`In 1915 the State openly declared war upon its Armenian citizens’

Photograph: Miran Manukyan
Emre Can DaÄ?lıoÄ?lu 03.20.2015 16:31 SPECIAL REPORTS

The guest on March 5 of the Thursday Talks organized by the History
Foundation was Nevzat Onaran. Onaran presented a speech titled `The
Code of 1915: Emval-i Metruke/Abandoned Properties’ and we talked to
him about the continuity of the economic policy based on
liquidification, and the laws that enabled that continuity.

Which laws formed the basis for the economic liquidation that began with 1915?

Emval-i metruke (Abandoned properties) is a phrase that describes
goods that no longer have an owner. However, within the Ottoman
context, the owner of the properties in question was known, therefore
in the case of 1915, the phrase actually means properties that were,
in one way or another, forcibly seized from its owner by the State.
The deportation law issued on 27 May 1915, the mass migration of the
Armenians began, and this law was followed with a directive issued on
10 June 1915, on the settlement of Armenians. Of the properties left
behind by the Armenians, the movable assets were immediately sold,
whereas immovable assets were seized by the State. A part of these
were distributed to Muslim migrants to Anatolia, while in many areas,
they were literally grabbed by whoever got there first. The relevant
legislation has three bases. The first is the decree of the Meclis-i
Vükela, or Cabinet, dated 30 May 1915. The second is the directive
dated 10 June 1915. And the third is the law, which is shortly
referred to as the Liquidation Law. The first defined the assets as
abandoned properties, the second led to the pillaging of the assets,
while the third provided their new owners with legal deeds for the
properties they pillaged. The Liquidation Law is the most important of
the three.

Why is the Liquidation Law the most important?

Because this law is the final stage of the internal war front the
Ottoman Empire appended to the state of external war it was involved
in. Its enemies in this internal war where people who were affiliated
with it by bonds of citizenship. First, Armenian men between the ages
of 20 and 40 were drafted with the Mobilization Law; and then, on 24
April 1915, the leading intellectuals were imprisoned, and some were
murdered. And then, whoever was left was forced to migrate away from
their homes. In other words, the Empire openly says, regarding the
remaining folk, `They have betrayed their country, they are enemies’.
This became official with the coded telegram sent out by Talaat Pasha
in February. Therefore Armenians were openly regarded as opponents in
the internal war. In such an environment, the Liquidation Law was the
final stage in this war. After all, Article 1 of the Law clearly
states that the properties of the people who were forced into exile
are to be liquidated. With Article 2, the State seizes the properties
of these exiled people; and Article 6 regulates the establishment of a
commission for the carrying out of this task. The dispossession system
founded in 1915 is consolidated with this law.

We can say that Ankara’s main personnel against the Istanbul
government was made up of members of Union and Progress. This was why
the issue of abandoned properties appears many times on the agenda of
the Parliament in Ankara.

Can we talk about a continuity regarding these laws?

In 1918, a government decree was issued allowing the return of the
forcibly exiled. Following the Ottoman defeat in the war, on 8 January
1920, the Istanbul government issued a new decree. This decree
rendered void all actions carried out on the basis of the Liquidation
Law. The new system stated that the losses of all those whose
properties were seized or sold would be compensated. In the same
period, the movement that would carry out the National Struggle in
Anatolia gained power. The group that would later form a government in
Ankara called itself during that period Müdafaa-i Hukuk Cemiyeti, the
Society for the Defence of Rights. We know that all members of Union
and Progress, which had lost power, were members of this society. In
this respect, we can say that Ankara’s main personnel against the
Istanbul government was made up of members of Union and Progress. This
was why the issue of abandoned properties appears many times on the
agenda of the Parliament in Ankara. On 20 April 1922, the first law on
this matter was issued. Decisions were taken regarding what to do with
the properties in recovered areas. However, let us pay attention to
the date. Not many areas had been recovered at that point. This law
stated that the properties of those who return would be given back.
However, that article was annotated with the condition that a court
had to determine that the property belonged to the returned person. In
other words, they made it very difficult for those who returned.

When were the laws of the Republican regime regarding property seizure issued?

The first regulation after that was made after 9 September 1922, when
Ä°zmir was captured. Only 5 days after the capture of Ä°zmir, the law
issued by the Istanbul government on 8 January 1920 was repealed,
first by a secret session, and then an open session. This paved the
way for implementations carried out in the framework of the
Liquidation Law. In the process that followed, the statute on the
formation of the Liquidation Commission was changed on 31 October
1922, and the commissions were formed mostly of local notables. Then
on 15 April 1923, a comprehensive law on abandoned properties was
issued. This law renewed the law issued in 1915 and its scope was
broadened at a very critical point. The scope of properties defined as
abandoned properties, in addition to belonging to persons who had been
forcibly exiled, was broadened to include properties of disappeared
and departed persons, those who had travelled to a foreign country,
and even those who had travelled to Istanbul and its environs. In
fact, when objections were raised to the part of that specific article
regarding Istanbul, Finance Minister Hasan Fehmi provided assurance
that the properties of Muslims would not be touched. Thus, the law was
rendered even more problematic than in 1915, and the attributes of
properties the State could seize was increased. This was how the State
first seized, then pillaged and finally issued deeds for the
properties of the Armenians.

The Treaty of Lausanne was signed on 24 July 1923; however, the
validity of Lausanne still remained problematic. In order to solve
this problem, a decree was passed on 13 June 1926, and the date for
the beginning of Lausanne’s validity was set as 6 August 1924.

Where does the Treaty of Lausanne stand in this equation?

As you know, the Treaty of Lausanne was signed before the Republic was
founded, on 24 July 1923, however, the validity of Lausanne still
remained problematic. In order to solve this problem, a decree was
passed on 13 June 1926, and the date for the beginning of Lausanne’s
validity was set as 6 August 1924. Yet the Treaty of Lausanne was
ratified in Parliament on 23 August 1923. Furthermore, the fact that
this date was set in 1926 shows that there was something amiss. On 15
April 1923, there was a debate for the rearrangement of the Law on
Abandoned Properties following the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne,
but that was not carried out either. Besides, implementations carried
out within the scope of this law until 6 August 1924 were thus
legitimized.

Were other laws in the same vein issued in the Republican period?

Many regulations were approved during the 1920s to encourage the
changing of hands of abandoned properties. The Settlement Law issued
in 1934 is also very important in this respect. Within the scope of
this law, a mapping of who lives where was carried out. This map was
shaped according to those who were affiliated with Turkish culture, or
those whose mother tongue was Turkish. The rationale of the law was,
after all, civilising and assimilation. Article 2 of this law
determined where Turks would live, where those to be assimilated would
live, and also, prohibited areas. The Dersim Massacre was carried out
on the basis of this mapping. The rampant Turkish nationalism of this
period infected the articles of this law as well.

Since the initial capital was formed by the violent transfer of
domestic capital, Turkey has no 100-year old brand of its own.

It is a very basic argument that the capital accumulation of the
Republican period grew on the basis of these properties. Are we able
to clearly validate this argument?

The Istanbul Chamber of Commerce and Industry published a book titled
`50 Years of the Chamber’ in 1931 or 1932. This book states that in
the early 1880s, Turks led 4, and non-Turks led in 27 of the 31
sectors in the economy. In the same respect, a book published in 1973
by the State Institute of Statistics on the 50th year of the Republic,
states that according to 1914 economic data, Muslim Turks controlled
15% of the economy, while Greeks controlled 50%, Armenians 20%, Jews
5%, and foreigners 10%. With the initiation of internal war in 1915,
this economic landscape was completely reversed. In 1915 the
Armenians, with the 1924 Population Exchange the Greeks and in the
1930s the Jews and foreigners are liquidated. This clears the path in
the economy for those who are religiously Muslim, and ethnically
Turkish. Newspaper articles published in the 1920s also confirm this.
They say that the war environment benefited the Turkification of the
economy. We could also link this to Turkey’s failure in
industrialization. Since the initial capital was formed by the violent
transfer of domestic capital, Turkey has no 100-year old brand of its
own, or, the number of companies with a 100 year history are very
limited.

This is true for large capital groups, but can we see documents that
would clearly prove this?

During the debate over how the Çankaya Mansion had changed hands,
Edward Çuhacı, a member of the Kasapyan family, had sent Agos a letter
in April 2007. In that letter, he stated that their estate home in
Keçiören now belonged to the Koç family. But if serious research were
to be carried out on the basis of companies, then one would have to
refer to the records of Chambers of Commerce. However, even that would
be a difficult task. In this context, the Ä°zmir Chamber of Commerce
has published its records. When you look into those records, you see
statements such as, `The abandoned property bail brought by the A
company has been accepted’. That means: since the abandoned properties
registered in the company’s name would be considered part of the
company’s capital, they show this document so that their
classification can be determined.

Does the policy of property transfer administered by the State change
with the introduction of the multi-party regime, or at any other
political turning point?

In my opinion, this policy is, from Union and Progress to the present
day, the consequence of the political economy of Turkish nationalism.
This policy is the fundamental program of the State. This program
targets every social section that is not ethnically Turkish and
religiously Sunni. And there have been no deviations from this program
during any period at all. The fact that the Abandoned Properties Law
issued in the Republican period remained in effect in 1988 is a
consequence of this. This law was abolished by Ã-zal, I believe because
the Christian community had diminished to an extent that it no longer
presented a `threat’.