Sins of Commission

The Treaty of Lausanne not only recognized the sovereignty of the new Republic of Turkey as the successor state of the Ottoman Empire, it also ended the interim period of occupation by the Allied Forces. Those forces took control of the capital city after the Mudros Armistice Agreement of 30 October 1918 and curtailed the authority of the Istanbul Government via a series of memorandums. [1] Historians have tended to overlook these relatively small garrisons as being of marginal significance, and considered them merely in terms of the individual diplomats and generals concerned.[2] As a 2012 report by the International Committee of the Red Cross observed, however, occupation is not a question of the military capability of the occupying powers alone, but rather the “capability by virtue of their presence in a given area to impose their authority and prevent their opponent from doing so,” resulting in the occupier having “effective control of that area”. [3]

Having signed the Mudros Armistice on Great Britain’s behalf, Admiral Sir Arthur Calthorpe was appointed high commissioner in November 1918, retaining his role as commander-in-chief of the Mediterranean Fleet. [4] He was succeeded as commissioner by Admiral Sir John de Robeck (from 11 September 1919) and Sir Horace Rumbold (from 9 October 1920), the latter a professional diplomat. The other Allied Powers (France, Italy, and the United States) also appointed high commissioners to Istanbul. Other countries such as Denmark, Holland, Sweden, Russia, and Ukraine continued to be represented by ambassadors; and Japan established an embassy in 1921. Having been obliged to cease all relations with the Central Powers under the terms of the armistice, the embassies of those powers were forced to leave Istanbul.

If the nature of representation is the main determinant in the theory of diplomacy, then the form taken by these diplomatic missions is key to understanding the character of whole organization of occupation. [5] As Berridge notes, during the Armistice Period “Turkey remained technically an enemy state, so the forms of ordinary diplomatic relations could not be re-established: the British mission established in Constantinople during “the transition to peace” was given the anodyne title of “high commission” rather than “embassy”.[6]

But the associations of the term “high commissioner” were far from “anodyne”. “High commissioner” held a specific rank among other diplomatic missions, especially in British diplomacy, having first been used in the late nineteenth century when the oldest British dominion (Canada) sought representation in London.  Canada was not a sovereign state, and hence was not permitted an embassy. In the 1920s the title was given to the representative of other Dominions. But it was also given to “senior officials with at least a quasi-diplomatic aspect to their work”, including  “governors of dependent territories not formally part of an empire (…) and certain League of Nations mandates”, as well as “representatives to a territory placed under international control” and “international civil servants with overall responsibility for certain humanitarian operations, as in the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.”[7]

In lieu of “embassy” and “ambassador”, “high commission” and “high commissioner” constituted a declaration of intent, to treat a country as something other than a sovereign state.

At the Congress of Vienna diplomatic ranks were divided into three unequal categories, reflecting  a hierarchy of states. [8] In 1815 Great Britain had an embassy at Istanbul, whereas Washington was only considered worthy of a legation. Appointing a high commissioner in Istanbul meant a palpable degradation of the Ottoman Empire in the world order. High commissioners appointed to Istanbul were charged not only with bilateral relations but with enforcing decisions taken by an international commission established by the Paris Peace Conference (1919-1920) [9]. As well as settling the frontiers and the status of the Ottoman Empire, the Supreme Peace Council drew up the framework of the administration of occupation, in a fashion that mingled civil and military duties, so much so that the civil and military responsibilities of high commissioners became fused. [10]

The most important things that the Paris Conference changed and regulated were the procedures of annexation and colonization. [11] As the “mandate system” was proposed and “control”, “international control”, “influence” or “autonomy” began to replace “direct control” and annexation by consent of the Convention of League of Nations, high commissions became instruments for sustaining and consolidating the invasion. By dint of their direct and indirect control, high commissions became an interim government, a branch of the Paris Conference in the Empire, which they subdued through memorandums. Moreover, this decision making process stimulated a quasi-unified administration of high commissions through ad hoc meetings of high commissioners, and ad hoc commissions and committees. [12] High commissions took decisions over the heads of the existing Ottoman governmental and municipal organizations related to the governance and public order of the city.

Effective control of the high commissions guaranteed the immediate implementation of decisions imposed by ongoing international conferences. This ensured every act of the Ottoman Government complied with these conferences, not only in terms of the armistice but also prior to a peace treaty. [13] They allowed the Government to maintain its existence as a legitimate authority, if and only if it secured a peace treaty for the sake of the Allied Forces. The Forces put the Treaty of Sèvres in front of the Government for signature, after the high commissions had ensured the dismissal of the Ottoman Parliament by force, thereby thwarting possible negotiations under the influence of the Nationalist movement. Furthermore, when the Government of the Grand National Assembly appeared as a rival power in Ankara, the high commissions continued to address solely the Ottoman Government, to the extent that it remained under their tutelage. Only after the Grand National Assembly abolished the sultanate and the Ottoman Empire, and forced the last Ottoman Government to resign, could a new peace treaty among equal and independent states be negotiated. The path to Lausanne was opened up by dismantling the occupation, namely by stripping the high commissions of their functions.

This post draws from Eda’s recently published book, Kişisel İktidardan Millet Meclisine: Saltanattan Cumhuriyete.

Notes

[1] N. E. Keskin (ed), Açıklamalı Yönetim Zamandizini (1919-1928) [Annotated Chronology](Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi, 2012), 23-35.

[2] N. B. Criss, İstanbul İşgal Altında, 1918-1923 (Istanbul: İletişim,  2011), 102-105.

[3] Occupation and Other Forms of Administration of Foreign Territory. In T. Ferraro (ed.), ICRC – International Committee of the Red Cross. Geneva. http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/publications/icrc-002-4094.pdf (10/05/2023), 18-19.

[4] G. R. Berridge, British Diplomacy in Turkey, 1583 to the present – A Study in the Evolution of the Resident Embassy (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2009), 128-129; G. Jaeschke, Türk Kurtuluş Savaşı Kronolojisi. (Ankara: TTK Basımevi,1989), Vol. 1, 4.

[5] T. İskit, Diplomasi: Tarihi, Teorisi, Kurumları ve Uygulaması (Istanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi, 2007), 110 and 149.

[6] Berridge, British Diplomacy, 128-129.

[7] G. R. Berridge & A. James, A Dictionary of Diplomacy. (Basingstoke, Palgrave, 2001), 114-115.

[8] K. Hamilton & R. Langhorne, The Practice of Diplomacy: Its Evolution, Theory, and Administration. (London: Routledge, 1995), 105-111.

[9] B. Oran (ed.), Türk Dış Politikası – Kurtuluş Savaşından Bugüne Olgular, Belgeler, Yorumlar (Istanbul: İletişim, 2001), Vol. 1: 1919-1980, 126; M. Olwen, Paris 1919: 1919 Paris Barış Konferansı ve Dünyayı Değiştiren Altı Ayın Hikayesi (Istanbul: ODTÜ Yayıncılık, 2004), Vol. 1, 369.

[10] Criss, İstanbul İşgal Altında, 88-93.

[11] Olwen, Paris, 1919, 62, 89, 358.

[12] Criss, İstanbul İşgal Altında, 102-105.

[13] F. E. Çelik, Kişisel İktidardan Millet Meclisine: Saltanattan Cumhuriyete. (Istanbul: İmge, 2022), 391-406, 448-459.

IMAGE: ERCOLE (PATHE NEWS), C. RAAD, ON THE BALCONY OF THE INTERALLIED GENERAL HEADQUARTERS. ROYAL ORDONANCE NAMING SIR HERBERT SAMUEL BRITISH HIGH COMMISSIONER IN PALESTINE. “L’ILLUSTRATION”, 30 SEPTEMBER 1922. SALT RESEARCH FFTDOC01360.