1917-12-20-DK-001

1917-12-20-DK-001

English :: da de en

Home: www.armenocide.net
Link: http://www.armenocide.net/armenocide/armgende.nsf/$$AllDocs/1917-12-20-DK-001
Source: DK/RA-UM/Gruppeordnede sager 1909-1945. 139. D. 1, ”Tyrkiet - Indre Forhold”. Pakke 2, fra Jan. 1917 – 1. Jan. 1919
Edition: Danish diplomatic sources
Departure of telegram: 12/20/1917
Arrival of telegram: 01/07/1918
Embassy/consular serial number: Nr. 175
Translated by: Matthias Bjørnlund
Last updated: 01/15/2014

The minister in Constantinople (Carl Ellis Wandel) to the Foreign Minister (Erik Scavenius)

Report

No. 175
Constantinople, 20 December 1917.

Confidential.

Mr. Foreign Minister,

The Young Turk government usually does not tolerate any real discussion in the Ottoman Parliament, as it does not wish to let the population obtain an insight into the subject matters.

Exchanges of opinion among the Turkish politicians take place in the Committee's secret meetings, and the public arguments in the Chambers merely have the appearance of truth.

When a subject matter is presented in Parliament it is usually purely a matter of form. It has long since been decided in the Committee.

But every now and then an exception to this rule appears in the Senate, among whose members there are some men to be found who are held in such high esteem among the populace that they avoid disciplinary punishment on the rare occasion when they do not mince matters and speak without reservation.

One of these men is Ahmed Riza, the Senator that I have mentioned several times last year in my dispatches, - "the only true Young Turk," who this year, too, has attracted attention for his outspokenness during the present session of Parliament in a manner that redounds greatly to his credit; furthermore, he has managed to secure that his statements in Parliament are reproduced to some extent in the official gazette. True, this is not accessible to the population, but the legations cannot be prevented from acquiring it.

As far as I know, none of these statements are reproduced in the daily newspapers, neither here nor abroad, and I therefore find it relevant to mention them when the occasion arises as is indeed the case these days.

For instance, during the Senate meeting on 29 October this year, Ahmed Riza made various statements that shed light on the way the Turkish authorities have treated the Arab, Armenian, and Greek population in Turkey during the war, a subject about which authentic information rarely surfaces because it is cloaked in utmost secrecy and publicly denied at any given opportunity so that one often does not know what to believe.

In September 1915, the day before the assembly of Parliament, the Young Turk government issued a provisional law which it has never dared to introduce to the Chambers for approval, and which has led to complete spoliation for large parts of the population.

Through this law the authorities gained a free hand to liquidate the so-called "abandoned properties," i.e. the real estate, movables, debts, and outstanding accounts of the Arabs, Armenians, and Greeks who been removed from their domiciles, properties which the authorities have subsequently administered quite arbitrarily.

Nevertheless, during said meeting the government introduced a proposal that largely appears to be a complement to this law, and according to which an appropriation of some 2 million Piaster for "the preservation of the aforesaid properties" was requested.

The discussion, in which Ahmed Riza and his group (Orkhan Bey, General Mahmoud Pasha, and Damid Ferid Pasha [Damad/Damat Ferid Pasha]) participated, is worth reading.

Orkhan Bey started by saying that since the temporary law concerning the "abandoned properties" had not yet been introduced to, and approved by, the Senate, it could, by appropriating the requested amount, appear to approve a law it had not yet seen.

The [Senate] President assured that this would not be the case.

Then Ahmed Riza spoke:

"Why is this appropriation being requested? It is said that it is to preserve the so-called 'abandoned property.' But what is an 'abandoned property'? Is it movables or real estate? If it is movables, these have, according to what has been reported to us, partly been robbed, partly been sold by the government and in that way been thoroughly converted into cash. But for such a purpose neither commission nor money is necessary.

And if the appropriation is demanded in order to ensure the preservation of real estate, then what are these estates; fields, houses, etc. But the local authorities are precisely there to preserve and protect the population's properties. From what we hear, houses, even large buildings have been destroyed and plundered, the doors and the windows have been removed, and in this sad state they are left. Others have been occupied. What is meant by preserving them?

I would also like to know what is meant by the expression 'abandoned property.' Because we do take responsibility by accepting one expression or the other. In my opinion the expression 'abandoned property' means property that has been abandoned, left behind. But no one has left their property of their own free will. We must find an appropriate expression and clearly say 'Law to preserve the properties of Armenians, Greeks, and Arabs who have been removed from their homes out of political necessity.' The expression 'abandoned property' is not accurate, and the Senate ought not to accept such an inaccurate expression. In reality, the population has been driven from their homes and violently abducted, and their property has been left behind.

This procedure also violates the Constitution. Because the Constitution guarantees everyone the inviolability of their properties. I must go even further and say that if there does not exist property rights in a country, or if these rights are not secured, no government exists either. If those who have been deported and chased away had property rights those rights have now been suppressed.

The government does claim that it has had the right to act thusly. As I have not yet examined this situation in its entirety, I cannot at the moment make definite statements regarding this subject. The government publishes brochures seen from their point of view. Let us assume that every word in these brochures is absolutely truthful. A part of the Armenians and the Greeks may very well, as the government says, have been traitors. Those you find among the Turks and among the Kurds as well as among the Armenians. But the law establishes a punishment to the traitors, the criminals. You execute them; but you never deport or kill the families or rob them of their fortunes. This is an outright reign of terror."

The president thought that all this could only be said when the mentioned law had been introduced to the Senate.

Ahmed Riza answered: "But the law is not being introduced. Another law is introduced to us which concerns the first one, and I therefore have to speak. The method concerning the 'abandoned property' has not quite been understood here, and I shall therefore not go any further into this. But I want to know where the money that is being demanded is to be spent. There is talk of a preservation administration. What administration, what preservation?"

Chukri Pasha, member of the Senate Finance Committee, gave this answer: "Commissions have been established to preserve the mentioned real estate, and the appropriation that is being demanded is specified for these commissions. They of course sell the part of the movables that are perishable, and administrate the real estate."

Ahmed Riza: "Are you sure this is the case?"

Chukri Pasha: "Yes, as far as I know. The amount is to be taken from the budget and not from the profits from the real estate. Concerning the expression 'abandoned property,' it is not possible for the Senate Finance Committee to explain this."

The President remarked to this that since the Senate had accepted this term the previous year he thought it would be strange not to accept it this year.

Ahmed Riza said that he had not accepted it last year and he did not intend to do it this time either. What he would especially like to protest against was, incidentally, the fact that the temporary law concerning the "abandoned property" had not yet been introduced to the Senate.

After having furthermore asked if it had been sent to Parliament, which was confirmed by the President, he continued: "A bill concerning some appropriation or the other is immediately being introduced to the assembly, but why is the law concerning the actual organization not being introduced? There is the law I want. We must be guaranteed that the properties have not been lost, that they remain to, at a later point, be handed back to their rightful owners, and that said persons are not all dead. It is now suggested to us that we pass this proposed appropriation without having been showed the main law. I do not think this is right."

The President informed that said law had been introduced to the Chamber of Deputies, but that it had not yet been read due to the heavy workload, and that the Senate could therefore not blame the government.

A member of the Senate Committee, Mahmoud Pasha, gave his full approval to Ahmed Riza Bey. Last year he had voted against these provisions. This time he had done the same thing in the Commission and would also do so in the Senate.

Yet another Member of the Senate, Damad Ferid, who, as mentioned above, like Mahmoud Pasha belongs to the same group as Ahmed Riza Bey, gave a similar statement. He, too, had last year opposed the term "abandoned property," and would also now vote against the appropriation.

Finally, Ahmed Riza repeated that a year had gone by in waiting for the temporary law concerning the "abandoned property," but that it had not yet arrived.

The present bill was then passed.

With the highest esteem I remain, Mr. Minister, yours faithfully
[Wandel]