausanne Treaty implications

and the minorities in Greece and Turkey. In Lausanne summit, it was launched for the

first time a brand new, brutal practice; the compulsory populations exchange. After

the of the Greco- Turkish war, Greek orthodox were forced to leave Turkey, as well

as Muslims who had been living in Greece were required to do the same. Two cases,

for reasons we will see, were exempted from this condition; The Muslim minority of

Western Thrace was on of those and were allowed to stay.

4

The next aspect, I will examine is the extent the Muslim minority of Western

Thrace managed to integrate to the Greek state, which experienced unprecedented

social, economic, demographic and political changes in its history, as well as the other

part of the Aegean see, where a new political system was established and nationalism

was one of the main components and very sensitive issue. The status of the minority

in the interwar period, the context in which they were living in, was reflected at the

relations between Turkey and Greece, which was the main factor to determine the

minorities’ position in the society. When Greek- Turkish relationships were seriously

deteriorated, this was reflected to the Muslim minority on western Thrace, as concerns

the policy of the Greek government towards the minority population.

In this framework, I focus on the various policies that the Greek governments

followed, simultaneously with relation to the Greek- Turkish relations. Within the

minority there was a major cleavage between two groups, the reformists or Kemalists

on one side, and the Conservatives- Old Muslims on the other, whose favour on

behalf of the Greek administration was depended on the good relations between the

two states.

Another very important aspect of this issue is the political tendencies that the

members of these groups displayed in Greek politics and the way in which they got

involved. As we will see, there was not clear and deep connection between the

political formations within the Muslim minority and the political parties which

dominated the political landscape in Greece during the interwar period. The specific

period is characterized by serious instability and its impact is also obvious to the

minority of Western Thrace. It is interesting to see what political behaviour they

members of the minority adopted during the several elections which took place in

Greece during the interwar period. What is impressive is that they also follow a not

consistent stance towards the Greek Political Parties, by favouring in a certain

electoral contest one party, and in the sequential its opponent.

5

The League of Nations minority system

After the end of the First World War, we see the collapse of the old big

multinational empires, the emergence of small states, to which political powers were

granted under the self-determination doctrine of President Wilson, the ideal that each

nation should form a state1. The question of national minorities came at the forefront

in the Paris Peace Conference, where it was acknowledged that the formation of many

new states and ethnic dominations in them carried serious dangers for the oppression

of national minorities. Therefore it was decided the constitution of the League of

Nations in 28th April 1919.

It was the first time that the protection of minorities was put on an

international system and therefore the League of Nations undertook to respond to that

commitment, to the principle of self-determination and self- governance and to the

international commitment to minority rights. Although there was not a comprehensive

convention, which defined the rights of minorities that should be allocated to minority

groups, the “minority treaties” which were signed between the allied powers and each

new or newly- enlarged nation states included articles and clauses about the protection

of minorities.

The formal basis of the League system for the international protection of

minorities consisted of a collection of international instruments, whereby particular

states accepted provisions relating to the treatment of minority groups and the

recognition of the League of Nations as a guarantor.2 It created a different regime

compared to the pre-war era, in which the main features were the absence of

bilateralism and inter-state negotiations about the minorities, the explicit obligation of

the kin- state not to involve, but to proceed in a procedure to denounce the state which

violated the rights of the minority affiliated, and the centralization of the settlement of

the problem, under the aegis of the services, competent departments and Minority

Office of the League of Nations3.

1 Kymlicka Will, Multicultural Citizenship , Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1995, p. 51. 2 Inis L. Claude, National Minorities, An International Problem, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995) pp. 16 3 More details about the procedures followed in the framework of the League of nations see Divani Lena, Ellada ke mionotites: To sistima diethnous prostasias tis kinonias ton ethnon (Greece and Minorities: The system of international protection of the League of Nations), Athens: Kastanioti, 1999. pp. 30-41

6

One of the most important innovations of the system was the distinction of the

rights of the minorities, to negative rights (individual rights) and positive rights

(collective rights)4. The former are related to the absence of any kind of

discrimination, while the latter refer to the initiatives of a state in order to secure the

cultural rights of a minority, such as language and religion. The treaty- bound states

were required to guarantee the free use of minority languages in many levels, and to

grant generous funds for the establishment and maintenance of educational, social and

religious institutions.5

Although the system limited the systematic violation of the minority rights, it

was deemed to have failed and to be ineffective early enough, despite its initial aims.

First of all, it was not imposed to all the countries; the Great Powers were exempted,

whiles it was imposed to the weak states, as well as the defeated states of the First

World War. Secondly, it raised criticism that it threatened national sovereignty of the

minority states. Thirdly, on the way for the internationalization of the issue, in order

to exclude bilateralism, the case of the Western Thrace Muslim minority affirms that

failure. In the framework of the Lausanne Treaty, which was under the League

system, Greece and Turkey undertook significant obligations. In the following

chapters, one can see that the two exempted minorities’ issues was impossible for the

representatives of the League of Nations to impose the implementation of the

provisions and the issue was under discussion between the two states’ governments.

The Treaty of Lausanne (24/07/1923)

The Lausanne summit started on 20 November 1922 and lasted with the signing

of the treaty of Lausanne in 24th of July 1923. The Muslims in Western Thrace did not

have a special status, before 1923. Their status was specified as a religious minority in

the Convention that was signed in Lausanne after the Greco-Turkish war and the

“Asia Minor disaster” (1919-1923)6. This convention was signed by Venizelos and

4 Inis L. Claude, op.cit. pp. 18 5 Ibid. 19 6 After the end of the First World War Greece undertook a strong military campaign, the so- called “Asia Minor campaign”. Its ideological framework was the “Great Idea” (Megali Idea), which was seeking the expansion of the Greek territory and integration of all the irredentist Greeks who were

7

Ismet Pasha, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Turkey on January 30, 1923 and by far

it’s the most important result of the Conference, since it concerned the minorities’

issue, stipulating the exchange of populations7.

According to its provisions all Turkish nationals of the Greek Orthodox

religion established in Turkish territory and all Greek nationals of Muslim religion

established on Greek territory, were forced to be exchanged. Following it,

approximately 1,1 million Orthodox Greeks fled Turkey and became refugees in

Greece, and 350.000 Muslims left Greece. This was the first time this method was

adopted, the compulsory exchange of large ethnic groups as a means to separate

nationally intermingle people in order to solve the problem8. Similar exchange of

populations was agreed between Greece and Turkey in 1919 in the Treaty of Neuilly

but it was on a voluntary base.

In the article 2 of the Convention two cases were exempted from this

exchange; the first was the Greeks of Istanbul and the two small islands in the Aegean

Imvros (Gökçeada) and Tenedos (Bozcaada). Initially, the Turkish deputies wanted

the Greeks of Istanbul to be included in the compulsory exchange. After pressure put

from the British Foreign Minister, Lord Curzon, the Greeks of Istanbul were

excluded, as according to him, this population was of vital significance for the city, its

commerce and industry, and without it Istanbul would be in danger loosing its wealth

and trade. Furthermore, Venizelos opposed strongly as well regarding the Greeks of

Istanbul on the ground that Greece could not absorb more refugees, after the arrival of

Greek refugees from Anatolia9. Moreover, the Greeks of Istanbul represented a large

number of urban population, which the Greek state could not receive, since the urban

centers were about to overflow from the mass arrival of refugees10. Despite Turkey’s

initial objections, finally Greeks of Istanbul and the two small islands were exempted.

living in Anatolia. The political leadership of Greece saw that this dream can be fulfilled. At the same time, Turkish nationalism was emerging, under the leadership of Kemal Atatürk. He managed to make the Greek forces withdraw and the conflict reached its climax with the destruction of Izmir/Smyrna with massive evacuation by its Christians population. The withdrawal of the Greek army was not as disastrous as the evacuation of the population. 7 Dimitris Pentzopoulos, The Balkan Exchange of Populaton and its Impact on Greece, (London: Hurst and Company, 1962) pp. 52 8 Kalliopi Koufa and Constantinos Svolopoulos, ‘The Compulsory Exchange of Populations Between Greece and Turkey: The Settlement of Minority Questions at the Conference of Lausanne, 1923, and its Impact on Greek-Turish Reltions’ in Ethnic Groups in International Relations ed. by Paul Smith et al. (Darmouth: New York University Press, 1991) pp. 275-308, p. 283. 9 Ibid. pp. 276 10 Vemund Aarbakke, The Muslim Minority of Greek Thrace, vol. I, PhD thesis submitted at the University of Bergen, 2000, pp. 52

8

This concession on behalf of the Turkish side, they achieved also to exclude

the Muslim minority of Western Thrace as well. There was an issue raised by the

Turkish delegate on the proportionality of the two non exchangeable groups and thus

110.000 Greeks were allowed to stay in Turkey and a respective number of Muslims

to stay in Greece. Those who were entitled to remain in the areas exempted from the

population exchange were recognised in the French treaty text as établis11. As we

notice, there was a strong interstate bargaining for the number and the status of the

two groups.

The procedural part of the exchange of the populations was charged to a

Mixed Commission, which would was agreed to be formed in order to supervise, and

to carry out in an appropriate way the tasks deriving from the populations exchange,

as well as to oversee the liquidation of the properties of the two groups. The

Commission consisted of Greek and Turkish delegates, as well as neutral members

appointed by the League of Nations12. This Commission would be based in Istanbul

and under its jurisdiction was the resolution of disputes, which might come up from

the exchange. In general it would take care of the implementation of the provisions

related to the minorities.

Finally, article 16 and articles from 37 to 45 of the Convention regulate the

rights of the minorities in two states and the obligations of the states towards their

members. In these articles it is explicitly mentioned that The Muslims of Western

Thrace in order to be treated as equal citizens of the Greek state were granted civil,

political and cultural rights13. Equality before the law is guaranteed and discrimination

on the ground of ethnic characteristics is prohibited. With the respect to the political

rights, apart from the fact that the convention implicates full exercise of political

rights of the members of minority, as the Christians, there is no reference that political

equality requires territorial autonomy or quotas for the representation of the minority

group in the parliament. Distinct rights did not involve maintenance of the group as a

distinct body with its own legislative and executive powers.

11Alexandris Alexis et al., I Ellinotourkikes schesis, 1923-1987 [The Greek-Turkish Relations, 1923-1987], (Athens: Gnosi, 1988), pp.44 12 Divani, Lena, op.cit. pp. 173 13 Mantouvalou Katerina, ‘Minority Rights and Policies in the Interwar Period: The Case of Western Thrace, Greece’ Paper presented at the workshop on ‘‘Between two opposing state-nationalisms: The Greek Orthodox minority in Turkey and the Muslim minority in Greece, 1850s to the eve of World War II’’ , King’s College London, June 2007.pp. 6

9

As regards the cultural rights, according to the provisions of the convention,

Greece was obliged to secure and maintain rights of the Muslim minority linked to

their language, education and religion. In particular the Greek state undertakes the

responsibility that in areas where a large number of the minority is established the

group receives an equitable share of the funds in order to be able to maintain its own

religious, social and educational institutions14.

The Muslim minority of after the Lausanne Treaty-Alleged abuse

In the aftermath of the Lausanne treaty and the exchange of populations the

Greek- Turkish relations were tensed until the end of 1920’s for various reasons. First

of all, there was a sentiment of bitterness and hate towards the Muslims in the Greek

refugees, for all they had been through from the Turks, whereas on the other side the

autochthon Muslims, whose property was expropriated for the good of the “new-

comers” and protested for disproportioned and unfair treatment15. Moreover, there

were very important pending issues centred on the liquidation of the property left

behind by the refugees, the status of the property belonging to those remaining, and

the question of who were entitled to be exempted from the exchange. Substantial gaps

in the implementation of the Convention started to become clear and for that reason

the operation of the Mixed Commission started four months after the signature of the

treaty in November 1923.

Western Thrace and Greece in general faced very crucial moments in terms of

transition in many terms, economic, demographic, social and political. Before the

exchange of populations, Western Thrace was dominated by Muslims, but after the

exchange many Greek refugees got settled in Western Thrace, something which

changed dramatically the demographic picture of the region. According to Alexandris,

during the period 1920-1924 in Western Thrace were added 145.000 Greeks and

according the Neuilly settlement 23.000 Bulgarians withdrew from the region, so the

Greek element reached 70% of the total population in Western Thrace and the

Muslims 27%16. Furthermore, Macedonia was already full of refugees and it couldn’t

14 Ibid. pp.7 15 Vavasis Alexandros “L’altérité musulmane en Grèce Problèmes d’intégration et exclusion sociale des minoritaires de Thrace” Institut européen de l’Université de Genève, Juin 2007, pp.39 16 Alexandris Alexis et al.op.cit. pp.65

10

absorb more, and Thrace, for those who were coming by land, was the first station

after they crossed the borders with Turkey.

Under these circumstances, the first alleged abuse of the treaty was noted

without serious delay. The first accusation of the Turkish side had to do with the

implementation of the provisions of the treaty regarding minorities’ property.

According to the Turkish delegate in the Mixed Commission, the Greek authorities

had confiscated houses of the Muslims in order to facilitate the Greek refugees, who

at that time were living in terrible conditions17. The Turkish delegation accused the

Greek government that it used this practice in order to make 8.000 Muslims leave on

their own without an exchange certificate18 .

When the Greek delegation learned about the complaint, there was an

immediate order to the General Governors of Thrace, Macedonia, Epirus and Crete to

stop any further oppressive measure against the Muslims, as this was damaging the

image of Greece in the Mixed Commission19. Greece responded officially to the

League of Nations in 16.11.1923 and denied any charge about the violation and the

oppression of the rights of the Muslims20. At that time it must be noted that Greece

needed international financial aid, and had applied for refugees loans in order to settle

the multiple difficulties caused that the refugee issue, and therefore the concession

seems quite understandable.

Another allegation came in 31.10.1924 from the Turkish representative in the

Mixed Commission. He accused the Greek government on the ground that it violated

the article 16 of the Convention, which was referring to property’s issue of the

minorities. As stated to the Council of the League of Nations “More than 50.000

Turks in Western Thrace, whose property had been seized by the Greek government

and are in a state of lamentable destitution”21 The Commission proceeded to an

investigation of the over this accusation and the complaint was legitimate. To this

accusation, the Greek government pointed out the severe difficulties it encountered as

regards the refugee issue and therefore all citizens of Greece, regardless ethnicity had

17 Divani Lena, op.cit. pp. 177 18 The certificate was the document which was issued by the Mixed Commission and it clarified the status of the person. If it was an exchange certificate, then the person should leave the country he was living in. If it was a non-exchange certificate, he was allowed to stay. The second type of document was provided to the exempted minorities. 19 Divani Lena, op.cit. pp. 179 20 Ibid. 179 21 Mantouvalou, op.cited. pp.10

11

to contribute to the final settlement. However, as Ladas argues the inconvenience

from the refugee settlement was greater for Muslims of Thrace than for Greeks,

probably because of the hostile climate between them and the newcomers after the

end of the Greco-Turkish war22. The Greek government decided to accept the

legitimacy of the request and to order evacuation of the Muslim’s properties, as well

as the compensation. In March 1925, the neutral members of the Mixed Commission

concluded that the situation in Thrace had been improved23.

During the interwar period, most of the Balkan states enacted Agrarian

reforms. Venizelos proceeded to substantial agrarian reform in 1917. He aimed at the

expropriation of the çifliks in order to redistribute the land and give it to the landless

farmers, who until then they had suffered from that system24. The Turkish side

continued to make complaints that the of many Muslims had lost their lands. The

Greek government had decided to apply the new agrarian law to the Muslims of

Western Thrace, claiming that there was no reason for them to be excluded from the

overall restructure of the Greek society and be differently treated. The Turks put a lot

of pressure and they finally managed that the law not be applied in the Muslims areas

in Western Thrace25. It was clear that the Greek government had fear that the Turks

might retaliate against the Greek populations in Istanbul. What is remarkable here is

that a general law, applied in a state level and not related to minorities, did not apply

for the Muslims in Western Thrace; bargaining in this case as well played here a key

role.

However, it must be noted that the concession of the Greek government in the

case of the confiscation and the expropriation was not totally the pressure of the

Turkish side. Nobody can doubt that the agrarian law, or the comprehensive measures

that the government introduced in order to settle the refugee issue, one of the biggest

challenge in the history of the Greek state. As it might be already known, the

implementation of these measures and policy for the refugees affected all Greek

22 Ladas Stephen, Exchange of Minorities: Bulgaria, Greece and Turkey, (New York: MacMillan Press, 1932), pp. 478 23 Ibid. pp. 487 24 The çiflik was very large plots and it was the system which replaced the timar system in the Ottoman Empire. The landowners of these plots had turned the peasants completely depended on them. Large plots were commonly set in Thessaly and Macedonia, where the ottoman rule was abolished with a delay compared to other parts of Greece. The çiflik system had caused serous social, economic and political problems, increasing the distances between the social classes. That system was abolished by Venizelos and tried to redistribute the land to the landless farmers. 25 Ladas Stephen, op.cit. pp.481

12

society and Greek citizens and somebody could argue that equal treatment could

imply the involvement of the Muslim minority of Western Thrace in this policy.

However, this policy would run counter to the articles 65 and 66 of the treaty of

Lausanne stipulate clearly and explicitly that the properties of the non-exchanged

populations would stay intact26.

To conclude, the years which follow from 1923, after the signature of the

Treaty of Lausanne and the compulsory exchange of populations, the Muslim

minority in Western Thrace was affected by the contradictions and the tensions

between Greece and Turkey. The protection of this minority depended on the

protection of the other minority exempted, the Greek orthdox in Istanbul, as well as

on the political environment, the majority public opinion and the long term interests.

The tensions between the two states, the political instability in Greece and the lack of

determination, which is reported, of the neutral members Mixed Commission, which

determined most of the times the outcome of the Commission, were reflected in the

status and situation of the minority. The practice of retaliations was always tried by

both sides. Ultimately it was a question of bargaining practice and the minorities

became pawns within the broader framework of Greek-Turkish relations.

The Greek-Turkish Friendship

In 1928, Venizelos came again to power and that marked a substantial turning

point in terms of Greek- Turkish relations. The previous governments, in a political

context of instability, as well a military coup in June 1925 by General Pangalos, failed

to respond to the challenge that the new setting brought about, as regards the minority

protection. After the “Asia Minor Disaster”, there was a mass demand for peace, but

at the same time the refugees who came from Turkey carried terrible memories their

arrival. Furthermore, the refugee issue constituted very sensitive for the Greek

political leadership and its settlement caused serious reactions in the Muslims of

Western Thrace. Despite this negative context, Venizelos initiated a new era in Greek-

Turkish relations, with the risk of enormous political costs and serious reactions of

behalf of the opposition. His ultimate goal via the improvement of the relations with 26 Chousein Ali, “Continuities and changes in the minority policy of Greece: The case of Western Thrace”, Middle East technical University, August 2005, pp.54 and Alexandris Alexis et al.op.cit. pp.65

13

Turkey was to secure the sovereignty of Greece and the position of the Greek

Orthodox Minority in Istanbul.

The first initiative of Venizelos dates a few days after his victory, in 30th

August 1930 when he sent a letter to the Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs, Rüstü

Aras, in which he proposed the signature of a Greek-Turkish Friendship agreement

right after the settlement of the economic problems which ensued from the

populations’ exchange27. The Turkish government responded positively, however

further negotiations led to a temporary deadlock. After twenty months of negotiations,

the first agreement of friendship between Greece and Turkey was true. In 10th June

1930, the Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Greek Ambassador in Ankara

signed the “Ankara Convention”. The Convention settled all the property issues which

were pending after the populations’ exchange28.

This Convention was deemed to be a huge diplomatic success for Turkey and

a concession for Greece for the sake of stabilising the Greek- Turkish relations29. This

agreement dealt almost exclusively with the liquidation of questions arising from the

applications of the Lausanne treaty and of the agreement on the exchange of

populations. According to the Convention, the two countries agreed that the properties

of persons who were exchangeable, as well as those who were not exchangeable,

which were given to refugees or had been confiscated, be counterbalanced. Greece

was not benefited from that agreement because the counterbalance implied that the

there was a debit fro Greece, for which the Greek government undertook the

obligation to pay 425.000 British pounds, for several categories of Turkish and Greek

beneficiaries30. As regards the lands of Muslims of Western Thrace, which had

devolved to the ownership of the Greek state, Greece undertook the obligation to pay

150.000 British pounds.31 Several other economic commitments on behalf of Greece

were undertaken in the framework of the Convention of 10th June 1930, which made

clear that Greece was not benefited, although Venizelos claimed that there were long-

term benefits for the Greeks of Istanbul which was his main concern.

The Convention raised serious criticism in the domestic politics in Greece and

the opposition considered the concessions of Venizelos exaggerated. The strongest 27 Alexandris Alexis et al.op.cit. pp.70 28 Vavasis Alexandros, op.cit.35 29 Alexandris Alexis, Greek Minority of Istanbul and Greek-Turkish Relations 1918-1974 (Athens: Centre for Asia Minor Studies, 1983) p. 178 30 Alexandris Alexis, 1988, op.cit. pp. 72 31 Ibid.pp.72

14

reactions, as was expected, came from the representatives of the refugees,

Tsidemoglou and Choursoglou, who claimed that it would be the refugees who would

experience most the repercussions of the Convention, and it was the refugees who

contributed to the victory of Venizelos32.

The second and most famous and important agreement were signed two

months later, on 30th October 1930 in Ankara, the “Agreement of Friendship,

Neutrality and Arbitration”. According to this agreement- to which most of the

scholars refer when talking about the friendship between the two states, unlike the

agreement of 30th June- Greece and Turkey settled most of problems linked to

defines, armament and suggested ways for resolution in case of territorial dispute,

mutual neutrality and not aggression. Also Turkey and Greece accepted not to

participate in any economic or political alliance that would be against the interests of

the other.33

The agreement had an enormous impact in the relations of the two countries.

With this agreement, the heads of Greece and Turkey settled almost all of the pending

issues, with the some issues related to the minorities. As we will notice later on,

although this agreement did not include special provisions on the minorities, it did

mark a turning point on the policy that the Greek state followed vis- à- vis the Muslim

minority of Western Thrace taking into account a major aspect, the internal conflict

within the minority, which I will examine thoroughly in the next chapter. It was fairly

obvious that until the signature of the series of agreements of friendship, the Greek

government favoured the “conservatives” of the minority, stressing on the religious

and not the national characteristic of the minority. Unlike after the agreements, the

“Reformists” were favoured in the expense of the “conservatives” by the Greek

government, which interfered in the sphere of autonomy of the minority.

32 Ibid.pp.74 33 Chousein Ali, op.cit. pp. 59

15

The Minority Dispute- Conservatives versus Reformists

The reforms that Kemal Atatürk introduced in the modern Turkish republic,

which change completely the Islamic image of the country and formed a clear secular

State, were not welcomed by the conservative part of the minority society of the

Western Thrace, a region where religion played a key role. The religion defined their

lifestyle, and based on that they had been organized. The Conservatives or the “Old

Muslims” (Muhafazakâr) were not determined to adopt the changes which were

taking place in their motherland and that led to a conflict with the champions of

“Kemalism”, the “Kemalists” or the “Reformists” (Đnkılapçı)., who were trying to

transfer the newly established state model in Greek Thrace34.

The Old Muslims, whose leader was the last Şeyhülislam35 Mustafa Sabri, had

a huge influence in the Western Minority, because, as mentioned above religion

determined the way of everyday life and the creation of mentalities in many levels.

On the other side, the Reformists, after the signature of the Lausanne treaty, limited

size and influence and their leader was Mehmet Himli, the first who tried to impose

the reforms in the Thracians Muslims. He published the first newspaper New Light

(Yeni Ziya) in June 1924 and afterwards another newspaper New Forum (Yeni Adim),

which he used to for pro-kemalist propaganda36. He was famous for the strong

criticism against the Greek authorities, which accused him several times and was sent

to internal exile37.

The conservatives were strictly opposed to the reforms that were already

adopted to Turkey, many of which were related to fields they controlled. They didn’t

want to abolish the religious education, as well as they were against the use of Latin

alphabet, or the Swiss Civil code, the new position of the Muslim woman and the

abolition of the traditional clothing and the Islamic Law Şeriat38. These reforms also

included state control of the religious foundations, in which they played a dominant

role. They also enjoyed the support of the Greek administration, which, as we will se

34 Vavasis Alexandros, op.cit. pp 36 and Alexandris Alexis, 1988, op. cit. pp. 66 35 Religious leader 36 Divani Lena, op. cit. pp185 37 Vavasis Alexandros, op.cit.78 38 F. Asimakopoulou, “I mousoulmaniki meionotita tis Dytikis Thrakis” [The muslim minority of Western Thrace] in F. Asimakopoulou and Savant Christidou-Lionaraki, eds., I mousoulmaniki meionotita tis Thrakis ki oi ellinotourkikes sxheseis[The muslim minority of Thrace and the Greek- Turkish relations] (Athens: Livanis, 2002) pp.245

16

later on, had obvious interests that the minority not be recognised as national, but

religious, thereby strengthening the Conservatives39. The Lausanne regime gave them

the chance to maintain their traditional character, as there was a stipulation in the

Treaty about the protection of religious particularities40.

Mustafa Sabri was the leader of the so- called of the “150 group” (Yüz

Ellilikler )41.This group consisted of 150 conservatives Muslims, who opposed the

kemalist movement in Turkey and they supported the Greeks in crucial times during

the War of Independence, the Greek- Turkish war. After the dominance of the

Kemalists, they fled to several countries following the Greek forces and sought

asylum, feeling that they would be persecuted by the new regime. He had a major

influence in the Muslim minority on Thrace, and organised to a large extent the

minority’s education, whose structure of course was based on the ottoman, religious

system. Otherwise the minority did not have many intellectuals for the recruitment of

teachers and within the group there were many educated, representatives of the old

intelligencia42. Twenty six of them were appointed as teachers in Thrace during the

years 1924-1927, making it impossible for the kemalists to implement the reforms in

Thrace and that caused serious reactions from Turkey43

From 1923 till the Greek- Turkish rapprochement in 1930 with the

Agreements of friendship, the Greek government had an unexpectable gift; the

Muslim minority was strongly opposed to the new system and directives coming from

Turkey. So, without being interfering in the minority issues, they did nothing to

favour the Kemalists, and they allowed the Muslims having their own organization.

For example, the Greek state, due to lack of funds, only approved the teachers for the

minority schools, but was absolutely absent in the selection procedure. Moreover, the

Greek authorities did not interfere as regards the curriculum, the control of the

minority schools was not so “tight”, and the Greek language was taught only nine

hours per week44. Thus, it maintained the rights and status of the minority, while at

the same time it was as well benefited without having to take action.

39 George, Th., Mavrogordatos, Stillborn Republic, Social Coalitions and Party Strategies in Greece, 1922-36, Berkley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press, 1983, pp. 243 40 Vavasis Alexandros, op.cit. pp.37 41 Aarbakke Vemund, op.cit. pp.68 42 Divani Lena, op.cit. pp. 186 43 Aarbakke Vemund, op.cit. pp.129 44 Ibid. pp. 132

17

Pressure started being performed from Turkey and the Turkish Consulate and

allegations about Greek Government’s favouring stance towards the Conservatives in

1928, when the Turkish member of the Mixed Commission reported that the Greek

authorities clearly favour the Old Muslims, based on an incident, according to whom

a Muslim boy was expelled from school because he did not wear the traditional fez

and instead he wore a simple hat45. The Greek side denied any of the accusations.

After 1930 and the signature of the Greek friendship agreement, there is a

major shift in the policy of the Greek state towards the minorities. Despite not being

actively in favour of the Old-Muslims, it was clear that this served its ambitions, to

maintain it in strictly religious limits. But Venizelos, as his main aim was to secure

the improvement of the Greeks of Istanbul and avoid their further migration, since

Greece could not stand any more refugees, he was convinced that this would happen

only on the basis of the improvement of the Greek- Turkish relations. The signature of

the Greek- Turkish agreement marked a turning point regarding the stance towards the

divided Muslim minority, by favouring now clearly the Kemalists.

During and after the negotiations between Venizelos and Đnönü, Đnönü set

some requests. First of all they required that the famous anti- kemalist “group of the

150” be removed from Western Thrace, since they constituted the most important

obstacle for the implementation of the reforms in Western Thrace. Venizelos accepted

and the group was expelled, while the Greek state granted them with a “migration

allowance” of 11.875 drachmas46. Their leader, Sabri left Thrace and he went to

Egypt.47 In return, the Greek side requested from Turkey the removal of Papa Efthim

from Istanbul. Efthim was a renegade priest who in the 1920s had turned into some

kind of anti-patriarch in the service of the Turkish nationalists. In time, the

conservatives had disappeared and the reformists started to develop the ethnic Turkish

identity of the Muslim Turks in Western Thrace while Papa Efthim remained in his

position.

As regards the removal of the “150”, there was significant reaction in the

Greek public opinion, which was grateful to these Conservatives for the “services that

45 Mantouvalou Katerina, op.cit. pp.12 and Alexandris Alexis, 1983, op.cit pp. 122 46 Divani Lena, op.cit. pp. 189 47Nikolakopoulos Elias, “Politikes dinameis ki eklogiki symperifora tis mousoulmanikis meionotitas sti Dytiki Thraki 1923-1955”,( “Politics of power and election behaviour of the Muslim minority of Western Thrace 1923-1955”) ∆ελτίο Κέντρου Μικρασιατικών Σπουδών 8, 1990- 1991, pp. 182

18

they had provided to the Greek state”48. There was also protest that the agreement was

not mutual, since papa Efthim was not removed.

Another request on behalf of the Turkish side was the abolition of the religious

Courts. Although Venizelos was willing to proceed to substantial concessions, he

refused to do so, as this would come counter to the International Minority

commitments of Greece and would cause serious reactions within the Old- Muslims

community and from the Muslims MP.

It is fairly obvious that the Greek government did not follow one and

consistent policy or stance towards the Muslim Minority in Western Thrace. The

dispute between the Reformists and the Conservatives is a very clear indication that

Greece was favouring the group, of which at certain circumstances could be benefited.

In periods of tensions with Turkey they favoured, although not actively the

conservative group, while after the rapprochement and the signature of the Greek-

Turkish agreements in 1930, the interests of the Greek government implied that it

favour the kemalists and comply to what Turkey required, as a mean to protect the

minority of Greeks in Istanbul.

The Muslim Minority in Greek politics

During the interwar period, the Muslim minority displayed a massive support

for the Venizelists. The Greek Parties displayed a non-negligible interest as regards

the minority’s influence in the Greek political scene. After the Lausanne Treaty, we

can claim that the Old Muslims supported Venizelos’ party and the Kemalists the

Anti- Venizelist party, although this was not always the norm. However, the Greek

Political parties avoided to establish organizations and networks within the minority,

which they did not consider that “it constitute an equal part of the Greek political

life” 49.

In 1923 they formed a special “Electoral college of Muslims of Thrace” which

would create the institutional framework for future participation of the minority in the

elections. Venizelos introduced a new law in accordance with the obligations Greece

had undertaken in Lausanne, according to which the Muslims and the Jews who were

voting for 19 seats in the Greek parliament. In the elections of 1923, 1928, 1932 and

48 Divani Lena op.cit. pp. 189 49 Mavrogordatos George, op.cit. 243

19

1933, as well as the senatorial elections in 1929 and 1934 they constitute a separate

electoral district, unlike the elections of 1929 and 1934, when Greeks and Muslim

Turks constituted a united district.50 In 1934 the college was abolished after the

Elections Supreme Board decided that it was unconstitutional51.

After 1933, there is a major shift within the minority; the Anti- venizelists’s

Party tried to approach Hatip Yusuf Salioglou and the fact that he supported the

People’s party played an important role for the big electoral successes which

followed their victory52. The people’s party approached the Reformists, since they

were increasing their influence and they took advantage of the fact that the Old

Muslims did no longer support Venizelos. It must be noted, that this is after the

agreements between Greece and Turkey had been signed, and thus Venizelos did not

favour the old Muslims anymore, who were the majority compared with the kemalists.

At that time is noted the configuration of the political leadership of the anti-

venizelists’s party in the minority, which consists of Salioglou in Kommotini, Hamdi

Bey and Niyazi Mumcu in Ksanthi53.

As mentioned before, there was a considerable support on behalf of the Old

Muslims for Venizelos and the kemalists were identified with the Anti- venizelists.

Nevertheless there is a very strange alliance in order to support the People’s party.

This alliance was in 1936, in the framework of the people’s party, between and of

Hamdi Bey and Niyazi Mumcu. The former was a strong champion of the Kemalist

reforms, while the later a very fanatic Old Muslim54. The alliance was very conducive

to the local elections. The Anti- Venizelists won with 86, 3% in Xanthi prefecture. It

is very significant that this percentage included considerable number of the Pomaks

who lived in mountainous area of Xanthi, very loyal group to the Muslim traditions,

but Pomaks never shift to Kemalism.55

The main characteristics of the political and electoral behaviour of the

minority is the relations based on clientism and the political formations, not real

parties, based, not in a dominant ideology but on persons, who had influence in the

minority. The political parties of the minority that were formed were identified with

the Greek political parties, who started influencing the formation of political 50 Nikolakopoulos Elias, op.cit. pp. 176 51 Divani Lena, op.cit pp. 192 52 Mavrogordatos George, op.cit. 244 53 Nikolakopoulos Elias, op.cit. 180 54 Aarbakke Vemund, op.cit. pp.76 55 Nikolakopoulos Elias, op.cit. pp. 181

20

tendencies in the minority. However, this was not due to political affinity or strong

ideological common reference points.

In Kommotini three persons rallied around them the population and formed

three groups; The Modernist Turks headed by Hatip Yusuf, The moderate

traditionalist Muslims headed by Hafız Ali Galip, and Mustafa Ağa. Traditional in

their personal behaviour, but not hostile to the Kemalist reforms and the fanatical anti-

Kemalist Traditionalist Muslims headed by Ali Rıza Ahmetoğlu56. The first group, the

Modernists were identified with the Alexandros Papanastasiou’s party, Democratic

Union, the Modest Muslims with the People’s Party and the strong anti- kemalists

with the Liberal party of Venizelos.

In Ksanthi the political formations followed the cleavage between Turks and

Pomaks. This was particularly clear in 1932 when two almost pure Pomak tickets

participated. In these elections the Pomak tickets obtained 72.2% of the vote in the

rural Pomak areas and only 20.7% in Ksanthi town, while conversely the Turkish

ticket obtained 22.5% in the rural Pomak areas and 67.1% in Ksanthi town57.

As regards the Communist party, there was no serious appeal to the Muslim

minority of Western Thrace, since the clientism networks covered all the population.

But as Nikolakopoulos says, it had a dominant presence to the tobacco producers58. In

the elections of 1932 and 1933 they almost reached 20%, which was enormous and

the highest.

Conclusions

In this paper, I examined the impact that the Lausanne Treaty and the system

of international protection of minorities launched by the League of Nations after the

end of the First World War had during the interwar period, taking as a case study the

Muslim minority of Western Thrace. This case study affirms the hypothesis on which

this paper was based, according to which bilateralism was excluded in the League

system, however the size, the status and the rights of the minority of Greek Thrace

was always subject to negotiations and bilateral discussions between Greece and

Turkey.

56 Ibid. pp. 184 57 Ibid. pp. 184 58 Ibid. pp. 185

21

The Lausanne Treaty had multiple stipulations and provisions over the two

exempted minorities, as regards their rights, and status within the states they were

supposed to live in. However in the following chapters, I conclude that the minorities

constituted pawns used as a mean of pressure from one government towards the other.

The Greek government did not follow a consistent policy vis- à- vis the Muslim

Minority of Western Thrace. It was always depended on how tensed the Greek-

Turkish relations were.

From 1923 until the signature of the Greek- Turkish agreements of Friendship

in 1930, the Greek- Turkish relations were reflecting the traumatic repercussions of

the Greek- Turkish war and they were therefore tensed. Both countries were required

to settle the minority and the refugee issue. In that period, Greece did not intervene in

the internal issues of the minority, especially as regards the dispute between the

Conservatives and the Reformists, which had a significant impact to the minority, as

well as the interstate relations. Greece was accused to have favoured the Old Muslims

in the expense of the Modernists, because its own interest dictated it to do so, as it

was benefited by the maintenance of the religious side of the minority, and definitely

not the national, which the reformist wanted to promote. Unlike after 1930, when the

Greek government took a more active role, by favouring the Kemalists, even under

Turkish pressure and isolating the Old Muslims.

Likewise, the involvement of the Muslim minority of Western Thrace in

Greek politics did not derive from an independent political ideology, but the

bargaining with the Greek governments for the improvement of their position and

their integration in the Greek society made them shift their support from one Political

party to the other. The Greek governments did not want to leave the minority make

their own politics and they always counted on their support and therefore they

supported those who had the bigger influence within the minority.

In any case the presence of the League of Nations, in particular the Mixed

Commission which supervised the implementation of the terms and provisions of the

Lausanne Treaty, failed to prevent a bilateral and interstate approach of the minority

problem and in many cases its neutral members were considered as completely

incompetent to carry out the promising plans of the new system as regards the

minority protection.

22

REFERENCES

Aarbakke, Vemund, ‘The Muslim Minority of Greek Thrace’, (Unpublished Ph.D.,

University of Bergen, 2000).

Alexandris, Alexis, Greek Minority of Istanbul and Greek-Turkish Relations 1918-

1974 (Athens: Centre for Asia Minor Studies, 1983).

Alexandris, Alexis,., I Ellinotourkikes schesis, 1923-1987 [The Greek-Turkish

Relations, 1923-1987], (Athens: Gnosi, 1988).

Asimakopoulou F, “Η Μουσουλµανική Μειονότητα της Θράκης” in F.

Asimakopoulou and Sevasti Christidou-Lionaraki, eds., Η Μουσουλµανική

Μειονότητα της Θράκης και οι Ελληνοτουρκικές Σχέσεις (The Muslim Minority

of Thrace and the Greek-Turkish Relations) (Athens: Livanis, 2002)

Chousein Ali, “Continuities and changes in the minority policy of Greece: The case

of Western Thrace”, Middle East technical University, August 2005

Claude, Inis L., National Minorities: An International Problem, Cambridge:

Harvard University Press, 1995).

Divani, Lena, Ellada ke mionotites: To sistima diethnous prostasias tis kinonias ton

ethnon [Greece and Minorities: The system of international protection of the

League of Nations], (Athens: Kastanioti, 1999).

Henig B. Ruth “The League of Nations”( Oliver& Boyd, Edinburgh, 1973)

Heraclides, Alexis, ‘Mionotites, Exoteriki Politiki ke Ellada’, [Minorities, Foreign

Policy and Greece], in [The Minority Phenomenon in Greece one contribution of

the social sciences] ed. by Konstantinos Tsitselikis and Dimitris Christopoulos

(Athens: Kritiki, 1997), pp. 207-243.

Heraklides Alexis, “Self-Determination of minorities in international politics”

( London, Frank cass, 1991)

Karamatsiu, Ch. (1996). I politikés dinámis tis mionótitas tis Thrákis ke to próvlima

tu metaschimatismú tis (1920–1922). Department of History-Archeology.

Athens, University of Athens.

Koufa, Kalliopi, and Svolopoulos, Constantinos, ‘The Compulsory Exchange of

Populations Between Greece and Turkey: The Settlement of Minority Questions

at the Conference of Lausanne, 1923, and its Impact on Greek-Turish Reltions’

23

in Ethnic Groups in International Relations ed. by Paul Smith et al. (Darmouth:

New York University Press, 1991)

Kymlicka Will, “Multiculturalism and Minority Rights: West and East”, Journal of

Ethnopolitics and Minority Issues in Europe, Issue 4/2002, p.19, European

Center For Minority Issues, www.ecmi.de

Kymlicka Will “The rights of minority cultures”, (Oxford University press, 1995)

Kymlicka Will “Multicultural citizenship: a liberal theory of minority rights”

(Oxford University press, 1995)

Mantouvalou Katerina, ‘Minority Rights and Policies in the Interwar Period: The

Case of Western Thrace, Greece’ Paper presented at the workshop on ‘‘Between

two opposing state-nationalisms: The Greek Orthodox minority in Turkey and the

Muslim minority in Greece, 1850s to the eve of World War II’’ , King’s College

London, June 2007.

Mavrogordatos, George, Th., Stillborn Republic, Social Coalitions and Party

Strategies in Greece, 1922-36, (Berkley, Los Angeles, London: University of

California Press, 1983).

Nikolakopoulos Elias, “Politikes dinameis ki eklogiki symperifora tis

mousoulmanikis meionotitas sti Dytiki Thraki 1923-1955”,( “Politics of power

and election behaviour of the Muslim minority of Western Thrace 1923-1955”)

∆ελτίο Κέντρου Μικρασιατικών Σπουδών 8, 1990- 1991

Panagiotidis N., Μουσουλµανική Μειονότητα και Εθνική Συνείδηση (The Muslim

Minority and the Ethnic Consciousness) (Aleksandroupoli: Ekdosi Topiki Enosi

Dimon ke Kinotiton N.Evru, 1995)

Pentzopoulos, Dimitris, The Balkan Exchange of Population and its Impact on

Greece, (London: Hurst and Company, 1962).

Poulton, Hugh, “The Muslim Experience in the Balkan States, 1919-1991”,

Nationality Papers, Vol.28, No.1, 2000

Svolopoulos Konstantinos, “I elliniki exoteriki politiki: 1900-1945”,( “Greek

foreign policy 1900-1945”), (Athens, Estia, 1992)

Svolopoulos Konstantinos, “I elliniki exoteriki politiki meta ti sinthiki tis

Losannis”(“ The greek foreign policy after the Lausanne Treaty”)( Thessaloniki,

Institute of International Public Law, 1977)

Svolopoulos, Konstantinos, “Thrace under Greek administration”, Athens, 1922

24

Vavasis Alexandros “L’altérité musulmane en Grèce Problèmes d’intégration et

exclusion sociale des minoritaires de Thrace” Institut européen de l’Université de

Genève, Juin 2007