On the Lausanne Treaty
The Treaty of Lausanne encompasses the 143 articles of the treaty itself, along with 17 conventions, protocols and declarations negotiated between the defeated Turkey and all the victorious powers of World War I. It is not an agreement between Greece and Turkey. While only a few provisions directly or indirectly involve Greek-Turkish relations (such as those concerning the population exchange and the return of prisoners of war), the majority of the articles and texts focus on regulating the state of affairs after the conclusion of the war. Examples of these include the repayment of Ottoman debt, amnesty, the withdrawal of Allied forces from Istanbul and accession to international telegraphic conventions, among others.
What is the contemporary significance of the Treaty of Lausanne? Peace treaties signed a century ago continue to draw attention from the international community, particularly for provisions delineating borders and establishing sovereignty over specific regions. Furthermore, for Greeks, there is a keen interest in provisions pertaining to the Greek minority in Turkey and the Muslim minority in Greece.
We have been under the misconception that Turkey seeks a broad revision of the Treaty of Lausanne. However, this is not accurate
Is Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish president, interested in making changes to the demilitarization provisions? Quite the opposite. These provisions stand as a focal point in Turkish foreign policy, consistently viewed as being in the country’s best interest. The provisions of the Lausanne Treaty concerning demilitarization served as the foundation for three letters sent by Turkey to the United Nations in July and September 2021, as well as in September 2022. By alleging violations of the demilitarization regime, Turkey challenged Greek sovereignty over the larger islands in the eastern Aegean. The fact that Turkey persistently emphasizes the demilitarization of these islands alone should be a source of deep concern. In terms of public opinion, we have been under the misconception that Turkey seeks a broad revision of the Treaty of Lausanne. However, this is not accurate. In reality, Turkey selectively invokes specific provisions of the treaty and accuses us of violating them.
What does Erdogan aim to revise in the Treaty of Lausanne? Erdogan is solely interested in revising the provisions related to borders and minorities.
What are we considering in terms of revising the Treaty of Lausanne? Clearly, nothing. According to Article 62.2 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a treaty establishing a boundary cannot be terminated as far as those specific provisions are concerned. Therefore, provisions related to boundaries do not change. Regarding minorities, the uprooting of the Greek minority from Istanbul, Imvros and Tenedos transforms any bilateral talks into a unilateral claim by Turkey to intervene in the affairs of the Muslim minority. In the present era, the institutional intervention by a third state in matters concerning Greek citizens is simply unthinkable.
Is the demilitarization of the islands not a legal dispute? In 1974, we initiated the swift militarization of all the eastern Aegean islands, citing Article 51 of the UN Charter, which grants us the right to legitimate self-defense. Subsequently, in 1995 and again in 2015, through new declarations, we excluded “military activities and measures taken by the Hellenic Republic for the protection of its sovereignty and territorial integrity, for national defense purposes, as well as for the protection of its national security” from the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. We undertook this action because we perceive it as a matter of national sovereignty not subject to judicial scrutiny based on the provisions of the Lausanne Treaty. This stance has been our national position for the past 29 years. Fortunately, the provisions related to World War I-era swords and machine guns (Lewis guns) provide us with the legal opportunity to assert that these specific provisions are outdated and no longer applicable.
If Turkey were to withdraw its threats against our country and disband the Aegean Army, would we consider demilitarization? The islands must remain fully armed and militarized, irrespective of explicit Turkish threats. Turkey’s geography allows for the swift and discreet transfer of powerful military forces from the mainland to the shores. In contrast, sending troops, let alone equipment, to the islands is an exceptionally challenging endeavor. The invasion of Cyprus serves as an enduring lesson, highlighting the consequences of troop withdrawal, as witnessed in 1967 when the Greek junta expelled the Greek regiment from the island.
Angelos Syrigos is a New Democracy MP and an associate professor of international law and foreign policy at Panteion University of Athens.
