Konstantina E. Botsiou is Professor of History and international Relations at the Department of International and European Relations of the University of Piraeus. She was previously Associate Professor at the University of the Peloponnese (Corinth), where she also served as Vice Rector. Since 2016 she is Visiting Professor at the Hellenic National Defense College (HNDC) and serves on the board of Directors of the Council for International Relations-Greece. From 2001 until 2018 she was Director of Publications, General Director and Vice President of the Konstantinos Karamanlis Institute for Democracy.

Her publications focus on modern and contemporary history, European integration, the Cold War, Balkan history, Euro-Atlantic relations, political parties, defense and foreign policy. She has authored, co-authored and edited over 15 books and 150 academic articles, among them the books 1821. From the Revolution to the State (in Greek, 2021), The Balkans in the Cold War (2017) and The founders of the European Integration (2012).

On the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne,* Professor Botsiou spoke to Rethinking Greece** on what elements made the Treaty such a solid foundation for Greek-Turkish reconciliation; on the anti-revisionist policy adopted by both counties at the time; the “cruel novelty” of the mandatory population exchange between Greece and Turkey; the Treaty’s contribution to the wider region’s geopolitical balance; and finally on why, as a multilateral peace treaty, the Treaty of Lausanne cannot be amended.

The Lausanne Treaty provided the foundation for a peaceful co-existence between Greece and Turkey during many decades. What do you believe were the elements of the Treaty that made this possible?

A combination of factors made possible the peaceful coexistence, mainly anti-revisionism after defeat of both Greece and Turkey. This made entanglement in a new war unattractive since neither country believed that the gains would exceed the losses. The nature of the dual Treaty of Lausanne as a) a Peace Treaty of the Allies with the Ottoman Empire for the First World War and b) as a replacement for the ill-fated Treaty of Sevres provided a solid fundament for Greek-Turkish conciliation on the basis of mutual defeat. The paramount aim of the Treaty of Lausanne (24 July 1923) regarding Greece and Turkey was to exclude future bilateral wars that could by definition endanger the international balance of power. This aim was mostly served by a) the compulsory exchange of populations and b) the clauses regarding demilitarization. These clauses enhanced bilateral rapprochement since neither country would be able to attack each other. At the same time, both countries would act as a joint bulwark against pressures from the North, thus serving the strategy of the Allies who considered Bolshevik Russia -later the Axis- the major threat of the interwar years. By uniting the eternal Russian danger with the communist threat, the new Bolshevik regime posed a geopolitical and ideological danger to the balance of powers in Europe despite Stalin’s preference for inward-looking reconstruction. Britain’s instrumental role in Greek-Turkish arrangements at Lausanne reflected London’s suspicion towards its diehard rival in Eastern Europe. That global element convinced the two countries that they could share the geography that was created by war in order to play a stabilizing international role and use their geopolitical position for building up their war-ridden societies.

In your announcement at the ELIAMEP Conference for the 100 years of the Lausanne Treaty, you mentioned that it was (and still is) a modern Treaty. Could you expand on that?

The Treaty of Lausanne has demonstrated remarkable durability. A key aspect of its longevity was the fact that it simultaneously ended the First World War with the Ottoman Empire that was about to become modern Kemalist Turkey (it was founded three months after the Treaty, namely on 29 October 1923), on the one hand, and turned the page in its relations with the Allies, including Greece, on the other. Both countries adopted an anti-revisionist policy which was sustained in the Second World War and in the Cold War. In the Second World War half of the 8 countries that signed the Treaty of Lausanne followed a revisionist policy and cooperated with the Axis, but not Greece and Turkey. Greece remains on the same line to this day, whereas Turkey adopts revisionist claims. Nevertheless, the Western orientation of the two countries unites their broader interests as they were tied together at the  Treaty of Lausanne, originally with Britain as the closest ally, later the USA.

In the same announcement, you characterized the population exchange between Greece and Turkey, as a “cruel novelty”. How would you evaluate, 100 years on, the impact of this population exchange on both countries?

The Lausanne Treaty initiated a century of peace or “no-war” – as it was once described in the 1980s- between Greece and Turkey despite their dispute and the Turkish invasion in Cyprus in 1974. Thus, the Treaty was a turning point from the past considering the continuous Greek-Turkish wars in the previous century. The exchange of populations was considered a prerequisite for this, in order to deprive both countries from extensive rights over large minorities and terminate territorial claims that were based on their existence. The exchange was actually compulsory, quite a departure from the voluntary exchanges that were not infrequent at that time; one had already taken place between Greece and Bulgaria after the Treaty of Neuilly-sur-Seine (1919). Eleftherios Venizelos himself had contemplated an exchange of populations also with Turkey in 1914 to stop Turkish persecutions in Macedonia and Thrace. It came almost 10 years later, but this time in a compulsory form. That qualitative difference that sought to eradicate any roots of grievances was indeed a prerequisite for the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne. The relevant agreement was signed 6 months earlier, on the 30^th of January 1923. The exchange of populations was brutal for the people and the countries involved, especially Greece that had to deal with both defeat and urgent social conditions. Hence, the exchange was a “cruel novelty”. It entailed deep human suffering; at the same time, it created conditions of national homogeneity when nationalism was at its peak and enabled Greek-Turkish rapprochement, even Greek-Turkish alliance in the coming years. The re-settlement of refugees was quite an accomplishment, owed greatly to the intensive efforts of the American-led Refugee Settlement Commission (RSC) which completed it within a few years (1924-30). However, it took the refugees generations to become incorporated and accepted in Greece’s society, whereas several refugees longed for substantial reparations for the properties they had left behind or even believed in repatriation. In 1930 those expectations proved futile as the governments of the two countries signed several treaties including a Treaty of Friendship in Ankara and decided to a mutually quit refugee compensations. Geopolitically that transformed reconciliation into friendship. Politically it cost dearly, foremost to Venizelos, who lost thousands of refugee votes in the 1932 general elections. But Greece and Turkey stressed national homogeneity as a source of power and sovereignty against external pressures.

The Lausanne Treaty was a multi-lateral treaty, with eight signatories. What would you say was the Treaty’s contribution, not just to Greece-Turkey relations, but to the geopolitical balance in the wider region?

The death of the “sick man of Europe” as the Ottoman Empire had been characterized in the previous century resulted in a new balance of powers among smaller nation states in the Balkans which started anew on an equal basis with their century-old opponent. The national life of those states also began when communism was a rising ideological force in Europe. For that reason, Greece and Turkey were integrated into the broader strategy of the Western Great Powers against Bolshevik Russia. In a way, the Western orientation of Greece and Turkey started with the Treaty of Lausanne.  The Treaty also granted territorial stability in the Middle Eastern territories that were regulated by the colonial powers at Lausanne. When they became independent countries they aspired to specific borders that were set then in order to avert destabilizing external influences, Turkish or Russian.

Today’s regional wars upset that stability as the Arab spring and the War in Syria have shown. The most important change, though, is Turkey’s effort to emerge as regional hegemon which reminds of the unwelcome Ottoman past to all countries of the region. This is also a main source of Greek-Turkish tensions which take place against a difficult geography as both countries are members of NATO and share access to the chokepoints of the Mediterranean (Straits, Suez Canal). Still, Turkey does not seem determined to change the status quo created by the treaty as it would risk destabilizing the entire region and this would undermine the interests of its powerful allies like US and NATO. The collision of Turkey with Israel is a sign of Ankara’s difficulty to play the Muslim card and at the same time remain a Western country.

What is the legacy of the Lausanne Treaty now? What would you answer to claims that the treaty “expires” and has to be revised?

As is well known, the Treaty of Lausanne is a multilateral peace treaty and not a bilateral Greek-Turkish Treaty. Peace Treaties are not amended even before the Vienna International Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) was enacted, because they define borders and territorial regimes. Turkey’s efforts to revise the part of the Treaty that concerns Greek-Turkish relations cannot be acceptable since the Treaty is a coherent legal entity including 28 acts. Only one part regulates Greek-Turkish relations after the Asia Minor War. On the other hand, the Treaty facilitated Greek-Turkish rapprochement, for instance through demilitarization, but did not link demilitarization with sovereignty as Turkey claims today. Thus, Ankara neglects the bilateral revision of the relevant clauses, de jure with the Montreux Treaty (1936) on the eve of the Second World War, de facto in the Cold War after the Turkish invasion of Cyprus. Last but not least, to state only a few examples, Turkey also questions Greek sovereignty over Dodecanese islands although it resigned from all rights and privileges on them since they were ceded to Italy under the Treaty of Lausanne. Ankara’s attitude today shows a propensity to revise the entire status in the Aegean Sea as part of a hegemonic Turkish strategy towards neighboring Greece. Greece is regarded as a geopolitical obstacle to fulfil that strategy and the Treaty of Lausanne is regarded as a legal obstacle to this political endeavor that blurs crucial chapters of modern world history.

** The Treaty of Lausanne, the most enduring of the post-World War I peace accords, is a historic treaty signed on July 24, 1923, establishing national borders in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East, with the aim of restoring peace in the region after the disastrous First World War. The treaty was signed by the Republic of Turkey, which had succeeded the defeated Ottoman Empire, on the one hand, and by the Allied and Associated Powers (France, United Kingdom, Italy, Japan, Greece, Serbia and Romania), on the other hand. One of the most radical elements of the Treaty of Lausanne, particularly from a humanitarian point of view, is the obligatory exchange of populations between Greece and Turkey.

** Interview to Ioulia Livaditi

Read also from Greek News Agenda

• Rethinking Greece | Evanthis Hatzivassiliou on the Treaty of Lausanne and its enduring legacy
• Conference | 100 Years since the Treaty of Lausanne: Looking Back, Looking Ahead
• Rethinking Greece | Davide Rodogno: Multilateralism plus prevention is a way of imagining a better future in humanitarian interventions
• Rethinking Greece | Emilia Salvanou on the Greek-Turkish population exchange after 1922 and the making of Greek refugees' memory

The post Rethinking Greece | Konstantina Botsiou on the ongoing geopolitical legacy of the Lausanne Treaty appeared first on Greek News Agenda.

Evanthis Hatzivassiliou is Professor of Postwar History at the Department of History of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens as well as secretary-general of the Hellenic Parliament Foundation for Parliamentarism and Democracy. His research interests include international history, the history of NATO during the Cold War, Greek foreign policy and political history and the Cyprus Question. Among his more publications are ‘The NATO Committee on the Challenges of Modern Society, 1969-1975: Transatlantic Relations, the Cold War and the Environment’ (2017), ‘NATO and Western Perceptions of the Soviet Bloc: Alliance Analysis and Reporting, 1951-1969’ (2014), and ‘Greece and the Cold War: Frontline State, 1952-1967’ (2006). Professor Hatzivassiliou is also Fellow of the Eleftherios Venizelos Foundation and a member of the Greek-Turkish forum, a one-and-a-half-track diplomacy initiative, founded in late 1997 with the aim to promote dialogue and communication between Greece and Turkey.

On the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne* Evanthis Hatzivassiliou spoke with our sister publication GrèceHebdo** on the importance of the Treaty for Greece and Turkey - as well as for the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East, on the new international legitimacy established by the Treaty, on the mandatory exchange of populations between Greece and Turkey, and finally, on Eleftherios Venizelos, the great political man who was the head of the Greek delegation during the Treaty negotiations.

It is generally believed that the Treaty of Lausanne only concerns Greece and Turkey, while in reality it is a treaty signed by eight countries. Could you briefly explain to us the importance of this treaty for both countries as well as for the wider geographical region?

The Treaty of Lausanne marks the solution of the Eastern Question, one of the most important, long-lasting and persistent international problems of modernity. The Eastern Question involved the possible dissolution and succession of the Ottoman Empire, and the control of the Straits; therefore, the whole region that was then called the “Near East”. The question raged at least since the last quarter of the eighteenth century, and touched upon the ambitions of the peoples of the region for political representation as well as upon the geopolitical priorities of the great powers and the long struggle between Britain and Russia for controlling the access to the Black Sea (therefore, also Russia’s access to warm seas).

In 1923, the Treaty of Lausanne led to the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and the establishment of the Turkish Republic; to the creation of the successor states in the region that we now call “the Middle East” (even if some of them were for a time mandates of Britain and France, such as Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, the region of Palestine, Jordan); and to the definite settlement of the international borders in the south-eastern area of the Balkans between Greece and Turkey. Moreover, many other issues were settled, such as the Ottoman public debt, international navigation in the Straits, or issues regarding minorities; among the latter was the harsh compulsory exchange of populations between Greece and Turkey. Thus, as the solution of the Eastern Question, the Treaty of Lausanne regulates international relations in the wider area of the Balkans, the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East. For this reason it also forms the basis of Greek foreign policy since then.

In your announcement at the recent ELIAMEP Conference for the 100 years of the Lausanne Treaty, you mentioned that the Treaty is a pillar of a new international legitimacy, as for the first time, small and sovereign states participated equally in it. Would you like to elaborate on this aspect, given that the issue of multilateralism remains relevant in international relations today?

The new international order that was created following the First World War was a profoundly liberal one. It involved the dissolution of the empires in East-Central Europe, and the definite rise of the nation-state as the main system of governance in the continent. At the same time, the creation of many new nation-states was also combined with an equally necessary move towards multilateralism, thanks to the setting up of the League of Nations, the brainchild of the US President, Woodrow Wilson. In the League all members of the international community participated, small states and great powers, on the basis of sovereign equality. This was a profound change compared to the past, when the existence and rights of small states were often ignored: during the nineteenth century, the European Concert had been a procedure of great powers only. Inotherwords, theinternationalsystemnowbecamemoreparticipatory. This was a decisive change in the international community. This new liberal legality was challenged cruelly by the forces of revisionism, especially Nazi Germany, but was confirmed with the outcome of the Second World War.

The Treaty of Lausanne, even with the admittedly dark aspect of the Greek-Turkish compulsory exchange of populations (a result of the crushing Turkish victory over Greece in 1922), brought to this part of the world the new international legitimacy, while it also settled international borders in the region, an element of decisive importance for the new order. As such, the Treaty of Lausanne is not only a crucial regional arrangement, but also the pillar of the wider international order in this part of the world.

In recent years, an opinion has been expressed – albeit very limited – that the Treaty of Lausanne ceases to be valid 100 years after its signature. Could you tell us what is the validity of the Treaty today and what is its importance for the future, especially of Greek-Turkish relations?

An international Treaty does not “expire” because of an anniversary. The Treaty of Lausanne continues to be in full force, and from the point of view of Public International Law it could not be otherwise. Apart from this, according to the prevalent view in International Law, the territorial settlement that such a Treaty establishes, would still remain in force even if the Treaty itself, as a legal instrument, were ever invalidated (which anyway is an extremely unlikely eventuality). Thus, the Treaty of Lausanne forms the basis of Greek-Turkish relations for the past 100 years and for the future. For this reason, the two countries need to show great care in respecting and implementing the Treaty: without this, chaos could ensue both in bilateral relations and in the wider region.

The mandatory exchange of populations between Greece and Turkey was a painful chapter in the Treaty of Lausanne, with significant socio-economic and political ramifications for Greece, while it was considered by many to violate human rights. How would you characterize the exchange of populations and in what way, in your opinion, did it determine the course and identity of modern Greece?

The Greek-Turkish compulsory exchange of populations was not only a controversial but a shameful act. This was because the compulsory character of the exchange fully violated human rights by depriving individuals of the right to choose. This was why it was even claimed, at that time, that the Exchange Convention was invalid according to International Law. This, on the other hand, was a rather theoretical view, since the exchange had already been done.

The compulsory exchange was imposed by the victorious Turkey on the defeated Greece of 1922: even since the autumn of 1922 (namely, before the signature of the Exchange Convention in late January 1923), the Greek populations had already been violently expelled from Western Asia Minor and from Eastern Thrace, while Turkey solemnly declared its determination to expel the remaining Greeks from Pontus, Cappadocia and other areas. In other words, even before the conclusion of the Exchange Convention, the larger part of the expulsion of the Greeks from Turkey was already a fait accompli, and could not be undone. The compulsory exchange was a fundamentally Turkish choice, which defeated Greece could not question. It was not the preference of Athens. The Greek perceptions, plans and aims regarding the populations had been expressed at the Treaty of Sèvres, which left populations in their homes, in the context of much more liberal arrangements.

At any rate, however inhuman and controversial from a legal or moral point of view, the reality that the Exchange Convention imposed shaped the contemporary Greek state and nation: the vast majority of the Greeks were now concentrated within the borders of the state; Greece became a “conservative” power, a supporter of the status quo. The exchange was a hugely traumatic experience. However, the Greek people and the state managed to overcome the trauma, and create a contemporary European state, capable of economic and social development.

Eleftherios Venizelos was appointed head of the Greek delegation to the negotiations in Lausanne, although he no longer participated in the country's governance. Do you think that the personality of the Greek politician, who was indeed the visionary of the Great Idea, contributed to upgrading of Greece's position during the negotiations of the Treaty of Lausanne? What was his contribution to maintaining peace in the region?

It is worth noting the tragic element in the case of Eleftherios Venizelos’ presence and roles during the Lausanne Conference: he was called to deal with the devastating consequences of a crushing defeat which could be attributed, to a large extent, to his own electoral defeat of November 1920. He had lost power, then the country had lost the war, and he now had to deal with the disaster. Yet he accepted this enormous responsibility.

There is little doubt that the international prestige of Venizelos was always greater than that of his small country – more so, of the vanquished Greece of 1922. This became very clear during the Lausanne Conference. Thus, even representing a defeated country, Venizelos managed to reach an honourable peace. Moreover, Venizelos’ sincere acceptance of the territorial status quo was decisive in Greece’s decision to abandon the Megali Idea and become a status quo power. This greatly aided the evolution of Greek policy, and shaped the international roles of the country for the past 100 years, as a pillar of stability and normalcy in the wider region, and as an ardent supporter of international legitimacy and of the liberal international order.

* The Treaty of Lausanne, the most enduring of the post-World War I peace accords, is a historic treaty signed on July 24, 1923, establishing national borders in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East, with the aim of restoring peace in the region after the disastrous First World War. The treaty was signed by the Republic of Turkey, which had succeeded the defeated Ottoman Empire, on the one hand, and by the Allied and Associated Powers (France, United Kingdom, Italy, Japan, Greece, Serbia and Romania) , on the other hand. One of the most radical elements of the Treaty of Lausanne, particularly from a humanitarian point of view, is the obligatory exchange of populations between Greece and Turkey.

** Interview granted to Ioulia Elmatzoglou | GreeceHebdo.gr

Read also from Greek News Agenda:

• 100 Years since the Treaty of Lausanne: Looking Back, Looking Ahead
• Davide Rodogno: Multilateralism plus prevention is a way of imagining a better future in humanitarian interventions
• Emilia Salvanou on the Greek-Turkish population exchange after 1922 and the making of Greek refugees' memory

I.L.

The post Rethinking Greece | Evanthis Hatzivassiliou on the Treaty of Lausanne and its enduring legacy appeared first on Greek News Agenda.