LAUSANNE, Switzerland (Reuters) – Some view the Treaty of Lausanne, which brought about the establishment of modern Turkey, as a cherished document. However, for others, including Kurds and Armenians who had hoped for autonomous regions and justice for crimes committed during the Ottoman era, the treaty remains a disappointment.
An exhibit called “Borders” at the history museum in the Swiss city of Lausanne explores the significance of the post-World War One agreement, signed 100 years ago on July 24, 1923, by Turkey and allied powers such as Britain and France. The exhibit incorporates the perspectives of those who feel let down by the treaty.
Turkey’s President Tayyip Erdogan acknowledged the anniversary in a statement last year, praising certain aspects of the treaty and emphasizing Turkey’s diligent monitoring of its implementation.
Sevgi Koyuncu, a resident of Lausanne who was born in a Kurdish village, expressed her discontent with the treaty in an interview filmed at the palace where it was signed, stating that her people had been “negated by a convention”.
On Saturday, approximately 6,000 Kurdish protesters participated in a march through the city of Lausanne, waving flags and forming human chains to voice their dissatisfaction.
Manuschak Karnusian, a Swiss resident whose grandparents fled what is now Turkey in the early 20th century with the assistance of missionaries and French war ships, likened the treaty to a “second genocide”. She was referring to the 1915 massacres and forced deportation of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, an event that is recognized as genocide by many countries but is denied by Turkey. Turkey claims that both Turks and Armenians died in inter-ethnic violence.
Karnusian told Reuters, “You cannot forget. You must show what this (treaty) means,” emphasizing that it symbolizes the “origin of the denial of what happened” to the Armenians.
Although the treaty was initially hailed as an opportunity for lasting peace, its outcomes, such as the exchange of over 1.5 million ethnic Greeks and Turks, are now regarded as a “terrible mistake” by historian Jonathan Conlin, who is part of a project that examines the legacy of the treaty. He remarked, “I think it (the treaty) has endured because everyone’s equally unhappy about it.”
(Writing by Emma Farge; Editing by Frances Kerry)
Credit: The Star : News Feed
