Fukuyama’s second thoughts: ‘socialism ought to come back’

Image: Fronteiras do Pensamento

26 years ago, after the fall of the Soviet Union, the defenders of capitalism were euphoric. They spoke of the death of socialism and communism. Liberalism had triumphed and therefore history had reached its final expression in the form of capitalism. That was the moment when Yoshihiro Francis Fukuyama uttered his famous (or notorious) prediction that history had ended. What he meant by this was as follows: now that socialism (in the form of the Soviet Union) had failed, the only possible socio-economic system was capitalism, or as he and others preferred to describe it: “the free market economy”.

The defenders of capitalism predicted that the victory of liberalism would open the door for a guaranteed future of peace and prosperity. The economists spoke of a peace dividend. Now that the Cold War with the Soviet Union had ended, the capitalist governments would be able to spend vast sums of money to build schools, hospitals, houses and all the other things that are the essential prerequisite for civilised existence. Deserts would bloom, production would soar and the human race – supposedly – would live happily ever after. Amen.

26 years may seem a long time in the life of a man or a woman. But in the scale of history, it is only a fleeting moment. And yet in that insignificant segment of human history, everything has changed, and, as Hegel famously predicted, things have changed into their opposite. Today, not one stone upon another remains of the confident predictions of those days.

Berlin wall Image antaldaniel26 years ago, after the fall of the Soviet Union, the defenders of capitalism were euphoric. Today, not one stone upon another remains of their confident predictions / Image: antaldaniel

Second thoughts

Unfortunately for Francis Fukuyama, history is not so easily disposed of. And it is now taking its revenge on him. In 1992, carried away by the general euphoria of the bourgeoisie, elated by the fall of the Soviet Union, this American political theorist published a book with the interesting name: The End of History and the Last Man.

In this book, we read the following statement:

“What we may be witnessing… is the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalisation of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.”

But in an article published in the New Statesman on 17 October this year, he is singing a rather different song:

“What I said back then [1992] is that one of the problems with modern democracy is that it provides peace and prosperity but people want more than that… liberal democracies don’t even try to define what a good life is, it’s left up to individuals, who feel alienated, without purpose, and that’s why joining these identity groups gives them some sense of community.”

His critics, he said, “probably didn’t read to the end of the actual book [The End of History], the Last Man part, which was really all about some of the potential threats to democracy.”

A government official during the Reagan-Bush years, Fukuyama was originally close to the neoconservative movement. This probably explains his enthusiasm for the market economy and liberalism. But harsh experience has led him to change his mind, at least some extent.

Iraq Image US Defence DeptFukuyama supported the Iraq War, but by 2003, he concluded that it was a defining error of American policy. He has also become a critic of financial deregulation / Image: US Defence Dept

Fukuyama supported the Iraq War, but by 2003, he concluded that it was a defining error of American policy. He has also become a critic of such neoliberal shibboleths as financial deregulation, which was partly responsible for the disastrous economic crash of 2008. He is also a critic of the euro, or at least of its “inept creation”:

“These are all elite-driven policies that turned out to be pretty disastrous, there’s some reason for ordinary people to be upset.”

Marx was right!

To illustrate Fukuyama’s dramatic change of heart, we republish some extracts from the New Statesman article:

The End of History was a rebuke to Marxists who regarded communism as humanity’s final ideological stage. How, I asked Fukuyama, did he view the resurgence of the socialist left in the UK and the US? ‘It all depends on what you mean by socialism. Ownership of the means of production – except in areas where it’s clearly called for, like public utilities – I don’t think that’s going to work.

“‘If you mean redistributive programmes that try to redress this big imbalance in both incomes and wealth that has emerged then, yes, I think not only can it come back, it ought to come back. This extended period, which started with Reagan and Thatcher, in which a certain set of ideas about the benefits of unregulated markets took hold, in many ways it’s had a disastrous effect.

“‘In social equality, it’s led to a weakening of labour unions, of the bargaining power of ordinary workers, the rise of an oligarchic class almost everywhere that then exerts undue political power. In terms of the role of finance, if there’s anything we learned from the financial crisis it’s that you’ve got to regulate the sector like hell because they’ll make everyone else pay. That whole ideology became very deeply embedded within the Eurozone, the austerity that Germany imposed on southern Europe has been disastrous.’

“Fukuyama added, to my surprise: ‘At this juncture, it seems to me that certain things Karl Marx said are turning out to be true. He talked about the crisis of overproduction… that workers would be impoverished and there would be insufficient demand.’” (My emphasis, AW)

We leave to one side the fact that Fukuyama demonstrates his lack of understanding of Marxist economics by confusing overproduction with the Keynesian idea of under consumption. After so many years of brainwashing in the school of free-market economics, it was too much to ask for him to have understood Marx.

Karl Marx 10 Image public domainIt is significant that such a prominent defender of capitalism and critic of socialism should now draw the conclusion that Marxist analysis of capitalist crisis was basically correct / Image: public domain

Nevertheless, it is significant that such a prominent defender of capitalism and critic of socialism should now draw the conclusion that Marxist analysis of capitalist crisis was basically correct, that the unrestrained pursuit of free-market economics has led to mass impoverishment on the one hand and the complete domination of the world by an irresponsible and obscenely rich capitalist oligarchy on the other.

And he is absolutely correct in saying that, if this is not rectified, this oligarchy (both in the USA and in Europe) “will make everybody pay”. In reality, they are already doing so.

Fukuyama offers no solution

It is, of course, a matter of considerable satisfaction to see that even this dyed-in-the-wool defender of capitalism has begun to understand its reactionary nature. However, Fukuyama behaves like a doctor who, after giving a very comprehensive list of the symptoms of his patient, fails to provide a prescription for a cure.

Fukuyama is aware of the terrible deprivations caused by the ravages of finance capital and the anarchy of the market system. He has come around to the view, shared by an ever-increasing number of people, that the economy must be controlled. But then he stops short of drawing the necessary conclusion, which is that the giant monopolies and banks that exercise a brutal dictatorship over the entire world must be taken out of private hands altogether.

On the one hand, he calls for a return to socialism. The problem is that he has no idea what socialism is. He says that “ownership of the means of production” (except in utilities) isn’t going to work. But Fukuyama himself has drawn the conclusion that it is private ownership of the means of production that is not working, or rather, that it is working to the detriment of economic and social advance and causing misery, poverty and distress for the great majority of humankind.

It is now clear even to the blindest of the blind that the unplanned, capitalist economy is a finished recipe for chaos, dislocation, waste, mismanagement and corruption on a vast scale. Worse still, the unrestrained greed for profit that is the sole motor force of this system is destroying the environment, poisoning the air we breathe, the food we eat, and the seas and forests that are the basis of all life on the planet.

Serious problems demand serious solutions. The Spanish socialist, Largo Caballero once said that you cannot cure cancer with an aspirin. Fukuyama advocates the nationalisation of public utilities because “it is clearly called for”. We completely agree with him. But why is it not called for in the case of the banks, for example, which have demonstrated a complete inability to administer and control vast amounts of people’s money in a responsible manner?

The monstrous speculation, corruption and ineptitude of the banks was the immediate cause of the financial crisis of 2008, the results of which we are still living with. In the end, these fervent advocates of the free market economy, who opposed any suggestion of state intervention in the economy, had to be rescued by the injection of vast amounts of public money.

Bailour Image Lisa NorwoodThe monstrous speculation, corruption and ineptitude of the banks was the immediate cause of the financial crisis of 2008 / Image: Lisa Norwood

Instead of going to jail, which they richly deserved, they were rewarded for their incompetence by eye-watering sums stolen from the public treasury. That is the reason why we have colossal public deficits today, which, we are told, must be paid. The poor subsidise the rich. This is Robin Hood in reverse.

At the same time, we are informed that there is no money to pay for unnecessary things like schools, hospitals, care for the aged, pensions, education, roads and sanitation – all of which are in a lamentable state in Britain and the richest countries in the world.

If ever there was a sector of the economy that is crying out for expropriation it is the big banks. Why does Mr Fukuyama wish to keep them in private hands? If we limit nationalisation to public utilities, the most important sectors of the economy will remain as they are – in the hands of that very oligarchy against which Fukuyama rails. This kind of ‘socialism’ would solve precisely nothing.

Clearly, the main problem here is that Fukuyama confuses socialism and state ownership with the bureaucratic and totalitarian regime that existed in the Soviet Union. That certainly failed, and it was bound to fail. Trotsky pointed out that the nationalised planned economy needs democracy, just as the human body needs oxygen.

There need be no contradiction between a nationalised, planned economy and the fullest democracy. Real socialism is based upon the most active participation of the workers, both in the drawing up of a plan of production and its implementation. By this we mean not only the industrial proletariat, but every productive group: scientists, economists, technicians, managers included.

Without workers’ control and management, the economy will inevitably seize up and grind to a halt, which is exactly what occurred in the Soviet Union. The Venezuelan experience provides us with an even more damning verdict on bureaucratic control of nationalised industries.

The Chinese road?

From the article it seems that Fukuyama thinks that the only plausible systemic rival to liberal democracy is not socialism but China’s state capitalist model:

“The Chinese are arguing openly that it is a superior one because they can guarantee stability and economic growth over the long run in a way that democracy can’t… if in another 30 years, they’re bigger than the US, Chinese people are richer and the country is still holding together, I would say they’ve got a real argument.”

But he cautioned that “the real test of the regime” would be how it fared in an economic crisis.

Fukuyama’s confusion is illustrated very well by these lines. He was an impressionistic empiricist 26 years ago when he had illusions in the market economy because it appeared to be advancing continuously. He remains an impressionistic empiricist today, except that his admiration for China has risen to the same degree that his admiration for Western capitalism (“liberalism”) has waned.

Xi Jinping is consolidating his grip on the CCP Image kremlin.ruFukuyama thinks that the only plausible rival to liberal democracy is not socialism but China’s state capitalist model / Image: kremlin.ru

It is true that, in the last few decades, the Chinese economy has advanced rapidly. But, having entered the world capitalist economy, it has inherited all the contradictions of capitalism. China is now suffering from overproduction, which has led to a falling rate of growth and increased unemployment.

China’s official rate of growth this year stands at 6.5 percent. But China needs at least a growth rate of 8 percent per annum just in order to absorb the growth of population. Moreover, as Fukuyama hints, the Chinese economy is vulnerable to economic shocks originating in the broader world economy, when it is finding increasing difficulty in selling its surplus production and is in an open trade war with America.

It is also ironical that a man who claims to stand for liberal democracy should look to China as an example, given the Chinese regime is not well-known for its respect for human rights and democracy. In fact, China combines some of the worst features of Stalinist totalitarianism with the most negative features of capitalism. Along that road, there is no hope for the workers of China or any other country.

Capitalism means war

The world has arguably never been in such an unstable position. As a matter of fact, as long as the USSR existed, there was a relative stability, reflecting the relative equilibrium of power between Russia and the USA. But the Old World Order has broken down, and there is nothing to take its place.

We have certainly come a long way since those rosy predictions of a world of peace and prosperity after the fall of the Berlin Wall. The real world today bears absolutely no relation to that perspective. On the contrary, there is war after war. Quite apart from the horrific conflicts that are tearing apart countries like Iraq, Syria and Yemen, there have been a series of monstrous wars in Africa.

The terrible civil war in the Congo led to the slaughter of at least 5 million men women and children. That did not even make the front pages of the newspapers. President Trump has torn up the deal with Iran that restrained that country from acquiring nuclear weapons. Now he announces his decision to tear up the deal signed by Regan and Gorbachev to restrict the nuclear programs of the USA and Russia.

Fukuyama is worried by the potential for a US-China war:

“I think people would be very foolish to rule that out, I can think of lots of scenarios by which such a war could start. I don’t think it would be a deliberate attack by one country on the other – like Germany invading Poland in 1939 – it’s more likely to come out of a local conflict over Taiwan, over North Korea, possibly a confrontation in the South China Sea that escalates.”

Certainly, the contradictions between America and China are very serious. They find their expression in the trade war declared unilaterally by Donald Trump, which can easily escalate into something far more serious that can threaten to bring down the whole world economy. Similarly, the advance of Chinese power in Asia, in particular, its attempt to dominate the seas in that region, is seen as a threat by the USA.

Aleppo Image Министерство обороны Российской ФедерацииInstead of a major war between the US and China, we will have small wars all the time – “small” in the sense of the wars in Iraq and Syria / Image: Министерство обороны Российской Федерации

That does not mean, as some people believe, that a third world war is imminent. Under modern conditions, world war would have a devastating effect on all parties. And the capitalists do not wage war for fun, but for the conquest of markets, profits and spheres of influence. Therefore, though Mr. Trump blows fire and brimstone in all his speeches, a general conflagration is ruled out.

Nevertheless, we will have small wars all the time – “small” in the sense of the wars in Iraq and Syria, which, in the modern world, is a sufficiently horrific prospect. But wars are merely a reflection of the unbearable contradictions between countries that, on the basis of capitalism, must fight each other for markets like hungry dogs fighting over a piece of meat. Capitalism means war, and in order to avoid war, it is necessary to remove its root cause.

The wheel of history

When Hitler’s triumphant armies entered Paris in 1940, an interesting conversation took place between a German and French army officer. The German, puffed up with the arrogance of a conqueror, boasted that, finally, his nation had taken its revenge for its humiliating defeat in the First World War. The French officer turned to him and said: “yes, the wheel of history has turned. It will turn again.”

A few years later, his prediction was shown to be correct.

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the wheel of history has once again turned full circle. In spite of the predictions of the strategists of capital, history has returned with a vengeance. Suddenly, the world seems to be afflicted by strange and unprecedented phenomena that defy all the attempts of the political experts to explain them.

The people of Britain voted in a referendum to leave the European Union – a result that nobody expected, which caused shockwaves on an international scale. But these were as nothing compared to the tsunami provoked by the result of the American presidential elections: another result that nobody expected, including the man who won.

The election of Donald Trump was yet another earthquake. These events are the dramatic confirmation of the instability that has afflicted the entire world. Overnight, the old certainties have disappeared. There is a general ferment in society and a sense of widespread uncertainty fills the ruling class and its ideologues with deep foreboding.

Donald Trump and world Image Gage SkidmorePolitical commentators speak with dread of the rise of something they call “populism”: a word that is as elastic as it is meaningless / Image: Gage Skidmore

Political commentators speak with dread of the rise of something they call “populism”: a word that is as elastic as it is meaningless. The use of such amorphous terminology merely signifies that those who use it have no idea what they’re talking about.

In strict, etymological terms, populism is merely a Latin translation of the Greek, “demagogy.” The term is applied with the same gusto that a bad painter plasters a wall with a thick coat of paint to cover up his mistakes. It is used to describe such a wide variety of political phenomena that it becomes entirely devoid of any real content.

The political and social ferment that is shaking the whole world to its foundations is only a symptom of a far deeper crisis: not the crisis of neoliberalism, which is only a particular form of capitalism, but a terminal crisis of the capitalist system itself.

This crisis is destined to last for quite some time. On the basis of capitalism, there is no solution to it. Governments will rise and fall and the pendulums will swing from left to right, and from right to left, reflecting an increasingly desperate search of the masses to find a way out of the crisis.

Francis Fukuyama 2 Image Fronteiras do PensamentoThis former liberal has lost all faith in the future of capitalism, but cannot see any viable alternative to it. His theoretical hopelessness is the expression of the hopelessness of the system itself / Image: Fronteiras do Pensamento

The so-called ‘populism’ is merely a reflection of this fact. The masses learn from experience, and have no other way in which to learn. The experience will be a very hard school, and the lessons will be bitterly learned. But in the end, they will be learned.

One thing is very clear. The bourgeoisie has no idea how to get out of this crisis. Its political and economic representatives display all the features of confusion and disorientation characteristic of a class that has outlived its historical usefulness, a class that has no future, and is dimly aware of the fact.

The apologists of capitalist liberalism complain bitterly about the rise of politicians like Donald Trump, who represent the antithesis of what is known as “liberal values.” For such people, this seems like a nightmare. They are hoping that they will wake up and find that it was all a dream, that tomorrow will see a better day. But for bourgeois liberalism, there will be no reawakening and no tomorrow.

The declarations of Francis Fukuyama, from that point of view, have considerable symptomatic importance. This former liberal has lost all faith in the future of capitalism, but cannot see any viable alternative to it. Like all the strategists of capital, he sees the future “as through a glass, darkly”. His theoretical hopelessness is the expression of the hopelessness of the system itself.

The future belongs, not to the effete and bankrupt bourgeoisie, that can see no further than the end of its own nose, but to the only really progressive force in society, that force which alone produces all the wealth of society: the working class. Through its own experience, that class will come to understand that the only way forward is to take the road of genuine socialism and workers’ power.

فوكوياما يعيد النظر في أفكاره: “الاشتراكية يجب أن تعود”

عندما سقط الاتحاد السوفياتي، قبل 26 عاما، عمت البهجة صفوف المدافعين عن الرأسمالية. لقد تحدثوا عن موت الاشتراكية والشيوعية. قالوا إن الليبرالية انتصرت، وبالتالي فإن التاريخ بلغ التعبير النهائي عنه في شكل الرأسمالية. كانت تلك هي اللحظة التي أطلق فيها يوشيهيرو فرنسيس فوكوياما فكرته الشهيرة (السيئة السمعة) بأن التاريخ قد انتهى. ما كان يقصده بذلك هو ما يلي: الآن بعد أن فشلت الاشتراكية (في شخص الاتحاد السوفياتي)، فإن النظام الاجتماعي والاقتصادي الوحيد الممكن هو الرأسمالية، أو “اقتصاد السوق الحرة” كما يفضل هو وآخرون تسميتها.

تنبأ المدافعون عن الرأسمالية بأن فوز الليبرالية سيفتح الباب أمام مستقبل مضمون من السلام والازدهار. تحدث الاقتصاديون عن توزيع الثروة بسلام. فالآن وقد انتهت الحرب الباردة مع الاتحاد السوفياتي، ستكون الحكومات الرأسمالية قادرة على إنفاق مبالغ طائلة من المال لبناء المدارس والمستشفيات والمنازل وكل الأشياء الأخرى التي هي الشرط الأساسي للوجود الحضاري. الصحاري ستُزْهِر والإنتاج سيرتفع والجنس البشري سيعيش بسعادة إلى الأبد. آمين.

قد تبدو 26 سنة وقتا طويلا في حياة الانسان، لكنها من وجهة نظر التاريخ ليست سوى لحظة عابرة. لكن رغم أنها ليست سوى لمحة سريعة من التاريخ البشري فقد تغير خلالها كل شيء. لقد تغيرت الأشياء إلى نقيضها. واليوم لم يعد يوجد حجر على حجر من التنبؤات الواثقة لتلك الأيام.

إعادة النظر

قبل 26 عاما، عندما سقط الاتحاد السوفياتي، عمت البهجة صفوف المدافعين عن الرأسمالية. / صورة: antaldaniel

لسوء حظ فرانسيس فوكوياما لا يمكن التخلص من التاريخ بسهولة، وها هو قد عاد الآن لينتقم منه. في عام 1992، وبسبب النشوة العامة التي كانت تشعر بها البرجوازية بفعل سقوط الاتحاد السوفياتي، نشر ذلك المنظر السياسي الأمريكي كتابا يحمل اسما مثيرا: “نهاية التاريخ والإنسان الأخير”.

نقرأ في ذلك الكتاب البيان التالي:

«إن ما نشهده … هو نهاية التطور الأيديولوجي للجنس البشري وعولمة الديمقراطية الليبرالية الغربية باعتبارها الشكل النهائي للحكومة البشرية».

لكن في مقال نُشر في مجلة the New Statesman، يوم 17 أكتوبر من هذا العام، نجده يغني أغنية مختلفة:

«ما قلته آنذاك [1992] هو أن إحدى المشاكل المتعلقة بالديمقراطية الحديثة هي أنها توفر السلام والازدهار، لكن الناس يريدون أكثر من ذلك… فالديمقراطيات الليبرالية لا تحاول حتى أن تحدد ماهية الحياة الجيدة، لقد تركت تلك المهمة للأفراد، الذين يشعرون بالغربة، بدون هدف، وهذا هو السبب في أن انضمامهم إلى تلك المجموعات الهوياتية يمنحهم بعض الشعور بالانتماء».

وقال إن: منتقديه «ربما لم يقرأوا حتى النهاية الكتاب [نهاية التاريخ]، أي القسم المتعلق بالإنسان الأخير، والذي يناقش في الحقيقة بعض التهديدات المحتملة التي تواجهها الديمقراطية».

فوكوياما، الذي كان مسؤولا حكوميا خلال عهد ريغان وبوش، كان في الأصل قريبا من حركة المحافظين الجدد. وهذا ما يفسر ربما حماسه الشديد لاقتصاد السوق والليبرالية. لكن التجربة القاسية جعلته يعيد النظر في أفكاره، إلى حد ما على الأقل.

لقد دعم فوكوياما حرب العراق، لكنه بحلول عام 2003، توصل إلى أنها كانت خطأً في السياسة الأمريكية. كما أنه أصبح ينتقد بعض الأفكار النيوليبرالية كالمطالبة بإلغاء القيود على القطاع المالي/ صورة: US Defence Dept

لقد دعم فوكوياما حرب العراق، لكنه بحلول عام 2003، توصل إلى أنها كانت خطأً في السياسة الأمريكية. كما أنه أصبح ينتقد بعض الأفكار النيوليبرالية كالمطالبة بإلغاء القيود على القطاع المالي، التي كانت مسؤولة جزئيا عن الانهيار الاقتصادي الكارثي في عام 2008. كما أنه منتقد لليورو، أو على الأقل “لطريقة خلقه الخاطئة”.

«هذه كلها سياسات وضعتها النخبة والتي تحولت إلى كارثة جسيمة، إن الانزعاج الذي يشعر به الناس العاديون له ما يبرره.»

كان ماركس على حق!

لتوضيح التغير الدرامي الذي عرفه فوكوياما، نعيد نشر بعض المقتطفات من مقال مجلة the New Statesman:

«لقد كان [كتاب] نهاية التاريخ توبيخا للماركسيين الذين اعتبروا الشيوعية بمثابة المرحلة الإيديولوجية النهائية للإنسانية. سألت فوكوياما كيف يفسر عودة اليسار الاشتراكي إلى الواجهة في المملكة المتحدة والولايات المتحدة؟ فأجاب: “كل هذا يتوقف على ما تعنيه بالاشتراكية. لا أعتقد أن الملكية العامة لوسائل الإنتاج ستنجح -باستثناء المجالات التي تكون فيها مطلوبة بوضوح، مثل المرافق العامة-.

أما إذا كنت تقصد برامج إعادة التوزيع التي تحاول تصحيح هذا الخلل الكبير الموجود في كل من الدخل والثروة، فنعم أنا لست فقط أعتقد أنها يمكن أن تعود، بل يجب أن تعود. إن هذه الفترة الممتدة، التي بدأت مع ريغان وتاتشر، والتي ترسخت فيها مجموعة معينة من الأفكار حول فوائد الأسواق غير المنظمة، كان لها تأثير كارثي من نواح كثيرة.

لقد أدت في مجال المساواة الاجتماعية إلى إضعاف النقابات العمالية، وإضعاف القدرة التفاوضية للعمال العاديين وصعود فئة طبقة أوليغارشية في كل مكان تقريبا والتي تمتلك سلطة سياسية مفرطة. أما فيما يتعلق بدور القطاع المالي، فإذا كان هناك أي شيء تعلمناه من الأزمة المالية، فهو أنه علينا تنظيم القطاع بشكل كبير لأنه سيتسبب في جعل الآخرين يدفعون الثمن. لقد أصبحت هذه الإيديولوجية مغروسة بعمق داخل منطقة اليورو، فقد كان التقشف الذي فرضته ألمانيا على جنوب أوروبا كارثيا”.

وما أثار دهشتي هو أن فوكوياما أضاف: “في هذا المنعطف الذي نمر منه، يبدو لي أن بعض الأشياء التي قالها كارل ماركس يتضح أنها صحيحة. لقد تحدث عن أزمة فائض الإنتاج… وأن العمال سيصيرون أكثر فقرا وأنه لن يكون هناك طلب كافٍ“». (التشديد من عندي، آ. و)

ومع ذلك فإنه من المهم أن يصل مثل هذا المدافع البارز عن الرأسمالية والمنتقد الشرس للاشتراكية الآن إلى الاعتراف بأن التحليل الماركسي للأزمة الرأسمالية كان صحيحا بشكل أساسي/ صورة: مفتوحة المصدر

فلنترك جانبا حقيقة أن فوكوياما يظهر عدم فهمه للاقتصاد الماركسي بخلطه بين فائض الإنتاج وبين الفكرة الكينزية القائلة بنقص الاستهلاك. فبعد كل تلك السنوات العديدة من غسيل الدماغ في مدرسة اقتصاد السوق الحرة، سيكون من المبالغ فيه أن نطلب منه أن يفهم ماركس.

ومع ذلك فإنه من المهم أن يصل مثل هذا المدافع البارز عن الرأسمالية والمنتقد الشرس للاشتراكية الآن إلى الاعتراف بأن التحليل الماركسي للأزمة الرأسمالية كان صحيحا بشكل أساسي، وأن السعي الجامح لاقتصاديات السوق الحرة نحو الربح أدى إلى إفقار جماعي من جهة، وإلى الهيمنة الكاملة على العالم من قبل الأوليغارشية الرأسمالية المتوحشة والفاحشة الثراء من جهة أخرى.

وهو محق في القول بأنه إذا لم يتم تصحيح ذلك، فإن هذه الأوليغارشية (سواء في الولايات المتحدة أو في أوروبا) “ستجعل الجميع يدفعون الثمن”. وهم في الواقع يفعلون ذلك بالفعل.

فوكوياما لا يقدم أي حل

إنها من الأمور التي تبعث على الارتياح بالطبع أن نرى أن حتى هذا المدافع الشرس عن الرأسمالية قد بدأ يفهم طبيعتها الرجعية. ومع ذلك فإن فوكوياما يتصرف مثل الطبيب الذي، بعد إعطاء قائمة شاملة للغاية لأعراض المرض الذي يعانيه مريضه، يفشل في تقديم وصفة لعلاج.

يدرك فوكوياما الحرمان الرهيب الناجم عن ويلات رأس المال المالي وفوضى نظام السوق. لقد توصل إلى وجهة النظر التي يشاطرها معه عدد متزايد من الناس بأنه يجب ممارسة الرقابة على الاقتصاد. لكنه لم يصل إلى استخلاص الاستنتاج الضروري، وهو أن الاحتكارات الضخمة والبنوك، التي تمارس ديكتاتورية وحشية على العالم بأسره يجب أن تنتزع بشكل كامل من أيدي الخواص.

إنه من ناحية يدعو إلى العودة إلى الاشتراكية. لكن المشكلة هي أنه لا يمتلك أي فكرة عما تعنيه الاشتراكية، إذ يقول إن “الملكية العامة لوسائل الإنتاج” لن تنجح (ما عدا بالنسبة للمرافق العمومية). لكن فوكوياما نفسه استنتج أن الملكية الخاصة لوسائل الإنتاج هي التي فشلت، أو بالأحرى أنها تعمل على حساب التقدم الاقتصادي والاجتماعي وتسبب البؤس والفقر والمآسي بالنسبة للغالبية العظمى من البشر.

كانت المضاربات الإجرامية والفساد وعدم كفاءة البنوك هي الأسباب المباشرة للأزمة المالية لعام 2008/ صورة: Lisa Norwood

لقد صار من الواضح الآن حتى لأكثر الناس فقدانا للبصيرة أن الاقتصاد الرأسمالي هو أفضل وصفة للفوضى والاضطراب والتبذير وسوء الإدارة والفساد على نطاق واسع. والأسوأ من ذلك هو أن الجشع الجامح من أجل الربح، والذي يعتبر القوة المحركة الوحيدة لهذا النظام، يدمر البيئة ويسمم الهواء الذي نتنفسه والطعام الذي نأكله والبحار والغابات التي تشكل أساس كل الحياة على هذا الكوكب.

إن المشاكل الجدية تتطلب حلولا جدية. لقد سبق للاشتراكي الإسباني، لارغو كاباييرو، أن قال ذات مرة إنه لا يمكنك علاج السرطان بحبة الأسبرين. يدافع فوكوياما عن تأميم المرافق العامة لأن ذلك “مطلوب بوضوح”. ونحن نتفق معه كليا. لكن لماذا ليس ذلك مطلوبا بالنسبة للبنوك، على سبيل المثال، والتي أثبتت عجزا كاملا عن إدارة ومراقبة كميات هائلة من أموال الناس بطريقة مسؤولة؟

كانت المضاربات الإجرامية والفساد وعدم كفاءة البنوك هي الأسباب المباشرة للأزمة المالية لعام 2008، والتي ما نزال نعيش تبعاتها. وفي النهاية صار هؤلاء المدافعون المتحمسون عن اقتصاد السوق الحر، الذين عارضوا أي اقتراح لتدخل الدولة في الاقتصاد، يحتاجون من الدولة إنقاذهم عن طريق ضخ كميات هائلة من المال العام في صناديقهم.

وبدلا من إرسالهم إلى السجن، الذي يستحقونه بشكل كامل، تمت مكافأتهم على عدم كفاءتهم بمبالغ هائلة من الميزانية العامة. هذا هو السبب في أننا نواجه اليوم عجزا عموميا هائلا، والذي يقال لنا إنه يجب أن ندفع لتقليصه. الفقراء يدعمون الأغنياء، في ما يشبه حكاية روبن هود لكن بشكل معكوس.

وفي الوقت نفسه يتم إعلامنا بأنه لا توجد أموال لدفع تكاليف تلك الأشياء غير الضرورية مثل المدارس والمستشفيات ورعاية المسنين والمعاشات التقاعدية والتعليم والطرق والمرافق الصحية، والتي هي كلها في حالة مزرية في بريطانيا وغيرها من بلدان العالم الغنية.

إذا كان هناك من قطاع اقتصادي يحتاج بشكل عاجل للتأميم فهو البنوك الكبرى. لماذا يرغب فوكوياما في إبقائها في يد الخواص؟ إذا اقتصر التأميم على المرافق العامة، فإن أهم قطاعات الاقتصاد ستبقى كما هي في أيدي نفس تلك الأوليغارشية التي ينتقدها فوكوياما. وبالتالي فإن هذا النوع من “الاشتراكية” لن يحل شيئا على الإطلاق.

من الواضح أن المشكلة الرئيسية هنا هي أن فوكوياما يخلط بين الاشتراكية وملكية الدولة وبين ذلك النظام البيروقراطي والشمولي الذي ساد في الاتحاد السوفياتي. إن ذلك النظام فشل بالتأكيد، وكان من المحتم عليه أن يفشل. لقد سبق لتروتسكي أن أشار إلى أن الاقتصاد المخطط المؤمم يحتاج إلى الديمقراطية تماما كما يحتاج الجسم البشري إلى الأوكسجين.

يجب ألا يكون هناك أي تناقض بين الاقتصاد المؤمم والمخطط وبين أكمل أنواع الديمقراطية. إن الاشتراكية الحقيقية تعتمد على مشاركة العمال الأكثر نشاطا، سواء في إعداد خطة الإنتاج أو في تنفيذها. لا نعني بهذا البروليتاريا الصناعية وحدها، بل كل الفئات المنتجة: العلماء والاقتصاديون والتقنيون والمديرون.

فبدون رقابة العمال وإدارتهم، سيتعرض الاقتصاد حتما للشلل وسيتوقف، وهو ما حدث بالضبط في الاتحاد السوفياتي. كما توفر لنا التجربة الفنزويلية دليلا أكثر وضوحا على مخاطر سيطرة البيروقراطية على الاقتصاد المؤمم.

الطريق الصيني؟

يبدو من المقال أن فوكوياما يعتقد أن البديل الوحيد المعقول للديمقراطية الليبرالية ليس الاشتراكية، بل هو نموذج رأسمالية الدولة المطبق في الصين:

يعتقد فوكوياما أن البديل الوحيد المعقول للديمقراطية الليبرالية ليس الاشتراكية، بل هو نموذج رأسمالية الدولة المطبق في الصين/ صورة: kremlin.ru

«يقول الصينيون صراحة بأن نظامهم متفوق لأنهم يستطيعون ضمان الاستقرار والنمو الاقتصادي على المدى البعيد بطريقة لا يمكن للديمقراطية تحقيقها… فإذا ما مرت 30 سنة أخرى وصاروا أكبر من الولايات المتحدة، وصار الصينيون أكثر ثراء واستمرت البلاد متماسكة، فإني سأقول إن لديهم حجة حقيقية».

لكنه حذر من أن “الاختبار الحقيقي للنظام” سيكون هو كيف سيتصرف في مواجهة أزمة اقتصادية.

يظهر ارتباك فوكوياما بشكل واضح للغاية من خلال هذه الأسطر. لقد كان تجريبيا انطباعيا قبل 26 عاما عندما كانت لديه أوهام في اقتصاد السوق لأنه كان يبدو وكأنه يتقدم باستمرار. وما يزال تجريبيا انطباعيا حتى اليوم، باستثناء أن إعجابه بالصين قد ازداد بنفس الدرجة التي تراجع بها إعجابه بالرأسمالية الغربية (“الليبرالية”).

صحيح أن الاقتصاد الصيني قد تقدم بسرعة خلال العقود القليلة الماضية . لكنه بعد أن دخل إلى الاقتصاد الرأسمالي العالمي فقد ورث كل تناقضات الرأسمالية. تعاني الصين الآن من فائض الإنتاج، مما أدى إلى انخفاض معدل النمو وزيادة البطالة.

لقد بلغ معدل النمو الرسمي للصين هذا العام 6,5%. لكن الصين تحتاج على الأقل إلى معدل نمو يساوي 8% سنويا لكي تتمكن فقط من استيعاب نمو السكان. وعلاوة على ذلك، وكما يلمح فوكوياما، فإن الاقتصاد الصيني عرضة للصدمات الاقتصادية الناشئة عن الاقتصاد العالمي، عندما يجد صعوبات متزايدة في تصريف فائض إنتاجه وهو في حرب تجارية مفتوحة مع أمريكا.

من المثير للسخرية أيضا أن ذلك الرجل الذي يدعي أنه مدافع عن الديمقراطية الليبرالية هو نفسه الذي صار ينظر إلى الصين كمثال، بالنظر إلى أن النظام الصيني غير معروف باحترامه لحقوق الإنسان والديمقراطية. إن الصين في الواقع تجمع بين بعض من أسوء سمات الشمولية الستالينية وبين أسوء سمات الرأسمالية. على طول هذا الطريق لا يوجد أمل لعمال الصين أو أي بلد آخر.

الرأسمالية تعني الحرب

لم يسبق للعالم أبدا أن عرف مثل هذه الأوضاع المضطربة التي يعرفها اليوم. في الواقع عندما كان الاتحاد السوفياتي موجودا، كان هناك استقرار نسبي يعكس التوازن النسبي للقوة بين روسيا والولايات المتحدة. لكن النظام العالمي القديم قد انهار، وليس هناك ما يأخذ مكانه.

لقد قطعنا بالتأكيد شوطا طويلا منذ صدور تلك التنبؤات الوردية بعالم من السلام والازدهار بعد سقوط جدار برلين. ليس للعالم الحقيقي اليوم أي علاقة على الإطلاق بذلك المنظور، بل على العكس من ذلك ما نشهده هو حروب تلو حروب. وبصرف النظر عن الصراعات المروعة التي تمزق بعض البلدان مثل العراق وسوريا واليمن، فقد كانت هناك أيضا سلسلة من الحروب الوحشية في أفريقيا.

تسببت الحرب الأهلية الرهيبة التي شهدتها الكونغو في ذبح ما لا يقل عن 5 ملايين من الرجال والنساء والأطفال. لم تتكبد الصحف الكبرى عناء نشر خبر تلك المجازر على صفحاتها الأولى. كما أن الرئيس ترامب مزق الصفقة مع إيران التي كانت تمنع ذلك البلد من امتلاك أسلحة نووية، وها هو الآن يعلن قراره بتمزيق الصفقة التي كان ريغان وغورباتشوف قد وقعاها للحد من البرامج النووية للولايات المتحدة وروسيا.

ويشعر فوكوياما بالقلق من احتمال اندلاع حرب بين الولايات المتحدة والصين، حيث قال:

«أعتقد أنه سيكون في منتهى الحماقة استبعاد ذلك الاحتمال، يمكنني التفكير في الكثير من السيناريوهات التي يمكن أن تبدأ بها مثل تلك الحرب. لا أعتقد أنها ستكون هجوما متعمدا من قبل دولة على أخرى -مثل غزو ألمانيا لبولندا في عام 1939- بل من المرجح أكثر أن تندلع على خلفية صراع محلي حول تايوان أو حول كوريا الشمالية، وربما نتيجة للتوتر المتزايد في بحر الصين الجنوبي».

بالرغم من أن التناقضات بين أمريكا والصين خطيرة للغاية، فلن نشهد حربا بينهما، وبدلا من ذلك فإننا سنشهد حروبا صغيرة طوال الوقت، حروبا “صغيرة” مثل تلك الحروب التي نراها في العراق وسوريا/ صورة: Министерство обороны Российской Федерации

من المؤكد أن التناقضات بين أمريكا والصين خطيرة للغاية. وتجد تعبيرها في الحرب التجارية التي أعلن عنها دونالد ترامب من طرف واحد، والتي يمكن أن تتصاعد بسهولة إلى شيء أكثر خطورة يمكن أن يهدد بإسقاط الاقتصاد العالمي كله. وفي المقابل فإن تصاعد النفوذ الصيني في آسيا، وعلى وجه الخصوص محاولتها السيطرة على البحار في تلك المنطقة، تعتبره الولايات المتحدة تهديدا لمصالحها.

هذا لا يعني أن الحرب العالمية الثالثة قد باتت وشيكة، كما يعتقد البعض. ففي ظل الظروف المعاصرة سيكون للحرب العالمية تأثير مدمر على جميع الأطراف. والرأسماليون لا يشنون الحروب من أجل المتعة، بل لغزو الأسواق والحصول على الأرباح ومجالات النفوذ. ولذلك فإنه على الرغم من أن السيد ترامب لا يتوقف عن نفث النيران في كل خطبه، فإن المواجهة الشاملة مستبعدة.

ومع ذلك فإننا سنشهد حروبا صغيرة طوال الوقت، حروبا “صغيرة” مثل تلك الحروب التي نراها في العراق وسوريا، والتي هي احتمال مروع بما فيه الكفاية في العالم المعاصر. لكن الحروب هي مجرد انعكاس للتناقضات المستعصية بين البلدان التي يجب عليها في ظل الرأسمالية أن تقاتل بعضها بعضا من أجل الأسواق مثلما تتقاتل كلاب جائعة على قطعة من اللحم. إن الرأسمالية تعني الحروب، ومن أجل تجنب الحروب من الضروري إزالة جذورها.

عجلة التاريخ

عندما دخلت جيوش هتلر المنتصرة باريس في عام 1940، جرت محادثة مثيرة بين ضابط في الجيش الألماني وضابط في الجيش الفرنسي. تفاخر الألماني بغطرسة الغازي المنتصر بأن أمته قد تمكنت أخيرا من الانتقام لهزيمتها المهينة في الحرب العالمية الأولى. التفت إليه الضابط الفرنسي وقال: “نعم، لقد دارت عجلة التاريخ، وسوف تدور مرة أخرى”.

بعد سنوات قليلة، تبين أن توقعه صحيح.

منذ سقوط الاتحاد السوفياتي دارت عجلة التاريخ مرة أخرى دورة كاملة. وعلى الرغم من تنبؤات منظري الرأسمالية، فقد عاد التاريخ للانتقام. فجأة صار يبدو أن العالم يعاني من ظواهر غريبة وغير مسبوقة تتحدى كل محاولات الخبراء السياسيين لتفسيرها.

لقد صوت الشعب البريطاني في استفتاء لمغادرة الاتحاد الأوروبي – وهي نتيجة لم يتوقعها أحد، والتي تسببت في موجات زلزالية على نطاق عالمي. لكن ذلك كان لا شيء مقارنة مع موجة تسونامي التي أثارتها نتيجة الانتخابات الرئاسية الأمريكية، والتي كانت نتيجة أخرى لم يتوقعها أحد، بمن في ذلك الرجل الذي فاز.

يتحدث المعلقون السياسيون برعب عن صعود شيء يسمونه “الشعبوية”، وهي كلمة مرنة بقدر ما هي بلا معنى. / صورة: Gage Skidmore

لقد كان انتخاب دونالد ترامب زلزالا آخر. إن هذه الأحداث تأكيد دراماتيكي للاضطراب الذي أصاب العالم بأسره. فبين عشية وضحاها اختفت اليقينيات القديمة. هناك سخط عام في المجتمع وشعور واسع النطاق بعدم اليقين والذي يغمر الطبقة الحاكمة ومنظريها بقلق شديد.

يتحدث المعلقون السياسيون برعب عن صعود شيء يسمونه “الشعبوية”، وهي كلمة مرنة بقدر ما هي بلا معنى. إن استخدام مثل هذه المصطلحات الغامضة يدل فقط على أن أولئك الذين يستخدمونها هم أناس ليست لديهم أدنى فكرة عما يتحدثون عنه.

ليست كلمة “الشعبوية” (Populism) من ناحية الاشتقاقية سوى ترجمة لاتينية للكلمة اليونانية “ديماغوجية” (Demagogy). ويتم استعمال المصطلح بنفس الحماس الذي يقوم به رسام فاشل بطلاء الجدار بطبقة سميكة لتغطية أخطائه. يستخدم لوصف أنواع متعددة من الظواهر السياسية حتى صار بدون أي محتوى حقيقي.

إن الغليان السياسي والاجتماعي الذي يهز العالم بأسره من أساسه ليس سوى أحد أعراض أزمة أعمق بكثير: ليست أزمة النيوليبرالية، التي هي فقط شكل خاص من أشكال الرأسمالية، بل الأزمة النهائية للنظام الرأسمالي نفسه.

من المتوقع أن تستمر هذه الأزمة لوقت طويل. وليس هناك من حل لها على أساس الرأسمالية. سوف تصعد الحكومات وتسقط، وسوف يتحول البندول من اليسار إلى اليمين ومن اليمين إلى اليسار، مما يعكس بحثا حثيثا من طرف الجماهير لإيجاد مخرج من الأزمة.

وليست الظاهرة التي تسمى بـ “الشعبوية” سوى انعكاس لهذه الحقيقة. إن الجماهير تتعلم من تجربتها، وليست لديها طريقة أخرى للتعلم. ستكون التجربة مدرسة صعبة للغاية، وسيتم تعلم الدروس بمرارة. لكن سيتم تعلمها في النهاية.

هناك شيء واحد واضح جدا، وهو أن البرجوازية ليست لديها أية فكرة عن كيفية الخروج من هذه الأزمة. يظهر ممثلوها السياسيون والاقتصاديون جميع ملامح الارتباك والضياع التي تميز طبقة استنفذت صلاحيتها التاريخية، طبقة لا مستقبل لها، وهي تدرك تماما هذه الحقيقة.

لقد فقد هذا الليبرالي السابق كل ثقة في مستقبل الرأسمالية، لكنه لا يستطيع أن يرى أي بديل ممكن لها. وهو مثله مثل جميع منظري الرأسمالية، ينظر إلى المستقبل بتشاؤم كبير. وليس يأسه النظري سوى تعبير عن يأس النظام الرأسمالي نفسه. / صورة: Fronteiras do Pensamento

يشتكي المدافعون عن الليبرالية الرأسمالية بمرارة من صعود سياسيين مثل دونالد ترامب، الذي يمثل نقيض ما يعرف بـ “القيم الليبرالية”. يبدو هذا بالنسبة لمثل هؤلاء الناس بمثابة كابوس. إنهم يأملون أن يستيقظوا ويجدوا أنه كان مجرد حلم، وأنهم في الغد سيشهدون يوما أفضل. لكن بالنسبة لليبرالية البرجوازية لن يكون هناك أي استيقاظ أو غد.

التصريحات التي أدلى بها فرانسيس فوكوياما، من وجهة النظر هذه، لها دلالة في منتهى الأهمية. لقد فقد هذا الليبرالي السابق كل ثقة في مستقبل الرأسمالية، لكنه لا يستطيع أن يرى أي بديل ممكن لها. وهو مثله مثل جميع منظري الرأسمالية، ينظر إلى المستقبل بتشاؤم كبير. وليس يأسه النظري سوى تعبير عن يأس النظام الرأسمالي نفسه.

إن المستقبل لا ينتمي إلى البرجوازية العاجزة والمفلسة، التي لا يمكنها أن ترى أبعد من أنفها، بل للقوة التقدمية الوحيدة في المجتمع، تلك القوة التي وحدها من ينتج كل ثروة المجتمع، أي: الطبقة العاملة. ومن خلال تجربتها الخاصة ستفهم هذه الطبقة أن السبيل الوحيد للتقدم هو السير في طريق الاشتراكية الحقيقية وسلطة العمال.

آلان وودز
24 أكتوبر 2018

الحبيب المجهول

غوصا فى اعماق النفس البشرية
إن كُل ما نحتاج إليه هو الكَتف الذي حين نستند إليه يُغنينا عن أحضان العالمين،
نحتاج إلي العين التي تنظر إلينا من الزوايا التي يُهملها الجميع،
نحتاج إلي من يسكن الأركان المهجوره في دواخلنا،
ويسرج قلبه لينير عتمة الغُربة وظُلمة السّفر وزحام الرّاحلين،
نحتاج إلي من يملأ الفراغات
ويُفرغ كُل الممتلئ باللا أشياء،
إلي من يتسع صدره حين تضيق الأماكن،
ويفتح قلبه حين توصد أبواب المساكن،
وتقوي قدماه حين لا نقوي علي السير،
وينبت بين ضلعونا أجنحة تطيرُ بنا حين تهِن الأقدام،
نحتاج إلي الرّاضين بأقمارنا،
الواقفين في الزواية الأخري من الكون يُراقبون جانبنا المُعتم
وهو في عيونهم أكثر ضياءاً من ضياء الشمس”

https://www.youm7.com/story/2011/3/4/7-%D9%88%D8%AB%D8%A7%D8%A6%D9%82-%D8%B1%D8%B3%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%AA%D9%83%D8%B4%D9%81-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D8%AC%D9%85-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D9%82%D9%8A%D9%82%D9%89-%D9%84%D8%AB%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%A9-%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%A6%D9%84%D8%A9-%D9%85%D8%A8%D9%80%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%83-%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AE%D8%B7%D8%B7/362558?fbclid=IwAR3gpZOqA2OEyhZ1Lq10Lc5NP9j5YNSxzKPQITrMlKV_iSLQrH0F_Y-qfPg

7 وثائق رسمية تكشف الحجم الحقيقى لثروة عائلة مبـارك والخطط السرية لنقلها بين بنوك سويسرا وبريطانيا

كان المبلغ ضخما لدرجة أنه صعق وسائل الإعلام العالمية، وأثار دهشة رجال الاقتصاد، كان المبلغ ضخما لدرجة أنه صدم أهل مصر المحروسة الذين اكتشفوا فجأة أن الرئيس الذى حكمهم لمدة 30 عاما، ظل يشكو خلالها من قلة الموارد وقلة الدخل، يكنز فى خزائن البنوك حوالى 70 مليار دولار أو 40 مليار دولار على أقل تقدير.

ألقت وسائل الإعلام العالمية بالقنبلة، وأعلنت عن ثروة الرئيس السابق مستخدمة بعض الوثائق والسندات المالية، وتركت الشعب المصرى يغلى من الغيظ والغضب على خيرات الوطن المنهوبة والمسلوبة، وارتفع شعار آخر، هو: الشعب يريد استعادة أمواله من الرئيس المخلوع، ولكن أين تلك الأموال؟ أين وضع الرئيس السابق تلك المليارات المنهوبة؟ هل وضعها فى خزائن تحت الأرض، أم فى بنوك سويسرا كما جرت العادة؟ أم أنه حولها إلى سبائك ذهب ويورانيوم وقطع من الأحجار القديمة؟ وهل تلاعب الرئيس بالحسابات البنيكة، واستخدم أسماء أولاده وأحفاده أو بعض أصدقائه وشركائه لإخفاء مليارات أخرى غير المعلن عنها؟.. كل هذه الأسئلة دارت فى الشارع المصرى، وأثارتها وسائل الإعلام العالمية باهتمام شديد مدعم بالوثائق أحيانا، ومعتمد على أرقام ونسب تم التنبؤ بها فى أغلب الوقت، وفى الوقت الذى تكفلت فيه بعض الدوائر الاقتصادية الكبرى فى العالم بحساب وتقدير حجم ثروة مبارك وعائلته وتقسيمها مابين أموال سائلة وعقارات، كان الناس فى مصر يبحثون عن الطرق التى يمكن من خلالها استعادة تلك المليارات المنهوبة، وأين توجد وهل توجد فى بنوك ودول يمكن أن تستجيب لطلبات استرجاع أموال هذا الوطن؟!

«اليوم السابع» جمعت تلك القائمة التى يسعى خلفها المصريون، قائمة ليست طويلة بأشهر وأهم البنوك فى العالم التى يختزن فيها الرئيس وعائلته المليارات المنهوبة، واكتشفت مفاجأة صادمة ومدهشة فى نفس الوقت، وهى تسعى خلف تلك القائمة، مفاجأة من النوع الذى يؤكد أن حجم ثروة عائلة مبارك، قد يتجاوز كثيرا ما تحدثت عنه وسائل الإعلام، والمفاجأة هنا كشفتها 7 وثائق من بنوك ومؤسسات مالية بريطانية وسويسرية، تؤكد أن الرئيس المصرى السابق قام بنفسه بتحويل مبلغ مالى يقدر بـ620 مليون دولار من حساب بريطانى إلى حساب سويسرى.

المستندات التى حصلت عليها «اليوم السابع»، ترصد بالتفصيل حركة سير هذه الثروة، وتنقلها من بنك إلى آخر، ومن اسم الرئيس السابق إلى أسماء أخرى، بشكل يكشف حالة الحذر والسرية التى كان الرئيس يتعمد استخدامهما للتغطية على حجم ثروته الحقيقى، كما تكشف أيضا عن الوسائل التى كان النظام يُهرب بها أمواله فى بنوك بالخارج، وتفجر مفاجأة أخرى، وهى أن بنوك سويسرا لم تكن القبلة الوحيدة للنظام المصرى، وإنما هناك بنوك فى دول أوروبية وعربية أخرى بجانب ثروات عقارية ومشاريع استثمارية.

المستند الأول، عبارة عن إيصال حفظ سندات صادر فى 17 ديسمبر 2009، لمجموعة كاليدونيا المصرفية، يكشف نصا: «نحن الموقعون أدناه كمسؤولين مفوضين بمصرف كاليدونيا، نؤكد مسؤولية البنك الكاملة فى حفظ السندات بقيمة اسمية 620 مليون دولار فى مكان آمن، وهذه شهادة الإيداع التى يصدرها بنك بركليز بموجب شهادة ضمان، والمستفيد «إيكو تريد إيه جى» وعنوانه 17 نوليسويد 9050 ابيرزيل – سويسرا».

المستند الثانى يزيح الستار، ويشرح المستند الأول، حيث يكشف أن محمد حسنى مبارك هو صاحب السندات ببنوك باركليز، والذى يقر: بصفتى المالك أنقل كل حقوق وفوائد الوديعة التى قيمتها 620 مليون دولار ببنك باركليز الدولى إلى السيد «بيتر سكويرس» الذى يحمل جواز سفر رقم 80117d 699 وعنوانه «كيس هاوس، نورتن هارتفيلد، ورسيستر- إنجلترا»، ويذكر مبارك فى المستند، أن المبلغ 620 مليون دولار نقله إلى السيد «بيتر سكويرس» بكامل إرادته وبشكل قانونى، والمستند محرر بتاريخ 17 ديسمبر 2009.

المستند الثالث يوضح قيام السيد «بيتر سكويرز» بنقل ملكية الرصيد المذكور أعلاه إلى «إيكو تريد إيه جى» بسويسرا، بشكل قانونى، ووفقا لعقد موقع، والذى بموجبه يمنح «إيكو تريد إيه جى» الحق وبشكل انفرادى الاستحواذ على هذا الرصيد.

المستند الرابع عبارة عن وثيقة ضمان الحقوق وفقا لميثاق بنك باركليز، وموقعة من حسنى مبارك بخصوص نفس الإيداع، أما المستند الخامس عبارة عن إذون خزانة.

المستند السادس عبارة عن إذون خزانة بنك باركليز، البنك التجارى الدولى بانجلترا، حيث يكشف عن استثمار بقيمة 7 مليارات و450 مليون دولار، وهى عبارة عن وثيقة حماية لحقوق خاصة بالمستثمرين من المواطنين الأصليين والأجانب، ممن يستثمرون أموالهم فى المؤسسات الخاصة والعامة فى لندن، والحفاظ على سريتهم، المستند السابع وهو المستند الذى يكشف إيداع «حسنى مبارك» بلاتين فى بنك سويسرا المتحد، بقيمة 10 مليارات دولار.

وحول هذه المستندات يقول الدكتور محمد محسوب أمين عام المجموعة القانونية لاسترداد ثروة مصر، وهى المجموعة التى تشكلت لاستعادة ثروة مصر بالداخل والخارج : أجرينا اتصالات بمحامين فى سويسرا وإنجلترا لمساعدتنا، وبالفعل تمكن هؤلاء المحامون من الحصول على هذه الوثائق، بجانب وثائق أخرى تكشف ثروات لأشخاص، وأضاف الدكتور محسوب بأن لديهم وثيقتين تكشفان جزءا مهما عن ثروة مبارك، من سبائك بلاتين، أو مبالغ مالية ضخمة، وأن المجموعة التى تضم عددا كبيرا من خيرة القانونيين فى مصر، تسعى بقوة لاسترداد ثروات مصر التى نُهبت طوال 30 عاما كاملة.

مكونات ثروة عائلة مبارك وأماكن تواجدها
الوثائق السبعة تعود بنا كما قلنا سابقا إلى تلك القيمة الرهيبة التى أعلنتها صحيفة الجارديان لثروة الرئيس السابق وعائلته، حينما أشارت إلى أنها تقدر بحوالى 70 مليار دولار، وهذه الأموال- حسب تقارير للجارديان البريطانية، وتقارير هيئات النزاهة والشفافية الدولية- موزعة بين عدد من البنوك السويسرية، والبريطانية، والأمريكية، والآخرى فى ملكية عقارات فى لندن، ونيويورك، ولوس أنجلوس، ومنتجعات فى شرم الشيخ، والغردقة، وأسهم فى بورصات لندن وأمريكا والخليج وبعض بورصات آسيا.. ويبدو حصرها صعبا فى ظل توزعها بين أموال سائلة وإيداعات وسبائك ومشروعات عقارية وقصور وعمارات فى مدن أمريكا وبريطانيا.

وحسب بلاغ لـ37 شخصية مصرية، فإن لدى مبارك أصولاً فى مانهاتن وبيفرلى هيلز، وأن ولديه علاء وجمال يملكان أصولاً بمليارات الدولارات. وأشاروا إلى ماقاله كريستوفر ديفيدسون، خبير الشرق الأوسط فى جامعة دورهام، إن مبارك وزوجته سوزان وولديه جمعوا الثروة، عبر عدد من مشاريع مشتركة مع مستثمرين أجانب وشركات، وإن مبارك كان يستفيد من صفقات البترول والسلاح، ويدخل أفراد أسرته شركاء فى بعض الشركات التى كانت تبدو فوق المساءلة القانونية أو الشعبية.

وقدرت مصادر اقتصادية ومالية ثروة جمال مبارك وحده بنحو 17 مليار دولار، موزعة على عدة مؤسسات مصرفية فى سويسرا وألمانيا والولايات المتحدة وبريطانيا، وإنه يملك حسابا جاريا سريا ببنك «يو بى إس» السويسرى وحسابا آخر ببنك «آى سى إم»، وتتوزع ثروته عبر صناديق استثمارية عديدة فى أمريكا وبريطانيا، ومنها مؤسسة «بريستول آند ويست» العقارية البريطانية، ومؤسسة «فاينانشال داتا سيرفس»، التى تدير صناديق الاستثمار المشترك.

كما أن سوزان مبارك تراوحت ثروتها الشخصية بين 3 و5 مليارات دولار تحتفظ بأغلبها فى بنوك أمريكية، وعقارات فى عدة عواصم أوروبية مثل لندن وفرانكفورت ومدريد وباريس ودبى، حصّلتها من التدخلات الشخصية لصالح مستثمرين ورجال أعمال.

وتقدر ثروة علاء مبارك داخل وخارج مصر بـ8 مليارات دولار، منها ممتلكات عقارية فى كل من لوس أنجلوس وواشنطن ونيويورك، حيث يمتلك عقارات تعدت قيمتها 2 مليار دولار فى شارع روديو درايف، أحد أرقى شوارع العالم، وفى منهاتن بنيويورك، وطائرتين شخصيتين ويختا ملكيا تفوق قيمته 70 مليون دولار.

أما ثروة مبارك الأب فقدرت عام 2001 بحوالى 10 مليارات دولار، أغلبها أموال سائلة فى بنوك أمريكية وسويسرية وبريطانية مثل بنك سكوتلاند الإنجليزى، وكريديت سويس السويسرى، و«سويس» و«يو بى أس» بسويسرا، وبنك «أسكتلندا» البريطانى التابعين لمجموعة لويدز المصرفية، وتكونت هذه الأموال حسب الجارديان من فرض شراكة جبرية على الشركات المحلية والأجنبية.

وقالت مصادر إن مبارك كان يحصل على مئات الملايين من الدولارات من صفقات استثمارية، ومعظم تلك الأرباح كانت تحول إلى حسابات سرية فى بنوك، أو يتم استثمارها فى أصول وفنادق. وكانوا يسمحون بإقامة شركات تمثل ستارا يكون فيه المستثمر شريكا بالنصف، بينما يذهب نصف الأرباح إلى حسابات مبارك وعائلته فى الخارج.

وأشارت الجارديان إلى سلسلة من الشركات الغربية المهمة التى دخلت فى شراكة مع عائلة الرئيس مبارك، والتى تحقق مكاسب تقدر بنحو 15 مليون دولار سنوياً. كما أن فنادق وأراضى فى مدينة شرم الشيخ السياحية المملوكة لآل مبارك تعتبر أحد مصادر ثروة العائلة.
و قالت صحيفة «صنداى تليجراف» البريطانية إن مرتب مبارك كرئيس يبلغ 808 دولارات فقط شهريًا خلال عامى 2007 و2008 ولا يمكن أن يكون هذه الثروة. وأشارت إلى أنه كونها من تعاقدات عسكرية، وأن أبناءه كانوا يحصلون على نسب ضخمة من المشروعات الاستثمارية فى مقابل منح أصحاب هذه المشروعات احتكارا فى السوق، وبعضها من الفساد الحكومى وبيع الشركات المملوكة للدولة وأراضيها.

وحسب تقدير الخبير الاقتصادى الدكتور أحمد النجار، فإن جزءا كبيرا من ثروة عائلة مبارك، تم الحصول عليها بطرق غير مشروعة. وبدأت بشراء ديون مصر، ثم شراء الأراضى والتوسط فى برنامج الخصخصة. كما أن جمال ورجاله اشتروا الأراضى بأثمان رخيصة، ومنها أراضى الإسماعيلية، التى تحولت إلى منطقة اقتصادية مهمة، وارتفعت أسعارها وتضاعفت عشرات المرات.

ثروة جمال مبارك جمعت من خلال شراء سندات من ديون مصر فى الثمانينيات من القرن العشرين. وقدمها مبارك على أنها تضحية للوطن، وكانت ديون مصر تباع آنذاك فى الأسواق الدولية بـ35% من قيمتها، واشترى جمال مبارك القيم المالية، وكان متأكدا من الحصول على 100% من الحكومة، مستغلا نفوذ والده.

وبعد أن ترك جمال وظيفته كمدير تنفيذى فى بنك أوف أميركا بلندن منتصف التسعينيات، انخرط فى علاقة عمل مع البنوك المصرية. وأصبح يملك جمال حصة كبيرة فى أسهم الشركات العاملة فى قطاعات الاقتصاد، من البترول إلى الزراعة إلى السياحة وحتى الإعلام.
بعض الأسهم المالية لجمال مبارك جاءت من خلال علاقاته مع المجموعة المالية «إى إف جى هيرمس» أكبر مصرف استثمارى فى مصر. والتى اعلنت فى بيان لها موقفه المالى لعام 2010: إن رأسمالها 8 مليارات دولار.

واستحوذت شركات هيرمس على صفقات الخصخصة، وشراء الشركات والمصانع الحكومية التى تم بيعها ضمن برنامج الخصخصة المصرى الذى يعتقد أنه وظف لمصلحة رجال الأعمال المتنفذين.

تعود علاقة جمال بهيرمس إلى منتصف التسعينيات بعد مغادرته لبنك أوف أميركا فى بريطانيا وعودته إلى مصر، وتأسيسه شركة ميد إنفيست المملوكة لصندوق دولى للأوراق المالية فى قبرص هوشركة بوليون المحدودة. هيرمس قالت إن جمال مبارك يملك نصف شركة بوليون، ومعه شقيقه علاء.

وتمتلك بوليون 35% من الأسهم المالية الخاصة التى تصل قيمتها إلى 919 مليون دولار تحت إدارتها، طبقا للرئيس التنفيذى لهيرمس حسن هيكل. ويستثمر الصندوق فى أسهم النفط والغاز والصلب والأسمنت والمواد الغذائية والماشية.

الأسبوع الماضى فشلت أسرة الرئيس السابق فى بيع أملاكها فى منتجع الجولف بمدينة شرم الشيخ. وانكشف الأمر عندما اصطحب أحد المسؤولين الكبار بمحافظة جنوب سيناء معه رجل أعمال إيطالى من شرم الشيخ، وذهب لتوثيق عقد بيع 53% من المنتجع الذى تملكه أسرة مبارك، لكن موظفى الشهر العقارى بجنوب سيناء رفضوا، لأن القانون يقضى بعدم بيع أكثر من 49% من المشروعات للأجانب. وكشف فشل الصفقة جزءا من ثروة عائلة مبارك العقارية فى شرم الشيخ. وهناك تقارير عن منتجعات أخرى فى شرم الشيخ والغردقة بل إن هناك أنباء ترددت قبل سنوات عن شراكة مجهولة مع بعض رجال المافيا الإيطالية فى مشروعات سياحية قرى ومنتجعات لم تكن تحقق أرباحا، وتردد أنها كانت واجهات لغسل وتحويل الأموال للخارج، بما قد يعنى وجود شراكة بين مسؤولين مصريين وأعضاء المافيا الإيطالية وهو مايفسر تجميد قانون مكافحة غسيل الأموال.

فيما قد يشير إلى أن بعض المشروعات الواجهات كانت تعمل فى عمليات نقل الأموال، وأن بعض رجال الأعمال كانوا بمثابة ستار، وأن مبارك كان يضمن تدفق الملايين إلى حساباته فى الخارج من خلال هؤلاء.

وتتردد أسماء لرجال أعمال كانوا على علاقة بمبارك، وكانت لهم أنشطتهم التى فوق المساءلة، ومنهم حسين سالم أكبر رجل أعمال فى بطانة مبارك، وجمع بينهما تحالف السلطة والثروة طوال 30 عاماً. ويبدو أن حسين سالم كان شريكا فى صفقات مبارك، وكان أيضا ستارا والدليل أن أحدا لم يمس حسين سالم الذى ورد اسمه فى تصدير الغاز لإسرائيل فهو يملك حوالى 65% من أسهم شركة «EMG» المسؤولة عن تصدير الغاز، بينما يملك رجل الأعمال الإسرائيلى يوشى ميمان 25% منها، ويتبقى نسبة 10% مملوكة للحكومة، وورد اسم حسين سالم فى صفقات السلاح، وكان المستفيد الأول من الاتفاق السرى لتصدير الغاز إلى إسرائيل. الذى يبدو أنه كان جزءا من عمليات نقل الأموال للخارج لصالح مبارك، وطبعا لصالح حسين سالم نفسه الذى كان يسيطر على السياحة فى شرم الشيخ وخليج نعمة، ويمتلك منتجع «موفنبيك جولى فيل»، وسلسلة فنادق بالأقصر، وشركة مياه فى جنوب سيناء، فضلاً عن استثمارات فى الساحل الشمالى. وهو الذى أقام قصرا كبيرا بديلاً عن قصر المنتزه فى الاسكندرية، وأهداه إلى مبارك. فهل كان القصر جزءا من حقوق مبارك المعروفة فى شركات سالم؟.

وكان حسين سالم أعلن أنه تم تكليفه بإنشاء الشركة تحت إشراف الأجهزة الأمنية وفى إطار موافقة مجلس الوزراء، لكن لم يفصح أحد عن الذى كلفه بإنشاء تلك الشركة، ويتردد أنها غطاء لأعماله ولنقل الأموال للخارج بواسطة الشركاء الإسرائيليين.

وكان حسين قد اعترف عام 1983 بأنه مذنب فى استغلال علاقته بالرئيس، لربح صفقة لشحن معدات عسكرية من البنتاجون إلى مصر بقيمة 8 ملايين دولار. وعلى الرغم من إدانته، فإن أعماله ازدهرت فى عهد مبارك، كما أنه يدير أحد أكثر الأعمال نجاحا.
ومن رجال الأعمال الذين يحتمل أن يكونوا شركاء لمبارك، يأتى اسم إبراهيم كامل، عضو لجنة السياسات بالحزب الوطنى، وأحد الموالين لمبارك، وأحد الذين ساندوا مشروع جمال مبارك للتوريث، ومن تتبع أوراق التحالف، نكتشف أنه كان شريكا اقتصاديا أيضا. وكان يعلن تحديه العلنى لإقامة المحطة النووية فى الضبعة، وبدا أنه يتحدى مبارك شخصيا، لكن بدا أن الأمر كان توزيع أدوار لأحد الشركاء الاقتصاديين أوالذى كان يحظى بحماية من أى اقتراب.
إبراهيم أبوالعيون أحمد الكامل، صاحب شركة أكاتو أروماتيك جروب، وهى شركة مساهمة، مقرها فى مصر وفرنسا وألبانيا وروسيا وأوغندا، وهو أيضا رئيس البنك المصرى البريطانى، وصاحب شركات عقارية وصناعية وسياحية للبناء والتمويل، ويملك شركة اسيروكوب العالمية للطيران، وهو صاحب أول شركة مصرية لصناعة طائرات الركاب ويحتفظ إلى جانب ذلك بمنصب رئيس المجلس المصرى الأمريكى لرجال الأعمال، وهو أيضا نائب رئيس بنك هونج كونج. فهل كان إبراهيم كامل واجهة لأعمال عائلة مبارك؟ خاصة أن كامل له علاقات متشعبة مع روسيا وأفريقيا.

وتشير بعض المصادر إلى أن التحويلات كانت تتم عن طريق شركات رجال الأعمال المحميين، وكان هؤلاء محل ثقة، بحيث لا يمكنهم التلاعب، خاصة مع تحرير أوراق قانونية عن طريق كبار دور المحاماة فى أوروبا تضمن لعائلة مبارك حقهم فى الأموال التى يتم تحويلها إلى بنوك أوروبا وأمريكا وتقدر بعض المصادر عدد رجال الأعمال والسياسيين الذين خدموا مع مبارك أو كانوا ضمن تحالف السلطة والثروة بحوالى 120 شخصية كان بعضهم يعمل ضمن مشروعات الستارالرئاسى ويحولون للرئيس ولأنفسهم.

ولم يكن مبارك وحده وعائلته هم من ينزحون المليارات يوميا، لكن بالطبع كان فريق المافيا المحيط بالعائلة من السياسيين ورجال أعمال السلطة شركاء فى عملية النزح عبر شركات معلنة ومشروعات سياحية وصناعية بما يشبه المافيا.

كان الحديث عن الأموال العربية المهربة للخارج معروفا طوال العقود الماضية ومنذ السبعينيات، وقدرت الأموال العربية فى الخارج عام 2003 بحوالى 200 مليار دولار، لكن الأرقام الحالية تصل بها إلى 3 تريليونات دولار، وأحيانا تقفز بالرقم إلى 4 تريليونات، بما يعنى أن عمليات النزح استمرت بشكل يومى. وإذا كان الرئيس مبارك تولى الحكم 30 عاما فإن منها أكثر من 20 عاما شهدت عمليات نقل الثروات للخارج إلى بنوك سويسرا ولندن والولايات المتحدة، فضلا عن دول آسيوية وخليجية.

ثروة آل مبارك، تم توزيعها بين إيداعات مالية، لكن الأخطر هو إدخالها فى مشروعات عقارية مختلفة مثل القصور والفيلات التى كانت تشترى بأسمائهم أو أسماء معاونيهم وذكرت «واشنطن بوست» الأمريكية أن جزءا من هذه الثروة تم تجميدها فى عقارات يمتلكها مبارك وأبناؤه فى مصر ولندن ولوس أنجلوس ونيويورك. وقالت إن جمال يمتلك منزلاً بأحد الأحياء الفاخرة بلندن، حيث تبلغ قيمة المنازل هناك نحو 20 مليون دولار، أما عن بقية الثروة، فقالت إن أسرة الرئيس المخلوع تملك مليارات من الدولارات مخبأة ببنوك أجنبية وحسابات خارج البلاد.

ونشرت الصحف البريطانية تقارير عن امتلاك جمال مبارك قصورا فى لندن منها قصر سرّب جمال أنه باعه، لكن دوائر التسجيل العقارى فى لندن أكدت أن سجلات المنزل لم يجر عليها أى تغيير، فضلا عن مشروعات سياحية وعقارية ضمن مشروعات حسين سالم وعز وأبو العينين، ومنها المنتجع الذى تسربت أخبار فشل صفقة بيعه الأسبوع الماضى.
ورجح مراقبون أنها ربما فى شكل عقارات أو يخوت، مضيفاً: «أرصدة مبارك على الأرجح فى مناطق تزورها عائلته، وتشعر فيها بالارتياح مثل لندن على سبيل المثال أو سنغافورة أو دبى، وربما يمتلك عقارات فى الولايات المتحدة وسويسرا».

وقالت مصادر اقتصادية إن المملكة المتحدة والولايات المتحدة وسويسرا هى الدول الثلاث الرئيسية المعروفة بغسل الأموال، فضلا عن الملاذات السرية، مثل جيرسى أو جزر كايما فى الكاريبى. وتتركز غالبيتها فى أرصدة فى بنوك بريطانية وسويسرية وعقارات فى لندن ونيويورك ولوس أنجليس، فضلاً عن امتلاكها مساحات راقية واسعة فى مدينة شرم الشيخ على شواطئ البحر الأحمر, وترجح مصادر اقتصادية أن مبارك وعائلته كانوا يديرون أموالهم من خلال حسابات بنكية فى سويسرا تتوزع بين أربعة بنوك، وبعض هذه الحسابات كان بكود شخصى لأسمائهم وبعضها بأسماء الحلفاء والمعاونين.

وقالت الجارديان «إن معظم هذه الأموال كانت ترسل إلى خارج مصر، وتودع فى حسابات بنكية سرية، ويتم استثمارها لاحقاً فى شراء بيوت وفنادق راقية». وقالت إن لمبارك أملاكاً فى مانهاتن وبيفرلى هيلز ووصفت جمال وعلاء مبارك أنهما من أصحاب المليارات.
وقالت أمانى جمال، أستاذ العلوم السياسة فى جامعة برنستون الأمريكية، فى مداخلة مع تليفزيون «إيه بى سى» الأمريكى «إن مبارك استغل الموارد العامة للبلاد لتحقيق مكاسب شخصية».

ويقول كريستوفر دافيتسون، خبير الشرق الأوسط فى جامعة دورهام «إن معظم الدول الخليجية تطلب من المستثمرين الأجانب منح الشريك المحلى نسبة 51% من الأسهم للبدء فى المشروع. وفى مصر فإن هذا الرقم وصل إلى 20%، وهذه النسبة تعطى السياسيين والحلفاء المقربين مصدراً ضخماً للأرباح، دون أى مصاريف أولية مع مخاطر قليلة.

لماذا يفضل الأثرياء بنوك سويسرا
الحديث عن ثروة عائلة مبارك المهولة ينقلنا إلى حيث توجد فكرة الخزائن السرية أو البنوك السرية فى دولة سويسرا التى تشتهر فى الشارع المصرى والعربى عموما، أنها مستقر أموال الوطن المنهوبة، وملجأ رجال الأعمال والسلطة الفاسدين، لما توفره بنوكها من حماية وسرية للأموال الهاربة من الوطن، والنظر إلى حجم الودائع والثروات الإجمالية التى تحتضنها البنوك السويسرية فى الحسابات أوصناديق الاستثمار وصناديق تستثمر لحساب دول وحكومات، يصيبك بالخضة أو الدهشة حيث يبلغ إجمالى الرقم حوالى 4.3 تريليون دولار، حسب ما أكدت أحدث بيانات البنك المركزى السويسرى، ثلثاها تقريبا ودائع ومدخرات أجنبية من بينها ثروات لمسؤولين ورجال أعمال مصريين، تقدر وفقا لما يتردد حاليا بين 200 و207 مليارات دولار، أشهرها- كما ذكرت تلك التقارير- أفراد عائلة مبارك وأصدقاؤه المقربون وأصهاره مثل حسين سالم، ومجدى راسخ، وعائلة الجمال، وعدد كبير من رجال السلطة السابقين والحاليين ورجال الأعمال الذين عملوا فى السياسة مؤخرا.

ويقبل الرؤساء والمسؤولون ورجال الأعمال على إيداع أموالهم وثرواتهم فى المصارف السويسرية بفضل مبدأ حماية وصيانة سرية حسابات العملاء الذى ينظمه قانون البنوك الذى صدر عام 1934، وهو سبب استقطاب أوعية تلك البنوك الإدخارية، لثروات وأموال العالم،، وعلى الرغم من ذلك لا تعد سرية حسابات العملاء والمودعين، مطلقة ومن الممكن بناء على حكم قضائى، رفع هذه السرية.

ويبلغ عدد البنوك السويسرية المرخصة 327 بنكاً لتقديم الخدمات المصرفية العادية، تحت رقابة «هيئة الرقابة السويسرية على أسواق المال والنقد» ويعتبر بنكا «يو بى إس» و«كريدى سويس»، أكبر بنكين فى سويسرا، ويستحوذان على نحو 50% من إجمالى الودائع وأحدهما يتردد أنه يحتوى على أموال الرئيس السابق حسنى مبارك.

ووفقا لقانون صدر مؤخرا فى الاتحاد الأوروبى يتم تجميد حسابات أى زعيم سابق أو مسؤول أو رجل أعمال يشتبه فى أنها متحصلة من مصادر أعمال ناتجة عن فساد أو غسيل أموال أو تمويل أنشطة إرهابية.

وتكشف مؤسسة النزاهة المالية الدولية، فى تقرير حديث لها بعنوان «التدفقات المالية غير المشروعة من الدول النامية» عن أن حجم تدفقات الأموال غير المشروعة والفساد الحكومى فى مصر بلغ 57 مليار دولار، ما يعادل 336,3 مليار جنيه خلال الفترة بين عامى 2000 و2008، واحتلت مصر المرتبة 21 من أصل 126 دولة.

وذكر التقرير أن حجم التدفقات المالية غير المشروعة للخارج بلغ خلال سنوات 2006 و2007 و2008، 13 و13.6 و7.4 مليار دولار على التوالى.

ويأتى تصنيف مصر كأول مصدر للأموال غير المشروعة فى الشرق الأوسط وشمال أفريقيا، بعد 4 دول خليجية نفطية هى السعودية، والإمارات والكويت، وقطر، واحتلت الصين رأس القائمة بــ241.777 مليار دولار سنويا، تودع فى بنوك سويسرا والولايات المتحدة الأمريكية وبريطانيا.

ورصد التقرير، الذى جاء فى 78 صفحة، إجمالى هذه الأموال بحجم 1.26 تريليون دولار عالمياً، ويعتمد التقرير على بيانات من البنك الدولى وصندوق النقد الدولى، وأرجعت المصادر التحويلات غير المشروعة إلى حالة عدم الاستقرار السياسى، وحوكمة الشركات والشفافية فى المعاملات المالية، والرشاوى والتلاعب بالأسعار، والتهرب من الضرائب والتهريب وتداول العقارات والأسهم بدون غطاء مالى.

بعد ساعتين فقط من قرار الرئيس حسنى مبارك بالتنحى، يوم 11 فبراير، جاء قرار الحكومة السويسرية بتجميد الأصول والأموال الخاصة به وبحاشيته؟
تحتوى البنوك السويسرية على أرصدة وودائع وصناديق استثمار تقدر نسبتها بـــ 27% من إجمالى ثروات العالم، وذكر موقع حكومى سويسرى على شبكة الإنترنت أن السلطات السويسرية المسؤولة أعادت ما قيمته 1.7 مليار فرنك سويسرى، ما يعادل 1.8 مليار دولار، من ثروات رؤساء دول سابقين أطاحت بهم شعوبهم.

خلال الــ20 عاما الماضية، تمت إعادة ثروات وأموال من البنوك السويسرية، منها 700 مليون دولار للجنرال سانى أباتشا، رئيس نيجيريا الأسبق، فى الفترة من 1993 إلى 1998، و683 مليون دولار من رئيس الفلبين الأسبق فردناند ماركوس، و93 مليون دولار، من أرصدة فلاديميرو مونتسينو، رئيس بيرو الأسبق.

ووفقا لمسؤول حكومى سويسرى، فإن الحكومة السويسرية تنتظر حاليا، بيانات ومعلومات مصرفية من البنوك والمؤسسات المالية السويسرية عن الحسابات المصرفية الخاصة بالرئيس السابق حسنى مبارك، ومجموعة من رجال الأعمال المسؤولين الحكوميين المصريين السابقين.

ووفقا لستيفن بيندر، المدير الإدارى، لمؤسسة أبحاث «ماى بريفت بنانكينج» السويسرية، فإن ثلث إجمالى الثروات الخاصة بالنخب الموجودة بالشرق الأوسط وأفريقيا، والبالغة إجمالاً 1.5 تريليون دولار، توجد فى سويسرا، منها 225 مليار دولار متحصلة بطرق غير قانونية، موزعة على الدول الغربية إجمالا.

يقول مسؤول مصرفى مصرى كبير، رفض نشر اسمه، إن عمليات تحويل الأموال والثروات الخاصة برجال أعمال ومسؤولين حاليين وسابقين مصريين، من البنوك المحلية المصرية أو فروع البنوك الأجنبية، العاملة فى السوق المصرفى المصرى، فى نفس معدلاتها السابقة قبل ثروة 25 يناير، مؤكدا أن أصول الثروات المتحصلة من أنشطة تجارية أو أية أنشطة أخرى، تتواجد خارج مصر فى البنوك السويسرية.

ويرجع محمد عشماوى، رئيس مجلس إدارة المصرف المتحد، الإقبال على إيداع الأموال والثروات فى حسابات بنكية وصناديق استثمار بالبنوك السويسرية إلى خصوصية الحالة السياسية والاقتصادية، التى تتمتع بها سويسرا.

ويعتبر رئيس المصرف المتحد، معدل الفائدة التى تمنحه البنوك السويسرية على الودائع والمدخرات من أقل معدلات الفائدة التى تمنحها البنوك فى العالم، ويبلغ 0.25%.
ويوضح عشماوى أن مصدر الحصول على الأموال بالطرق المشروعة هو القرار الذى يؤثر على إيداع أى فرد لأمواله فى البنوك السويسرية من عدمه وبالتالى، لن يؤثر إقرار القانون الجديد بشأن تجميد البنوك السويسرية لأية أرصدة فى حسابات مصرفية، ناتجة عن أعمال مشبوهة ونشاطات غسيل الأموال، وبشكل لا يؤثر على حرية حركة هذه الأموال بين الحسابات المصرفية للبنوك المختلفة حول العالم.

The Real Bombshell of the Impeachment Hearings

The most shocking thing about the House impeachment hearings to this point is not a “smoking gun” witness providing irrefutable evidence of quid pro quo. It’s not that President Trump may or may not have asked the Ukrainians to look into business deals between then-Vice President Biden’s son and a Ukrainian oligarch.

The most shocking thing to come out of the hearings thus far is confirmation that no matter who is elected President of the United States, the permanent government will not allow a change in our aggressive interventionist foreign policy, particularly when it comes to Russia.

Even more shocking is that neither Republicans nor Democrats are bothered in the slightest!

Take Lt. Colonel Vindman, who earned high praise in the mainstream media. He did not come forth with first-hand evidence that President Trump had committed any “high crimes” or “misdemeanors.” He brought a complaint against the President because he was worried that Trump was shifting US policy away from providing offensive weapons to the Ukrainian government!

He didn’t think the US president had the right to suspend aid to Ukraine because he supported providing aid to Ukraine.

According to his testimony, Vindman’s was concerned over “influencers promoting a false narrative of Ukraine inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency.”

“Consensus views of the interagency” is another word for “deep state.”

Vindman continued, “While my interagency colleagues and I were becoming increasingly optimistic on Ukraine’s prospects, this alternative narrative undermined US government efforts to expand cooperation with Ukraine.”

Let that sink in for a moment: Vindman did not witness any crimes, he just didn’t think the elected President of the United States had any right to change US policy toward Ukraine or Russia!

Likewise, his boss on the National Security Council Staff, Fiona Hill, sounded more like she had just stepped out of the 1950s with her heated Cold War rhetoric. Citing the controversial 2017 “Intelligence Community Assessment” put together by then-CIA director John Brennan’s “hand-picked” analysts, she asserted that, “President Putin and the Russian security services aim to counter US foreign policy objectives in Europe, including in Ukraine.”

And who gets to decide US foreign policy objectives in Europe? Not the US President, according to government bureaucrat Fiona Hill. In fact, Hill told Congress that, “If the President, or anyone else, impedes or subverts the national security of the United States in order to further domestic political or personal interests, that is more than worthy of your attention.”

Who was Fiona Hill’s boss? Former National Security Advisor John Bolton, who no doubt agreed that the president has no right to change US foreign policy. Bolton’s the one who “explained” that when Trump said US troops would come home it actually meant troops would stay put.

One by one, the parade of “witnesses” before House Intelligence Committee Chairman Schiff sang from the same songbook. As US Ambassador to the EU, Gordon Sondland put it, “in July and August 2019, we learned that the White House had also suspended security aid to Ukraine. I was adamantly opposed to any suspension of aid, as the Ukrainians needed those funds to fight against Russian aggression.”

Meanwhile, both Democrats and Republicans in large majority voted to continue spying on the rest of us by extending the unpatriotic Patriot Act. Authoritarianism is the real bipartisan philosophy in Washington.


Copyright © 2019 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.

TREATY OF PEACE WITH TURKEY SIGNED AT LAUSANNE JULY 24, 1923 THE CONVENTION RESPECTING THE REGIME OF THE STRAITS AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS SIGNED AT LAUSANNE

THE BRITISH EMPIRE, FRANCE, ITALY, JAPAN, GREECE, ROUMANIA and the SERB-CROAT-SLOVENE STATE,

of the one part,

and TURKEY,

of the other part; Being united in the desire to bring to a final close the state of war which has existed in the East since 1914,
Being anxious to re-establish the relations of friendship and commerce which are essential to the mutual well-being of their respective peoples,
And considering that these relations must be based on respect for the independence and sovereignty of States,
Have decided to conclude a Treaty for this purpose, and have appointed as their Plenipotentiaries:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND AND OF THE BRITISH DOMINIONS BEYOND THE SEAS, EMPEROR OF INDIA:
The Right Honourable Sir Horace George Montagu Rumbold, Baronet, G.C.M.G., High Commissioner at Constantinople;
THE PRESIDENT OF THE FRENCH REPUBLIC:
General Maurice Pelle, Ambassador of France, High Com missioner of the Republic in the East, Grand Officer of the National Order of the Legion of Honour;
HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF ITALY:
The Honourable Marquis Camillo Garroni, Senator of the Kingdom, Ambassador of Italy, High Commissioner at Constantinople, Grand Cross of the Orders of Saints Maurice and Lazarus, and of the Crown of Italy;
M. Giulio Cesare Montagna, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at Athens, Commander of the Orders of Saints Maurice and Lazarus, Grand Officer of the Crown of Italy;
HIS MAJESTY THE EMPEROR OF JAPAN:
Mr. Kentaro Otchiai, Jusammi, First Class of the Order of the Rising Sun, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary at Rome;
HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE HELLENES:
M. Eleftherios K. Veniselos, formerly President of the Council of Ministers, Grand Cross of the Order of the Saviour;
M. Demetrios Caclamanos, Minister Plenipotentiary at London, Commander of the Order of the Saviour;
HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF ROUMANIA:
M. Constantine I. Diamandy, Minister Plenipotentiary;
M. Constantine Contzesco, Minister Plenipotentiary;
HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE SERBS, THE CROATS AND THE SLOVENES:
Dr. Miloutine Yovanovitch, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at Berne;
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE GRAND NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF TURKEY:
Ismet Pasha, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy for Adrianople; Dr. Riza Nour Bey, Minister for Health and for Public Assistance, Deputy for Sinope;Hassan Bey, formerly Minister, Deputy for Trebizond;
Who, having produced their full powers, found in good and due orm, have agreed as follows:
PART I.
POLITICAL CLAUSES.
ARTICLE I.

From the coming into force of the present Treaty, the state of peace will be definitely re-established between the British Empire, France, Italy, Japan, Greece, Roumania and the Serb-Croat-Slovene State of the one part, and Turkey of the other part, as well as between their respective nationals. Official relations will be resumed on both sides and, in the respective territories, diplomatic and consular representatives will receive, without prejudice to such agreements as may be concluded in the future, treatment in accordance with the general principles of international law.
SECTION I.
I. TERRITORIAL CLAUSES.
ARTICLE 2.

From the Black Sea to the Aegean the frontier of Turkey is laid down as follows: (I) With Bulgaria:

From the mouth of the River Rezvaya, to the River Maritza, the point of junction of the three frontiers of Turkey, Bulgaria and Greece:

the southern frontier of Bulgaria as at present demarcated;

(2) With Greece:

Thence to the confluence of the Arda and the Marilza:

the course of the Maritza;

then upstream along the Arda, up to a point on that river to be determined on the spot in the immediate neighbourhood of the village of Tchorek-Keuy:

the course of the Arda;

thence in a south-easterly direction up to a point on the Maritza, 1 kilom. below Bosna-Keuy:

a roughly straight line leaving in Turkish territory the village of Bosna-Keuy. The village of Tchorek-Keuy shall be assigned to Greece or to Turkey according as the majority of the population shall be found to be Greek or Turkish by the Commission for which provision is made in Article 5, the population which has migrated into this village after the 11th October, 1922, not being taken into account;

thence to the Aegean Sea:

the course of the Maritza.
ARTICLE 3.

From the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia, the frontier of Turkey is laid down as follows:

(I ) With Syria:

The frontier described in Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement of the 20th October, 1921

(2) With Iraq:

The frontier between Turkey and Iraq shall be laid down in friendly arrangement to be concluded between Turkey and Great Britain within nine months.

In the event of no agreement being reached between the two Governments within the time mentioned, the dispute shall be referred to the Council of the League of Nations.

The Turkish and British Governments reciprocally undertake that, pending the decision to be reached on the subject of the frontier, no military or other movement shall take place which might modify in any way the present state of the territories of which the final fate will depend upon that decision.
ARTICLE 4.

The frontiers described by the present Treaty are traced on the one-in-a-million maps attached to the present Treaty. In case of divergence between the text and the map, the text will prevail. [See Introduction.]
ARTICLE 5.

A Boundary Commission will be appointed to trace on the ground the frontier defined in Article 2 (2). This Commission will be composed of representatives of Greece and of Turkey, each Power appointing one representative, and a president chosen by them from the nationals of a third Power.

They shall endeavour in all cases to follow as nearly as possible the descriptions given in the present Treaty, taking into account as far as possible administrative boundaries and local economic interests.

The decision of the Commission will be taken by a majority and shall be binding on the parties concerned.

The expenses of the Commission shall be borne in equal shares by the parties concerned.
ARTICLE 6.

In so far as concerns frontiers defined by a waterway as distinct from its banks, the phrases “course” or “channel” used in the descriptions of the present Treaty signify, as regards non-navigable rivers, the median line of the waterway or of its principal branch, and, as regards navigable rivers, the median line of the principal channel of navigation. It will rest with the Boundary Commission to specify whether the frontier line shall follow any changes of the course or channel which may take place, or whether it shall be definitely fixed by the position of the course or channel at the time when the present Treaty comes into force.

In the absence of provisions to the contrary, in the present Treaty, islands and islets Iying within three miles of the coast are included within the frontier of the coastal State.
ARTICLE 7.

The various States concerned undertake to furnish to the Boundary Commission all documents necessary for its task, especially authentic copies of agreements fixing existing or old frontiers, all large scale maps in existence, geodetic data, surveys completed but unpublished, and information concerning the changes of frontier watercourses. The maps, geodetic data, and surveys, even if unpublished, which are in the possession of the Turkish authorities, must be delivered at Constantinople with the least possible delay from the coming into force of the present Treaty to the President of the Commission.

The States concerned also undertake to instruct the local authorities to communicate to the Commission all documents, especially plans, cadastral and land books, and to furnish on demand all details regarding property, existing economic conditions and other necessary information.
ARTICLE 8.

The various States interested undertake to give every assistance to the Boundary Commission, whether directly or through local authorities, in everything that concerns transport, accommodation, labour, materials (sign posts, boundary pillars) necessary for the accomplishment of its mission.

In particular, the Turkish Government undertakes to furnish, if required, the technical personnel necessary to assist the Boundary Commission in the accomplishment of its duties.
ARTICLE 9.

The various States interested undertake to safeguard the trigonometrical points, signals, posts or frontier marks erected by the Commission.
ARTICLE 10.

The pillars will be placed so as to be intervisible. They will be numbered, and their position and their number will be noted on a cartographic document.
ARTICLE 11.

The protocols defining the boundary and the maps and documents attached thereto will be made out in triplicate, of which two copies will be forwarded to the Governments of the limitrophe States, and the third to the Government of the French Republic, which will deliver authentic copies to the Powers who sign the present Treaty.
ARTICLE 12.

The decision taken on the 13th February, 1914, by the Conference of London, in virtue of Articles 5 of the Treaty of London of the 17th-30th May, 1913, and 15 of the Treaty of Athens of the 1st-14th November, 1913, which decision was communicated to the Greek Government on the 13th February, 1914, regarding the sovereignty of Greece over the islands of the Eastern Mediterranean, other than the islands of Imbros, Tenedos and Rabbit Islands, particularly the islands of Lemnos, Samothrace, Mytilene, Chios, Samos and Nikaria, is confirmed, subject to the provisions of the present Treaty respecting the islands placed under the sovereigntyof Italy which form the subject of Article 15.

Except where a provision to the contrary is contained in the present Treaty, the islands situated at less than three miles from the Asiatic coast remain under Turkish sovereignty.
ARTICLE 13.

With a view to ensuring the maintenance of peace, the Greek Government undertakes to observe the following restrictions in the islands of Mytilene, Chios, Samos and Nikaria:

(I) No naval base and no fortification will be established in the said islands.

(2) Greek military aircraft will be forbidden to fly over the territory of the Anatolian coast. Reciprocally, the Turkish Government will forbid their military aircraft to fly over the said islands.

(3) The Greek military forces in the said islands will be limited to the normal contingent called up for military service, which can be trained on the spot, as well as to a force of gendarmerie and police in proportion to the force of gendarmerie and police existing in the whole of the Greek territory.
ARTICLE 14.

The islands of Imbros and Tenedos, remaining under Turkish sovereignty, shall enjoy a special administrative organisation composed of local elements and furnishing every guarantee for the native non-Moslem population in so far as concerns local administration and the protection of persons and property. The maintenance of order will be assured therein by a police force recruited from amongst the local population by the local administration above provided for and placed under its orders.

The agreements which have been, or may be, concluded between Greece and Turkey relating to the exchange of the Greek and Turkish populations will not be applied to the inhabitants of the islands of Imbros and Tenedos.
ARTICLE 15.

Turkey renounces in favour of Italy all rights and title over the following islands: Stampalia (Astrapalia), Rhodes (Rhodos), Calki (Kharki), Scarpanto, Casos (Casso), Piscopis (Tilos), Misiros (Nisyros), Calimnos (Kalymnos), Leros, Patmos, Lipsos (Lipso), Simi (Symi), and Cos (Kos), which are now occupied by Italy, and the islets dependent thereon, and also over the island of Castellorizzo.
ARTICLE I6.

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.
ARTICLE 17.

The renunciation by Turkey of all rights and titles over Egypt and over the Soudan will take effect as from the 5th November, 1914.
ARTICLE 18.

Turkey is released from all undertakings and obligations in regard to the Ottoman loans guaranteed on the Egyptian tribute, that is to say, the loans of 1855, 1891 and 1894. The annual payments made by Egypt for the service of these loans now forming part of the service of the Egyptian Public Debt, Egypt is freed from all other obligations relating to the Ottoman Public Debt.
ARTICLE 19.

Any questions arising from the recognition of the State of Egypt shall be settled by agreements to be negotiated subsequently in a manner to be determined later between the Powers concerned. The provisions of the present Treaty relating to territories detached from Turkey under the said Treaty will not apply to Egypt.
ARTICLE 20.

Turkey hereby recognises the annexation of Cyprus proclaimed by the British Government on the sth November, 1914.
ARTICLE 2I .

Turkish nationals ordinarily resident in Cyprus on the 5th November, 1914, will acquire British nationality subject to the conditions laid down in the local law, and will thereupon lose their Turkish nationality. They will, however, have the right to opt for Turkish nationality within two years from the coming into force of the present Treaty, provided that they leave Cyprus within twelve months after having so opted.

Turkish nationals ordinarily resident in Cyprus on the coming into force of the present Treaty who, at that date, have acquired or are in process of acquiring British nationality in consequence of a request made in accordance with the local law, will also thereupon lose their Turkish nationality.

It is understood that the Government of Cyprus will be entitled to refuse British nationality to inhabitants of the island who, being Turkish nationals, had formerly acquired another nationality without the consent of the Turkish Government.
ARTICLE 22.

Without prejudice to the general stipulations of Article 27, Turkey hereby recognises the definite abolition of all rights and privileges whatsoever which she enjoyed in Libya under the Treaty of Lausanne of the 18th October, 1912, and the instruments connected therewith.
2. SPECIAL PROVISIONS.
ARTICLE 23.

The High Contracting Parties are agreed to recognise and declare the principle of freedom of transit and of navigation, by sea and by air, in time of peace as in time of war, in the strait of the Dardanelles, the Sea of Marmora and the Bosphorus, as prescribed in the separate Convention signed this day, regarding the regime of the Straits. This Convention will have the same force and effect in so far as the present High Contracting Parties are concerned as if it formed part of the present Treaty.
ARTICLE 24.

The separate Convention signed this day respecting the regime for the frontier described in Article 2 of the present Treaty will have equal force and effect in so far as the present High Contracting Parties are concerned as if it formed part of the present Treaty.
ARTICLE 25.

Turkey undertakes to recognise the full force of the Treaties of Peace and additional Conventions concluded by the other Contracting Powers with the Powers who fought on the side of Turkey, and to recognise whatever dispositions have been or may be made concerning the territories of the former German Empire, of Austria, of Hungary and of Bulgaria, and to recognise the new States within their frontiers as there laid down.
ARTICLE 26.

Turkey hereby recognises and accepts the frontiers of Germany, Austria, Bulgaria, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Roumania, the Serb-Croat-Slovene State and the Czechoslovak State, as these frontiers have been or may be determined by the Treaties referred to in Article 25 or by any supplementary conventions.
ARTICLE 27.

No power or jurisdiction in political, legislative or administrative matters shall be exercised outside Turkish territory by the Turkish Government or authorities, for any reason whatsoever, over the nationals of a territory placed under the sovereignty or protectorate of the other Powers signatory of the present Treaty, or over the nationals of a territory detached from Turkey.

It is understood that the spiritual attributions of the Moslem religious authorities are in no way infringed.
ARTICLE 28.

Each of the High Contracting Parties hereby accepts, in so far as it is concerned, the complete abolition of the Capitulations in Turkey in every respect.
ARTICLE 29.

Moroccans, who are French nationals (“ressortissants”) and Tunisians shall enjoy in Turkey the same treatment in all respects as other French nationals (“ressortissants”).

Natives (“ressortissants”) of Libya shall enjoy in Turkey the same treatment in all respects as other Italian nationals (“ressortissants”) .

The stipulations of the present Article in no way prejudge the nationality of persons of Tunisian, Libyan and Moroccan origin established in Turkey.

Reciprocally, in the territories the inhabitants of which benefit by the stipulations of the first and second paragraphs of this Article, Turkish nationals shall benefit by the same treatment as in France and in Italy respectively.

The treatment to which merchandise originating in or destined for the territories, the inhabitants of which benefit from the stipulations of the first paragraph of this Article, shall be subject in Turkey, and, reciprocally, the treatment to which merchandise originating in or destined for Turkey shall be subject in the said territories shall be settled by agreement between the French and Turkish Governments.
SECTION II .
NATIONALITY.
ARTICLE 30.

Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.
ARTICLE 31.

Persons over eighteen years of age, losing their Turkish nationality and obtaining ipso facto a new nationality under Article 30, shall be entitled within a period of two years from the coming into force of the present Treaty to opt for Turkish nationality.
ARTICLE 32.

Persons over eighteen years of age, habitually resident in territory detached from Turkey in accordance with the present Treaty, and differing in race from the majority of the population of such territory shall, within two years from the coming into force of the present Treaty, be entitled to opt for the nationality of one of the States in which the majority of the population is of the same race as the person exercising the right to opt, subject to the consent of that State.
ARTICLE 33.

Persons who have exercised the right to opt in accordance with the provisions of Articles 31 and 32 must, within the succeeding twelve months, transfer their place of residence to the State for which they have opted.

They will be entitled to retain their immovable property in the territory of the other State where they had their place of residence before exercising their right to opt.

They may carry with them their movable property of every description. No export or import duties may be imposed upon them in connection with the removal of such property.
ARTICLE 34.

Subject to any agreements which it may be necessary to conclude between the Governments exercising authority in the countries detached from Turkey and the Governments of the countries where the persons concerned are resident, Turkish nationals of over eighteen years of age who are natives of a territory detached from Turkey under the present Treaty, and who on its coming into force are habitually resident abroad, may opt for the nationality of the territory of which they are natives, if they belong by race to the majority of the population of that territory, and subject to theconsent of the Government exercising authority therein. This right of option must be exercised within two years from the coming into force of the present Treaty.
ARTICLE 35.

The Contracting Powers undertake to put no hindrance in the way of the exercise of the right which the persons concerned have under the present Treaty, or under the Treaties of Peace concluded with Germany, Austria, Bulgaria or Hungary, or under any Treaty concluded by the said Powers, other than Turkey, or any of them, with Russia, or between themselves, to choose any other nationality which may be open to them.
ARTICLE 36.

For the purposes of the provisions of this Section, the status of a married woman will be governed by that of her husband, and the status of children under eighteen years of age by that of their parents.
SECTION III.
PROTECTION OF MINORITIES.
ARTICLE 37.

Turkey undertakes that the stipulations contained in Articles 38 to 44 shall be recognised as fundamental laws, and that no law, no regulation, nor official action shall conflict or interfere with these stipulations, nor shall any law, regulation, nor official action prevail over them.
ARTICLE 38.

The Turkish Government undertakes to assure full and complete protection of life and liberty to ali inhabitants of Turkey without distinction of birth, nationality, language, race or religion.

All inhabitants of Turkey shall be entitled to free exercise, whether in public or private, of any creed, religion or belief, the observance of which shall not be incompatible with public order and good morals.

Non-Moslem minorities will enjoy full freedom of movement and of emigration, subject to the measures applied, on the whole or on part of the territory, to all Turkish nationals, and which may be taken by the Turkish Government for national defence, or for the maintenance of public order.
ARTICLE 39.

Turkish nationals belonging to non-Moslem minorities will enjoy the same civil and political rights as Moslems.

All the inhabitants of Turkey, without distinction of religion, shall be equal before the law.

Differences of religion, creed or confession shall not prejudice any Turkish national in matters relating to the enjoyment of civil or political rights, as, for instance, admission to public employments, functions and honours, or the exercise of professions and industries.

No restrictions shall be imposed on the free use by any Turkish national of any language in private intercourse, in commerce, religion, in the press, or in publications of any kind or at public meetings.

Notwithstanding the existence of the official language, adequate facilities shall be given to Turkish nationals of non-Turkish speech for the oral use of their own language before the Courts.
ARTICLE 40.

Turkish nationals belonging to non-Moslem minorities shall enjoy the same treatment and security in law and in fact as other Turkish nationals. In particular, they shall have an equal right to establish, manage and control at their own expense, any charitable, religious and social institutions, any schools and other establishments for instruction and education, with the right to use their own language and to exercise their own religion freely therein.
ARTICLE 41.

As regards public instruction, the Turkish Government will grant in those towns and districts, where a considerable proportion of non-Moslem nationals are resident, adequate facilities for ensuring that in the primary schools the instruction shall be given to the children of such Turkish nationals through the medium of their own language. This provision will not prevent the Turkish Government from making the teaching of the Turkish language obligatory in the said schools.

In towns and districts where there is a considerable proportion of Turkish nationals belonging to non-Moslem minorities, these minorities shall be assured an equitable share in the enjoyment and application of the sums which may be provided out of public funds under the State, municipal or other budgets for educational, religious, or charitable purposes.

The sums in question shall be paid to the qualified representatives of the establishments and institutions concerned.
ARTICLE 42.

The Turkish Government undertakes to take, as regards non-Moslem minorities, in so far as concerns their family law or personal status, measures permitting the settlement of these questions in accordance with the customs of those minorities.

These measures will be elaborated by special Commissions composed of representatives of the Turkish Government and of representatives of each of the minorities concerned in equal number. In case of divergence, the Turkish Government and the Council of the League of Nations will appoint in agreement an umpire chosen from amongst European lawyers.

The Turkish Government undertakes to grant full protection to the churches, synagogues, cemeteries, and other religious establishments of the above-mentioned minorities. All facilities and authorisation will be granted to the pious foundations, and to the religious and charitable institutions of the said minorities at present existing in Turkey, and the Turkish Government will not refuse, for the formation of new religious and charitable institu- tions, any of the necessary facilities which are guaranteed to other private institutions of that nature.
ARTICLE 43.

Turkish nationals belonging to non-Moslem minorities shall not be compelled to perform any act which constitutes a violation of their faith or religious observances, and shall not be placed under any disability by reason of their refusal to attend Courts of Law or to perform any legal business on their weekly day of rest.

This provision, however, shall not exempt such Turkish nationals from such obligations as shall be imposed upon all other Turkish nationals for the preservation of public order.
ARTICLE 44.

Turkey agrees that, in so far as the preceding Articles of this Section affect non-Moslem nationals of Turkey, these provisions constitute obligations of international concern and shall be placed under the guarantee of the League of Nations. They shall not be modified without the assent of the majority of the Council of the League of Nations. The British Empire, France, Italy and Japan hereby agree not to withhold their assent to any modification in these Articles which is in due form assented to by a majority of the Council of the League of Nations.

Turkey agrees that any Member of the Council of the League of Nations shall have the right to bring to the attention of the Council any infraction or danger of infraction of any of these obligations, and that the Council may thereupon take such action and give such directions as it may deem proper and effective in the circumstances.

Turkey further agrees that any difference of opinion as to questions of law or of fact arising out of these Articles between the Turkish Government and any one of the other Signatory Powers or any other Power, a member of the Council of the League of Nations, shall be held to be a dispute of an international character under Article 14 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. The Turkish Government hereby consents that any such dispute shall, if the other party thereto demands, be referred to the Permanent Court of International Justice. The decision of the Permanent Court shall be final and shall have the same force and effect as an award under Article 13 of the Covenant.
ARTICLE 45.

The rights conferred by the provisions of the present Section on the non-Moslem minorities of Turkey will be similarly conferred by Greece on the Moslem minority in her territory.
PART II.
FINANCIAL CLAUSES.
SECTION I.
OTTOMAN PUBLIC DEBT.
ARTICLE 46.

The Ottoman Public Debt, as defined in the Table annexed to the present Section, shall be distributed under the conditions laid down in the present Section between Turkey, the States in favour of which territory has been detached from the Ottoman Empire after the Balkan wars of 1912-13, the States to which the islands referred to in Articles 12 and 15 of the present Treaty and the territory referred to in the last paragraph of the present Article have been attributed, and the States newly created in territories in Asia which are detached from the Ottoman Empire under the present Treaty. All the above St ates shall also participate, under the conditions laid down in the present Section, in the annual charges for the service of the Ottoman Public Debt from the dates referred to in Article 53.

From the dates laid down in Article 53, Turkey shall not be held in any way whatsoever responsible for the shares of the Debt for which other States are liable.

For the purpose of the distribution of the Ottoman Public Debt, that portion of the territory of Thrace which was under Turkish sovereignty on the 1st August, 1914, and lies outside the boundaries of Turkey as laid down by Article 2 of the present Treaty, shall be deemed to be detached from the Ottoman Empire under the said Treaty.
ARTICLE 47.

The Council of the Ottoman Public Debt shall, within three months from the coming into force of the present Treaty, determine, on the basis laid down by Articles 50 and 51, the amounts of the annuities for the loans referred to in Part A of the Table annexed to the present Section which are payable by each of the States concerned, and shall notify to them this amount.

These States shall be granted an opportunity to send to Constantinople delegates to check the calculations made for this purpose by the Council of the Ottoman Public Debt.

The Council of the Debt shall exercise the functions referred to in Article 134 of the Treaty of Peace with Bulgaria of the 27th November, 1919.

Any disputes which may arise between the parties concerned as to the application of the principles laid down in the present Article shall be referred, not more than one month after the notification referred to in the first paragraph, to an arbitrator whom the Council of the League of Nations will be asked to appoint; this arbitrator shall give his decision within a period of not more than three months. The remuneration of the arbitrator shall be determined by the Council of the League of Nations, and shall, together with the other expenses of the arbitration, be borne by the parties concerned. The decisions of the arbitrator shall be final. The payment of the annuities shall not be suspended by the reference of any disputes to the above-mentioned arbitrator.
ARTICLE 48.

The States, other than Turkey, among which the Ottoman Public Debt, as defined in Part A of the Table annexed to this Section is attributed, shall, within three months from the date on which they are notified, in accordance with Article 47, of their respective shares in the annual charges referred to in that Article, assign to the Council of the Debt adequate security for the payment of their share. If such security is not assigned within the above-mentioned period, or in the case of any disagreement as to the adequacy of the security assigned, any of the Governments signatory to the present Treaty shall be entitled to appeal to the Council of the League of Nations.

The Council of the League of Nations shall be empowered to entrust the collection of the revenues assigned as security to international financial organisations existing in the countries (other than Turkey) among which the Debt is distributed. The decisions of the Council of the League of Nations shall be final.
ARTICLE 49

Within one month from the date of the final determination under Article 47 of the amount of the annuities for which each of the States concerned is liable, a Commission shall meet in Paris to determine the method of carrying out the distribution of the nominal capital of the Ottoman Public Debt as defined in Part A of the Table annexed to this Section. This distribution shall be made in accordance with the proportions adopted for the division of the annuities, and account shall be taken of the terms of the agreements governing the loans and of the provisions of this Section.

The Commission referred to in the first paragraph shall consist of a representative of the Turkish Government, a representative of the Council of the Ottoman Public Debt, a representative of the debt other than the Unified Debt and the Lots Turcs; each of the Governments concerned shall also be entitled to appoint a representative. All questions in regard to which the Commission may be unable to reach agreement shall be referred to the arbitrator referred to in the fourth paragraph of Article 47.

If Turkey shall decide to create new securities in respect of her share, the distribution of the capital of the Ottoman Public Debt shall be made in the first instance as it affects Turkey by a Committee consisting of the representative of the Turkish Government, the representative of the Council of the Ottoman Public Debt and the representative of the debt other than the Unified Debt and the Lots Turcs. The new securities shall be delivered to the Commission, which shall ensure their delivery to the bondholders upon such terms as will provide for the release of Turkey from liability and the rights of the bondholders towards the other States which are liable for a share of the Ottoman Public Debt. The securities issued in respect of the share of each State in the Ottoman Public Debt shall be exempt in the territory of the High Contracting Parties from all stamp duties or other taxes which would be involved by such issue.

The payment of the annuities for which each of the States concerned is liable shall not be postponed as a consequence of the provisions of the present Article in regard to the distribution of the nominal capital.
ARTICLE 50.

The distribution of the annual charges referred to in Article 47 and of the nominal capital of the Ottoman Public Debt mentioned in Article 49 shall be effected in the following manner:

(1) The loans prior to the 17th October, 1912, and the annuities of such loans shall be distributed between the Ottoman Empire as it existed after the Balkan wars of 1912-13, the Balkan States in favour of which territory was detached from the Ottoman Empire after those wars, and the States to which the islands referred to in Articles 12 and 15 of the present Treaty have been attributed; account shall be taken of the territorial changes which have taken place after the coming into force of the treaties which ended those wars or subsequent treaties.

(2) The residue of the loans for which the Ottoman Empire remained liable after this first distribution and the residue of the annuities of such loans, together with the loans contracted by that Empire between the 17th October, 1912, and the 1st November, 1914, and the annuities of such loans shall be distributed between Turkey, the newly created States in Asia in favour of which a territory has been detached from the Ottoman Empire under the present Treaty, and the State to which the territory referred to in the last paragraph of Article 46 of the said Treaty has been attributed.

The distribution of the capital shall in the case of each loan be based on the capital amount outstanding at the date of the coming into force of the present Treaty.
ARTICLE 51 .

The amount of the share in the annual charges of the Ottoman Public Debt for which each State concerned is liable in conse- quence of the distribution provided for by Article 50 shall be determined as follows:

(I) As regards the distribution provided for by Article 50 (1), in the first place the share of the islands referred to in Articles 12 and 15 and of the territories detached from the Ottoman Empire after the Balkan wars, taken together, shall be fixed. The amount of this share shall bear the same proportion to the total sum of the annuities to be distributed in accordance with Article 50 (1) as the average total revenue of the above mentioned islands and territories, taken as a whole, bore to the average total revenue of the Ottoman Empire in the financial years 1910-1911 and 1911-1912, including the proceeds of the customs surtaxes established in 1907.

The amount thus determined shall then be distributed among the States to which the territories referred to in the preceding paragraph have been attributed, and the share for which each of these States will thus be made liable shall bear the same proportion to the total amount so distributed as the average total revenue of the territory attributed to each State bore in the financial years 1910-11 and 1911-12 to the average total revenue of the territories detached from the Ottoman Empire after the Balkan Wars and the islands referred to in Articles 12 and 15. In calculating the revenues referred to in this paragraph, customs revenues shall be excluded.

(2) As regards the territories detached from the Ottoman Empire under the present Treaty (including the territory referred to in the last paragraph of Article 46), the amount of the share of each State concerned shall bear the same proportion to the total sum of the annuities to be distributed in accordance with Article 50 (2) as the average total revenue of the detached territory (including the proceeds of the Customs surtax established in 1907) for the financial years 1910-11 and 1911-12 bore to the average total revenue of the Ottoman Empire, excluding the territories and islands referred to in paragraph (I) of this Article.
ARTICLE 52.

The advances referred to in Part B of the Table annexed to the present Section shall be distributed between Turkey and the other States referred to in Article 46 under the following conditions:

(I) As regards the advances referred to in the Table which existed on the 17th October, 1912, the capital amount, if any, outstanding at the date of the coming into force of the present Treaty, together with the interest from the dates mentioned in the first paragraph of Article 53 and the repayments made since those dates, shall be distributed in accordance with the provisions of Article 50 (I) and Article 51 (1).

(2) As regards the amounts for which the Ottoman Empire remains liable after the first distribution and the advances referred to in the Table which were contracted by the said Empire between the 17th October, 1912, and the 1st November, 1914, the capital amount, if any, outstanding at the date of the coming into force of the present Treaty, together with the interest from the 1st March, 1920, and the repayments made since that date, shall be distributed in accordance with the provisions of Article 50 (2) and Article 51 (2).

The Council of the Ottoman Public Debt shall, within three months from the coming into force of the present Treaty, determine the amount of the share in these advances for which each of the States concerned is liable, and notify them of such amount.

The sums for which States other than Turkey are liable shall be paid by those States to the Council of the Debt and shall be paid by the Council to the creditors, or credited to the Turkish Government up to the amount paid by Turkey, by way of interest or repayment, for the account of those States.

The payments referred to in the preceding paragraph shall be made by five equal annuities from the coming into force of the present Treaty. Such portion of these payments as is payable to the creditors of the Ottoman Empire shall bear interest at the rates laid down in the contracts governing the advances; the portion to be credited to the Turkish Government shall be paid without interest.
ARTICLE 53.

The annuities for the service of the loans of the Ottoman Public Debt (as defined in Part A of the Table annexed to this Section) due by the States in favour of which a territory has been detached from the Ottoman Empire after the Balkan wars, shall be payable as from the coming into force of the treaties by which the respective territories were transferred to those States. In the case of the islands referred to in Article 12, the annuity shall be payable as from the 1st/14th November, 1913, and, in the case of the islands referred to in Article 15, as from the 17th October, 1912.

The annuities due by the States newly created in territories in Asia detached from the Ottoman Empire under the present Treaty, and by the State to which the territory referred to in the last paragraph of Article 46 has been attributed, shall be payable as from the 1st March, 1920.
ARTICLE 54.

The Treasury Bills of 1911, 1912 and 1913 included in Part A of the Table annexed to this Section shall be repaid, with interest at the agreed rate, within ten years from the dates fixed by the contracts.
ARTICLE 55.

The States referred to in Article 46, including Turkey, shall pay to the Ottoman Debt Council the amount of the annuities required for the service of their share of the Ottoman Public Debt (as defined in Part A of the Table annexed to this Section) to the extent that such annuities have remained unpaid as from the dates laid down by Article 53. This payment shall be made, without interest, by means of twenty equal annuities from the coming into force of the present Treaty.

The amount of the annuities paid to the Council of the Debt by the States other than Turkey shall, to the extent that they represent payments made by Turkey for the account of those States, be credited to Turkey on account of the arrears with which she is debited.
ARTICLE 56.

The Council of the Administration of the Ottoman Public Debt shall no longer include delegates of the German, Austrian and Hungarian bondholders.
ARTICLE 57.

Limits of time fixed for the presentation of coupons of or claims for interest upon the loans and advances of the Ottoman Public Debt and the Turkish Loans of 1855, 1891 and 1894 secured on the Egyptian tribute, and the limits of time fixed for the presentation of securities of these loans drawn for repayment, shall, on the territory of the High Contracting Parties, be considered as having been suspended from the 29th October, 1914, until three months after the coming into force of the present Treaty.

ANNEX I TO SECTION I.
Table of the Ottoman Pre-War Public Debt (November 1, 1914).
Part A.

Loan Date of Contract Interest % Date of Redemption Bank of Issue
1 2 3 4 5
Unified Debt 1-14.9.1903–8-21.6.1906 4
Osmanie 18-30.4.1890 4 1931 Imperial Ottoman Bank
Tombac priority 26.4-8.5.1893 4 1954 Imperial Ottoman Bank
40,000,000fr (Oriental Railways) I-13.3.1894 4 1957 Deutsche Bank and its group, Including International Bank and two French banks.
5%, 1896 29.2-12.3.1896 5 1946 Imperial Ottoman Bank
Customs, 1902 17-29.5.1886-28.9-11.10.1902 4 1958 Imperial Ottoman Bank
4%, 1903 (Fisheries) 3.10.1888-21.2-6.3.1903. 4 1958 Deutsche Bank
Bagdad, Series 1 20.2-5.3.1903 4 2001 Deutsche Bank
4%, 1904 4-17.9.1903 4 1960 Imperial Ottoman Bank
4%, 1901-1905 21.11-4.12.1901-6. 11.1903-25. 4-8.5.1905 4 1961 Imperial Ottoman Bank
Tedjhizat-Askerie 4-17.4.1905 4 1961 Deutsche Bank
Bagdad, Series II 20.5-2.6.1908 4 2006 Deutsche Bank
Bagdad, Series III 20.5-2.6.1908 4 2010 Deutsche Bank
4%, 1908 6-19.9.1908 4 1965 Imperial Ottoman Bank
4%, 1909 30.9-13.10.1909 4 1950 Imperial Ottoman Bank
Soma-Panderma 20.11-3.12.1910 4 1992 Imperial Ottoman Bank
Hodeida-Sanaa 24.2-9.3.1911 4 2006 Banque francaise
Customs 1911 27.10-9.11.1910 4 1952 Deutsche Bank and its group
Plain of Koniah irrigation 5-18.1913 1932
Docks, arsenals and naval constructions 19.11-2 12.1913 5 1/2 1943
5%, 1914 13-26.4.1914 5 (1962) Imperial Ottoman Bank
Avance Régie des Tabacs 4.8.1913
Treasury Bills, 5% 1911 (purchase of warships) 13-7.1911 5 1916* National Bank of Turkey
Treasury Bills, Imperial 8.21.11.1912 6 1915* Imperial Ottoman Bank
Treasury Bills, 1913 (induding the bills issued directly) 19.1-1.2.1913 5 1918* Périer and Co.

*See Article 54.

Part B.

Advance Date of Contract Interest % Original Nominal Capital £ T
Bagdad Railway Company 3/16 June, 1908 7 300,000
Lighthouse Administration 5/18 August, 1904 8 55,000
Lighthouse Administration 5/18 July, 1907 7 300,000
Constanza Cable Company 27/9 October, 1904 4 17,335
Tunnel Company 3,000
Orphan’s Fund Various dates 153,147
Deutsche Bank 13/26 August, 1912 5.5 33,000
Lighthouse Administration 3/16 April, 1913 7 500,000
Anatolia Railway Company 23/5 March, 1914 6 200,000

SECTION II.
MISCELLANEOUS CLAUSES.
ARTICLE 58.

Turkey, on the one hand, and the other Contracting Powers (except Greece) on the other hand, reciprocally renounce all pecuniary claims for the loss and damage suffered respectively by Turkey and the said Powers and by their nationals (including juridical persons) between the 1st August, 1914, and the coming into force of the present Treaty, as the result of acts of war or measures of requisition, sequestration, disposal or confiscation.

Nevertheless, the above provisions are without prejudice to the provisions of Part III (Economic Clauses) of the present Treaty.

Turkey renounces in favour of the other Contracting Parties (except Greece) any right in the sums in gold transferred by Germany and Austria under Article 259 (I) of the Treaty of Peace of the 28th June, I9I9, with Germany, and under Article 210 (I) of the Treaty of Peace of the 10th September, 1919, with Austria.

The Council of the Administration of the Ottoman Public Debt is freed from all liability to make the payments which it was required to make by the Agreement of the 20th June, 1331 (3rd July, 1915) relating to the first issue of Turkish currency notes or by the words inscribed on the back of such notes.

Turkey also agrees not to claim from the British Government or its nationals the repayment of the sums paid for the warships ordered in England by the Ottoman Government which were requisitioned by the British Government in 1914, and renounces all claims in the matter.
ARTICLE 59.

Greece recognises her obligation to make reparation for the damage caused in Anatolia by the acts of the Greek army or administration which were contrary to the laws of war.

On the other hand, Turkey, in consideration of the financial situation of Greece resulting from the prolongation of the war and from its consequences, finally renounces all claims for reparation against the Greek Government.
ARTICLE 60.

The States in favour of which territory was or is detached from the Ottoman Empire after the Balkan wars or by the present Treaty shall acquire, without payment, all the property and possessions of the Ottoman Empire situated therein.

It is understood that the property and possessions of which the transfer from the Civil List to the State was laid down by the Irades of the 26th August, 1324 (8th September, I908) and the 20th April, 1325 (2nd May, I909), and also those which, on the 30th October, 1918, were administered by the Civil List for the benefit of a public service, are included among the property and possessions referred to in the preceding paragraph, the aforesaid States being subrogated to the Ottoman Empire in regard to the property and possessions in question. The Wakfs created on such property shall be maintained.

The dispute which has arisen between the Greek and Turkish Governments relating to property and possessions which have passed from the Civil List to the State and are situated in territories of the former Ottoman Empire transferred to Greece either after the Balkan wars, or subsequently, shall be referred to an arbitral tribunal at The Hague, in accordance with the special protocol No. 2 annexed to the Treaty of Athens of the 1st-4th November, 1913. The terms of reference shall be settled between the two Governments.

The provisions of this Article will not modify the juridical nature of the property and possessions registered in the name of the Civil List or administered by it, which are not referred to in the second and third paragraphs above.
ARTICLE 61.

The recipients of Turkish civil and military pensions who acquire under the present Treaty the nationality of a State other than Turkey, shall have no claim against the Turkish Government in respect of their pensions.
ARTICLE 62.

Turkey recognises the transfer of any claims to payment or repayment which Germany, Austria, Bulgaria or Hungary may have against her, in accordance with Article 261 of the Treaty of Peace concluded at Versailles on the 28th June, 1919, with Germany, and the corresponding articles of the Treaties of Peace of the l0th September, 1919, with Austria; of the 27th November, 1919, with Bulgaria; and of the 4th June, 1920 with Hungary.

The other Contracting Powers agree to release Turkey from the debts for which she is liable on this account.

The claims which Turkey has against Germany, Austria, Bulgaria and Hungary, are also transferred to the aforesaid Contracting Powers.
ARTICLE 63.

The Turkish Government, in agreement with the other Contracting Powers, hereby releases the German Government from the obligation incurred by it during the war to accept Turkish Government currency notes at a specified rate of exchange in payment for goods to be exported to Turkey from Germany after the war.
PART III.
ECONOMIC CLAUSES.
ARTICLE 64.

In this part, the expression “Allied Powers” means the Contracting Powers other than Turkey.

The term “Allied nationals” includes physical persons, companies and associations of the Contracting Powers other than Turkey, or of a State or territory under the protection of one of the said Powers.

The provisions of this Part relating to “Allied nationals” shall benefit persons who without having the nationality of one of the Allied Powers, have, in consequence of the protection which they in fact enjoyed at the hands of these Powers, received from the Ottoman authorities the same treatment as Allied nationals and have, on this account, been prejudiced.
SECTION I.
PROPERTY, RIGHTS AND INTERESTS.
ARTICLE 65.

Property, rights and interests which still exist and can be identified in territories remaining Turkish at the date of the coming into force of the present Treaty, and which belong to persons who on the 29th October, 1914, were Allied nationals, shall be immediately restored to the owners in their existing state.

Reciprocally, property, rights and interests which still exist and can be identified in territories subject to the sovereignty or protectorate of the Allied Powers on the 29th October, 1914, or in territories detached from the Ottoman Empire after the Balkan wars and subject to-day to the sovereignty of any such Power, and which belong to Turkish nationals, shall be immediately restored to the owners in their existing state. The same provision shall apply to property, rights and interests which belong to Turkish nationals in territories detached from the Ottoman Empire under the present Treaty, and which may have been subjected to liquidation or any other exceptional measure whatever on the part of the authorities of the Allied Powers.

All property, rights and interests situated in territory detached from the Ottoman Empire under the present Treaty, which, after having been subjected by the Ottoman Government to an exceptional war measure, are now in the hands of the Contracting Power exercising authority over the said territory, and which can be identified, shall be restored to their legitimate owners, in their existing state. The same provision shall apply to immovable property which may have been liquidated by the Contracting Power exercising authority over the said territory. All other claims between individuals shall be submitted to the competent local courts.

All disputes relating to the identity or the restitution of property to which a claim is made shall be submitted to the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal provided for in Section V of this Part.
ARTICLE 66.

In order to give effect to the provisions of the first and second paragraphs of Article 65 the High Contracting Parties will, by the most rapid procedure, restore the owners to the possession of their property, rights and interests free from any burdens or encumbrances with which such property, rights and interests may have been charged without the consent of the said owners. It will be the duty of the Government of the Power effecting the restitution to provide for the compensation of third parties who may have acquired the property directly or indirectly from the said Government and who may be injured by this restitution. Disputes which may arise in connection with such compensation shall be dealt with by the ordinary courts.

In all other cases it will be open to any third parties who may be injured to take action against whoever is responsible, in order to obtain compensation.

In order to give effect to these provisions all acts of transfer or other exceptional war measures, which the High Contracting Parties may have carried out in respect of enemy property, rights and interests, shall be immediately cancelled and stayed when liquidation has not yet been completed. Owners who make claims shall be satisfied by the immediate restitution of their property, rights and interests as soon as these shall have been identified.

When at the date of the signature of the present Treaty the property, rights and interests, the restitution of which is provided for in Article 65. have been liquidated by the authorities of one of the High Contracting Parties, that Party shall be discharged from the obligation to restore the said property, rights and interests by payment of the proceeds of the liquidation to the owner. If, on application being made by the owner, the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal provided for by Section V finds that the liquidation was not effected in such conditions as to ensure the realisation of a fair price, it will have the power, in default of agreement between the parties, to order the addition to the proceeds of the liquidation of such amount as it shall consider equitable. The said property, rights and interests shall be restored if the payment is not made within two months from the agreement with the owner or from the decision of the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal mentioned above.
ARTICLE 67.

Greece, Roumania and the Serb-Croat-Slovene State on the one hand, and Turkey on the other hand undertake mutually to facilitate, both by appropriate administrative measures and by the delivery of all documents relating thereto, the search on their territory for, and the restitution of, movable property of every kind taken away, seized or sequestrated by their armies or administrations in the territory of Turkey, or in the territory of Greece, Roumania or the Serb-Croat-Slovene State respectively, which are actually within the territories in question.

Such search and restitution will take place also as regards property of the nature referred to above seized or sequestrated by German, Austro-Hungarian or Bulgarian armies or administrations in the territory of Greece, Roumania or the Serb-Croat-Slovene State, which has been assigned to Turkey or to her nationals, as well as to property seized or sequestrated by the Greek, Roumanian or Serbian armies in Turkish territory, which has been assigned to Greece, Roumania or the Serb-Croat-Slovene State or to their nationals.

Applications relating to such search and restitution must be made within six months from the coming into force of the present Treaty.
ARTICLE 68.

Debts arising out of contracts concluded, in districts in Turkey occupied by the Greek army, between the Greek authorities and administrations on the one hand and Turkish nationals on the other, shall be paid by the Greek Government in accordance with the provisions of the said contracts.
ARTICLE 69.

No charge, tax or surtax to which, by virtue of the privileges which they enjoyed on the 1st August, 1914, Allied nationals and their property were not subject, shall be collected from Allied subjects or their property in respect of the financial years earlier than the financial year 1922-23.

If any sums have been collected after the 15th May, 1923, in respect of financial years earlier than the financial year 1922-l923, the amount shall be refunded to the persons concerned, as soon as the present Treaty comes into force.

No claim for repayment shall be made as regards sums encashed before the 15th May, 1923.
ARTICLE 70.

Claims based on Articles 65, 66 and 69 must be lodged with the competent authorities within six months, and, in default of agreement, with the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal within twelve months, from the coming into force of the present Treaty.
ARTICLE 7I.

The British Empire, France, [taly, Roumania and the Serb-Croat-Slovene State or their nationals having begun claims or suits with regard to their property, rights and interests against the Ottoman Government before the 29th October, 1914, the provisions of this Section will not prejudice such claims or suits.

Claims or suits begun against the British, French, Italian, Roumanian or Serb-Croat-Slovene Governments by the Ottoman Government or its nationals will similarly not be prejudiced. These claims or suits will be continued against the Turkish Government and against the other Governments mentioned in this Article under the conditions existing before the 29th October, I9I4, due regard being had to the abolition of the Capitulations.
ARTICLE 72.

In the territories which remain Turkish by virtue of the present Treaty, property, rights and interests belonging to Germany, Austria, Hungary and Bulgaria or to their nationals, which before the coming into force of the present Treaty have been seized or occupied by the Allied Governments, shall remain in the possession of tlxese Governments until the conclusion of arrangements between them and the German, Austrian, Hungarian and Bulgarian Governments or their nationals who are concerned. If the above-mentioned property, rights and interests have been liquidated, such liquidation is confirmed.

In the territories detached from Turkey under the present Treaty, the Governments exercising authority there shall have power, within one year from the coming into force of the present Treaty, to liquidate the property, rights and interests belonging to Germany, Austria, Hungary and Bulgaria or to their nationals.

The proceeds of liquidations, whether they have already been carried out or not, shall be paid to the Reparation Commission established by the Treaty of Peace concluded with the States concerned, if the property liquidated belongs to the German, Austrian, Hungarian or Bulgarian State. In the case of liquidation of private property, the proceeds of liquidation shall be paid to the owners direct.

The provisions of this Article do not apply to Ottoman limited Companies.

The Turkish Government shall be in no way responsible for the measures referred to in the present Article.
SECTION II .
CONTRACTS, PRESCRIPTIONS AND JUDGMENTS.
ARTICLE 73.

The following classes of contracts concluded, before the date mentioned in Article 82, between persons who thereafter became enemies as defined in that Article, remain in force subject to the provisions of the contracts and to the stipulations of the present Treaty:

(a) Contracts for the sale of real property, even if all formalities may not have been concluded, provided that delivery did in fact take place before the date on which the parties became enemies as defined in Article 82.

(b) Leases and agreements for leases of land and houses entered into between individuals.

(c) Contracts between individuals regarding the exploitation of mines, forests or agricultural estates.

(d) Contracts of mortgage, pledge or lien.

(e) Contracts constituting companies, excepting “societes en ‘nom collectif’ ” which do not constitute, under the law to which they are subject, an entity separate from that of the persons of which they are composed (partnerships).

(f) Contracts, whatever may be their purpose, concluded between individuals or companies and the State, provinces, municipalities or other similar juridical persons charged with administrative functions.

(g) Contracts relating to family status.

(h) Contracts relating to gifts or bounties of any kind whatever.

This Article cannot be invoked in order to give to contracts a validity different from that which they had in themselves when they were concluded.

It does not apply to concessionary contracts.
ARTICLE 74.

Insurance contracts are governed by the provisions of the Annex to this Section.
ARTICLE 75.

Contracts other than those specified in Articles 73 and 74 and other than concessionary contracts, which were entered into between persons who subsequently became enemies, shall be considered as having been annulled as from the date on which the parties became enemies.

Nevertheless, either of the parties to the contract shall have power, within three months from the coming into force of the present Treaty, to require the execution of the contract, on condition of paying, where the circumstances demand it, to the other party compensation calculated according to the difference between the conditions prevailing at the time when the contract was concluded and those prevailing at the time when its maintenance is required. In default of agreement between the parties, this compensation shall be fixed by the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal.
ARTICLE 76.

The validity of all compromises entered into before the coming into force of the present Treatybetween nationals of the Contracting Powers, parties to contracts specified in Articles 73 to 75, particularly those providing for the cancellation, the maintenance, the methods of execution, or the modification of such contracts, including agreements relating to the currency of payment or the rate of exchange, is confirmed.
ARTICLE 77.

Contracts between Allied and Turkish nationals concluded after the 30th October, I918, remain in force and will be governed by the ordinary law.

Contracts duly concluded with the Constantinople Government between the 30th October, I9I8, and the I6th March, I920, also remain in force and will be governed by the ordinary law.

All contracts and arrangements duly concluded after the 16th March, I920, with the Constantinople Government concerning territories which remained under the effective control of the said Government, shall be submitted to the Grand National Assembly of Turkey for approval, if the parties concerned make application within three months from the coming into force of the present Treaty. Payments made under such contracts shall be duly credited to the party who has made them.

If approval is not granted, the party concerned shall, if the circumstances demand it, be entitled to compensation corresponding to the direct loss which has been actually suffered; such compensation, in default of an amicable agreement, shall be fixed by the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal.

The provisions of this Article are not applicable either to concessionary contracts or to transfers of concessions.
ARTICLE 78.

All disputes which already exist, or may arise within the period of six months mentioned below, relating to contracts, other than concessionary contracts, between parties who subsequently became enemies, shall be determined by the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal, with the exception of disputes which, in accordance with the laws of neutral Powers are within the competence of the national courts of those Powers. In the latter case, such disputes shall be determined by the said national courts, to the exclusion of the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal. Applications relating to disputes which, under this Article, are within the competence of the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal, must be presented to the said Tribunal within a period of six months from the date of its establishment.

After the expiration of this period, disputes which have not been submitted to the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal shall be determined by the competent courts in accordance with the ordinary law.

The provisions of this Article do not apply to cases in which all the parties to the contract resided in the same country during the war and there freely disposed of their persons and their property, nor to disputes in respect of which judgment was given by a competent court before the date on which the parties became enemies.
ARTICLE 79.

All periods whatever of prescription or limitation of right of action, whether they began to run before or after the outbreak of war, shall be treated, in the territory of the High Contracting Parties so far as regards relations between enemies, as having been suspended from the 29th October, I9I4, until the expiration of three months after the coming into force of the present Treaty.

This provision applies, in particular, to periods of time allowed for the presentation of interest or dividend coupons, or for the presentation for payment of securities drawn for redemption or repayable on any other ground.

As regards Roumania, the above-mentioned periods shall be considered as having been suspended as from the 27th August 19I6.
ARTICLE 80.

As between enemies no negotiable instrument made before the war shall be deemed to have become invalid by reason only of failure within the required time to present the instrument for acceptance or payrnent, or to give notice of non-acceptance or non-payment to drawers or endorsers, or to protest the instrument, nor by reason of failure to complete any formality during the war.

When the period within which a negotiable instrument should have been presented for acceptance or payment, or within which notice of non-acceptance or non-payment should have been given to the drawers or endorsers, or within which the instrument should have been protested, has expired during the war, and when the party who should have presented or protested the instrument or given notice of non-acceptance or non-payment, has failed to do so during the war, a period of three months from the coming into force of the present Treaty shall be allowed within which the presentation, notice of non-acceptance or non-payment, or protest may be made.
ARTICLE 8I.

Sales effected during the war in order to realise pledges or mortgages created before the war as security for debts which have become payable, shall be deemed valid, although it may not have been possible to perform all the formalities required for notifying the debtor, subject to the express right of the said debtor to summon the creditor before the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal to render accounts, failing which the creditor will be liable to be cast in damages.

It shall be the duty of the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal to settle the accounts between the parties, to investigate the conditions under which the property pledged or mortgaged was sold, and to order the creditor to make good any loss suffered by the debtor as a result of the sale if the creditor acted in bad faith or if he did not take all steps in his power to avoid having recourse to a sale or to cause the sale to be conducted in such conditions as to ensure the realisation of a fair price.

The present provision is applicable only between enemies and does not extend to transactions referred to above which may have been carried out after the Ist May, 1923.
ARTICLE 82.

For the purposes of the present Section, the parties to a contract shall be regarded as enemies from the date on which trading between them became impossible in fact or was prohibited or became unlawful under laws, orders or regulations to which one of the parties was subject.

By way of exception to Articles 73-75, 79 and 80, contracts shall be governed by the ordinary law if they were concluded within the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties between enemies (including companies) or their agents, if this territory was an enemy country for one of the contracting parties who remained there during the war and was there able to dispose freely of his person and property.
ARTICLE 83.

The provisions of this Section do not apply between Japan and Turkey; matters dealt with in this Section shall, in both of these countries, be determined in accordance with the local law.
ANNEX.
I. LIFE ASSURANCE.
Paragraph I.

Life assurance contracts entered into between an insurer and a person who subsequently became an enemy shall not be deemed to have been dissolved by the outbreak of war or by the fact of the person becoming an enemy.

Every sum which, during the war, became due upon a contract deemed not to have been dissolved in accordance with the preceding paragraph, shall be recoverable after the war. This sum shall be increased by interest at 5 per cent. per annum from the date of its becoming due up to the day of payment.

If the contract has lapsed during the war, owing to non-payment of premiums or has become void from breach of the conditions of the contract, the assured, or his representatives, or the persons entitled, shall have the right at any moment within twelve months from the coming into force of the present Treaty to claim from the insurer the surrender value of the policy at the date of its lapse or annulation, together with interest at 5 per cent. per annum.

Turkish nationals whose life insurance contracts entered into before the 29th October, 1914, have been cancelled or reduced before the Treaty for non-payment of premiums in accordance with the provisions of the said contracts, shall have the right, within three months from the coming into force of the present Treaty, if they are still alive, to restore their policies for the whole of the amount assured. For this purpose they must, after having undergone a medical examination by the doctor of the company, the result of which the company considers satisfactory, pay the premiums in arrear with compound interest at 5 per cent.

Paragraph 2.

It is understood that life assurance contracts in money other than the Turkish pound, entered into before the 29th October, 19I4, between companies possessing the nationality of an Allied Power and Turkish nationals, in respect of which the premiums have been paid before and after the 18th November, 1915, or even only before that date, shall be regulated, first, by determining the rights of the assured in accordance with the general conditions of the policy for the period before the 18th November, 1915, in the currency stipulated in the contract at the current rate in its country of origin (for example, every amount stipulated in francs, in gold francs, or in “francs effectifs” will be paid in French francs), secondly, for the period after the 18th November, 19I5, in Turkish pounds paper-the Turkish pound being taken at the pre-war par value.

If Turkish nationals whose contracts were entered into in currency other than Turkish currency show that they have continued to pay their premiums since the 18th November, 1915, in the currency stipulated in the contracts, the said contracts shall be settled in the same currency at the current rate in its country of origin, even for the periocl after the 18th November, 19I5.

Turkish nationals whose contracts, entered into before the 29th October, 1914, in currency other than Turkish currency with companies possessing the nationality of an Allied Power are, owing to payment of premiums, still in force, shall have the right within three months after the coming into force of the present Treaty to restore their policies for the full amount, in the currency stipulated in their contract, at the current rate in its country of origin. For this purpose they must pay in this currency the premiums which have become due since the 18th November, 1915. On the other hand, the premiums actually paid by them in Turkish pounds paper since that date will be repaid to them in the same currency.

Paragraph 3.

As regards insurances in Turkish pounds, settlement shall be made in Turkish pounds paper.

Paragraph 4.

The provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3 do not apply to policy holders who, by an express agreement, have already settled with the insurance companies the fixation of the value of their policies and the method of payment of their premiums, nor to those whose policies shall have been finally settled at the date of the coming into force of the present Treaty.

Paragraph 5.

For the purposes of the preceding paragraphs, insurance contracts shall be considered as contracts of life insurance when they depend on the probabilities of human life, combined with the rate of interest, for the calculation of the reciprocal engagement between the two parties.

II. MARINE INSURANCE.

Paragraph 6.

Subject to the provisions therein contained, contracts of marine insurance will not be deemed to have been dissolved where the risk had attached before the parties became enemies, but the policy shall not be deemed to cover losses due to belligerent action by the Power of which the insurer was a national or by the allies of that Power.

III. FIRE AND OTHER INSURANCES.

Paragraph 7.

Subject to the reserve contained in the preceding paragraph, fire insurance contracts and all other forms of insurance contracts are not deemed to be dissolved.
SECTION III.
DEBTS.
ARTICLE 84.

The High Contracting Parties are in agreement in recognising that debts which were payable before the war or which became payable during the war under contracts entered into before the war, and which remained unpaid owing to the war, must be settled and paid, in accordance with the provisions of the contracts, in the currency agreed upon, at the rate current in its country of origin.

Without prejudice to the provisions of the Annex to Section II of this part, it is agreed that where payments to be made under a pre-war contract are represented by sums collected during the war in whole or in part in a currency other than that mentioned in the said contract, such payments can be made by handing over the sums actually collected, in the currency in which they were collected. This provision shall not affect settlements inconsistent with the foregoing provisions arrived at by voluntary agreement between the parties before the coming into force of the present Treaty.
ARTICLE 85.

The Ottoman Public Debt is by general agreement left outside the scope of.this Section and of the other Sections of this Part (Economic Clauses).
SECTION IV.
INDUSTRIAL, LITERARY AND ARTISTIC PROPERTY.
ARTICLE 86.

Subject to the stipulations of the present Treaty, rights of industrial, literary and artistic property as they existed on the 1st August, I9I4, in accordance with the law of each of the contracting countries, shall be re-established or restored as from the coming into force of the present Treaty in the territories of the High Contracting Parties in favour of the persons entitled to the benefit of them at the moment when the state of war commenced, or of their legal representatives. Equally, rights which, but for the war, could have been acquired during the war, by means of an application legally made for the protection of industrial property or of the publication of a literary or artistic work, shall be recognised and established in favour of those persons who would have been entitled thereto, from the coming into force of the present Treaty.

Without prejudice to the rights which are required to be restored in accordance with the above provision, all acts (including the grant of licences) done by virtue of the special measures taken during the war by a legislative, executive or administrative authority of an Allied Power in regard to the rights of Turkish nationals in respect of industrial, literary or artistic property, shall remain in force and continue to have their full effect. This provision applies mutatis mutandis to corresponding measures taken by Turkish authorities in regard to the rights of the nationals of any Allied Power.
ARTICLE 87.

A minimum of one year from the coming into force of the present Treaty shall be granted, without surtax or penalty of any kind, to Turkish nationals in the territory of each of the other Contracting Powers, and to the nationals of these Powers in Turkey, within which they may accomplish any act, fulfil any formality, pay any fees, and generally satisfy any obligation prescribed by the laws and regulations of the respective States for preserving or obtaining or opposing the grant of rights to industriai property which had already been acquired on the 1st August, I9I4, or which, but for the war, might have been acquired since that date by means of an application made before or during the war.

Rights to industrial property which have lapsed by reason of any failure to accomplish any act, fulfil any formality, or pay any fees shall be revived, but subject, in the case of patents and designs, to the adoption of such measures as each Power may deem reasonably necessary for the protection of the rights of third parties who have exploited or made use of patents or designs since they had lapsed.

The period from the Ist August, I9I4, until the coming into force of the present Treaty shall be excluded in calculating the time within which a patent has to be exploited or a trade-mark or design used, and it is further agreed that no patent, trade-mark or design in force on the Ist August, I9I4, shall be subject to revocation or cancellation by reason only of the failure to exploit such patent or use such trade-mark or design, for two years after the coming into force of the present Treaty.
ARTICLE 88.

No action shall be brought and no claim made on the one hand by Turkish nationals or persons residing or carrying on business in Turkey, and on the other hand by nationals of the Allied Powers or persons residing or carrying on their business in the territory of these Powers, nor by third parties having derived title during the war from such persons, by reason of any occurrence which has taken place within the territory of the other party, between the date of the beginning of a state of war and that of the coming into force of the present Treaty, which might tve held to constitute an infringement of rights of industrial property or rights of literary or artistic property either existing at any time during the war, or revived under the provisions of Article 86.

Among the occurrences referred to above are included the use by the Governments of the High Contracting Parties, or by any person acting on their behalf, or with their consent, of rights of industrial, literary or artistic property, as well as the sale, the offering for sale or the use of products, apparatus, or any articles whatsoever to which these rights apply.
ARTICLE 89.

Licences for the use of industrial property, or for the reproduction of literary or artistic works, granted before the war by or to nationals of the Allied Powers or persons residing in their territories or carrying on business therein, on the one hand, to or by Turkish nationals on the other hand, shall be considered as cancelled as from the date of the beginning of a state of war between Turkey and the Allied Power concerned. But in any case, the former beneficiary of a licence of this kind shall have the right within a period of six months from the coming into force of the present Treaty to require from the proprietor of the rights the grant of a new licence, the conditions of which, in default of agreement between the parties, shall be fixed by the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal referred to in Section V of this Part. The Tribunal shall have the power, where the circumstances demand it, to fix at the same time the amount which it considers fair payment for the use of the property during the war.
ARTICLE 90

The inhabitants of territories detached from Turkey under the present Treaty shall, notwithstanding this transfer and the change of nationality consequent thereon, continue in complete enjoyment in Turkey of all the rights in industrial, literary and artistic property to which they were entitled under Ottoman law at the time of transfer.

Rights of industrial, literary and artistic property which are in existence in territories detached from Turkey under the present Treaty at the time of separation, or which are re-established or restored by the provisions of Article 86, shall be recognised by the State to which the said territory is transferred, and shall remain in existence in that territory for the same period of time as that which they would have enjoyed under Ottoman law.
ARTICLE 91

All grants of patents and registrations of trade-marks, as well as all registrations of transfers or assignments of patents or trade marks which have been duly made since the 30th October, 1918, by the Imperial Ottoman Government at Constantinople or elsewhere, shall be submitted to the Turkish Government and registered, if the parties concerned make an application within three months from the coming into force of the present Treaty. Such registration shall have effect as from the date of the original registration.
SECTION V.
MIXED ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL.
ARTICLE 92.

Within three months from the date of the coming into force of the present Treaty, a Mixed Arbitral Tribunal shall be established between each of the Allied Powers, on the one hand, and Turkey, on the other hand.

Each of these Tribunals shall be composed of three members, two being appointed respectively by each of the Governments concerned, who shall be entitled to designate several persons from whom, according to the case in question, they will choose one to sit as a member of the Tribunal. The president shall be chosen by agreement between the two Governments concerned.

In case of failure to reach agreement within two months from the coming into force of the present Treaty, the president shall be appointed, upon the request of one of the Governments concerned, from among nationals of Powers which remained neutral during the war, by the President of the Permanent Court of International Justice at The Hague.

If within the said period of two months one of the Governments concerned does not appoint a member to represent it on the Tribunal, the Council of the League of Nations will have power to proceed to the appointment of such member upon the request of the other Government concerned.

If a member of the Tribunal should die or resign or for any reason become unable to perform his duties, he shall be replaced by the method laid down for his appointment, the above period of two months running from the date of death, resignation or inability as duly verified.
ARTICLE 93.

The seat of the Mixed Arbitral Tribunals shall be at Constantinople. If the number and character of the cases justify it, the Governments concerned shall be entitled to create in each Tribunal onc or more additional Sections, the seat of which shall be in whatever place may be convenient. Each of these Sections shall be composed of a vice-president and two members appointed as laid down in the second, third, fourth and fifth paragraphs of Article 92.

Each Government shall appoint one or more agents to represent it before the Tribunal.

If, after three years from the establishment of a Mixed Arbitral Tribunal, or of one of its Sections, such Tribunal or Section has not finished its work, and if the Power on whose territory such Tribunal or Section has its seat so requests, the seat shall be removed from such territory.

ARTICLE 94.

The Mixed Arbitral Tribunals established pursuant to Articles 92 and 93 shall decide all questions within their competence under the present Treaty.

Decisions shall be taken by a majority.

The High Contracting Parties agree to regard the decisions of the Mixed Arbitral Tribunals as final and conclusive, and to render them binding upon their nationals, and to ensure their enforcement in their respective territories as soon as the decisions of the Tribunals are notified to them, without it being necessary to have them declared executory.

The High Contracting Parties further undertake that their Tribunals and authorities shall directly assist the fixed Arbitral Tribunals in every way that is in their power, particularly as re- gards the transmission of notices and the collection of evidence.
ARTICLE 95.

The Mixed Arbitral Tribunals shall be guided by justice, equity and good faith.

Each Tribunal will determine the language to be used before it, and shall order such translations to be made as are necessary to ensure that the proceedings are completely understood; it will lay down rules and time limits for the procedure to be observed. These rules must be based on the following principles:

(I) The procedure shall include the presentation of a memorial and a counter-memorial respectively, with the option of presenting a reply and a rejoinder. If either of the parties asks for leave to present an oral argument he will be permitted to do so; in such case the other party will have the same right.

(2) The Tribunal shall have full power to order enquiries, the production of documents, and expert examinations, to make a view, to demand any information, to hear any witnesses and to ask the parties or their representatives for any verbal or written explanations.

(3) Subject to any contrary provision in the present Treaty, no claim shall be admitted after the expiry of a period of six months from the establishment of the Tribunal, except upon express authority contained in a decision of the said Tribunal and justified as an exceptional measure by considerations relating to distance or force majeure.

(4) It shall be the duty of the Tribunal to hold as many sittings each week as may be needed for the prompt despatch of its business, except during vacations, which shall not exceed a total of eight weeks a year.

(5) Judgment must always be given within at most two months from the end of the hearing, after which the Tribunal will at once proceed to consider its judgment.

(6) Oral arguments, if any, shall be heard in public, and in all cases judgment shall be delivered in public.

(7) Each Mixed Arbitral Tribunal shall be entitled to hold sittings elsewhere than in the place where its seat is established, if it considers it advantageous for the despatch of business.
ARTICLE 96.

The Governments concerned shall appoint by agreement a Secretary-General for each Tribunal, and shall each attach to him one or more Secretaries. The Secretary-General and the Secretaries shall be under the orders of the Tribunal, which with the consent of the Governments concerned shall be entitled to engage any persons whose assistance it may need.

The Secretariat of each Tribunal shall have its offices at Constantinople. The Governments concerned shall have power to establish additional offices in such other places as may be convenient.

Each Tribunal shall keep in its Secretariat the records, papers and documents relating to the cases submitted to it, and upon the completion of its duties it shall deposit them in the archives of the Government of the country where its seat is established. These archives shall always be accessible to the Governments concerned.
ARTICLE 97.

Each Government shall pay the emoluments of the member of the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal whom it appoints, as well as those of any agent or secretary appointed by it.

The emoluments of the President and those of the Secretary-General shall be fixed by agreement between the Governments concerned, and these emoluments and the general expenses of the Tribunal shall be paid in equal shares by the two Governments.
ARTICLE 98.

The present section shall not apply to cases between Japan and Turkey, which, according to the terms of the present Treaty, would fall within the competence of the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal. Such cases shall be settled by agreement between the two Govern- ments.
SECTION VI.
TREATIES.
ARTICLE 99.

From the coming into force of the present Treaty and subject to the provisions thereof, the multilateral treaties, conventions and agreements of an economic or technical character enumerated below shall enter again into force between Turkey and those of the other Contracting Powers party thereto:

(I) Conventions of March 14, 1884, of December 1, 1886, and of March 23, 1887, and Final Protocol of July 7, 1887, regarding the protection of submarine cables;

(2) Convention of July 5, 1890, regarding the publication of customs tariffs and the organisation of an International Union for the publication of customs tariffs;

(3) Arrangement of December 9, 1907, regarding the creation of the International Office of Public Hygiene at Paris;

(4) Convention of June 7, 1905, regarding the creation of an International Agricultural Institute at Rome;

(5) Convention of July 16, 1863, for the redemption of the toll dues on the Scheldt;

(6) Convention of October 29, 1888, regarding the establishment of a definite arrangement guaranteeing the free use of the Suez Canal, subject to the special stipulations provided for by Article 19 of the present Treaty;

(7) Conventions and Agreements of the Universal Postal Union, including the Conventions and Agreements signed at Madrid on November 30, 1920;

(8) International Telegraphic Conventions signed at St. Petersburgh on July 10-22, 1875; Regulations and Tariffs drawn up by the International Telegraph Conference, Lisbon, June 11, 1908.
ARTICLE 100.

Turkey undertakes to adhere to the Conventions or Agreements enumerated below, or to ratify them:

(I) Convention of October 11, 1909, regarding the inter- national circulation of motor cars;

(2) Agreement of May 15, 1886, regarding the sealing of railway trucks subject to customs inspection and Protocol of May 18, 1907;

(3) Convention of September 23, 1910, respecting the unification of certain regulations regarding collisions and salvage at sea;

(4) Convention of December 21, 1904, regarding exemption of hospital ships from dues and charges in ports;

(5) Conventions of May 18, 1904, of May 4, 1910, and of September 30, 1921, regarding the suppression of the White Slave Traffic;

(6) Conventions of May 4, 1910, regarding the suppression of obscene publications;

(7) Sanitary Convention of January 17, 1912, Articles 54, 88 and 90 being reserved;

(8) Conventions of November 3, 1881, and April 15, 1889, regarding precautionary measures against phylloxera;

(9) Opium Convention, signed at The Hague, January 23, 1912, and additional Protocol of 1914;

(10) International Radio-Telegraphic Convention of July 5, 1912;

(11) Convention regarding liquor traffic in Africa, signed at St. Germain-en-Laye, September 10, 1919;

(12) Convention revising the General Act of Berlin of February 26, 1885, and the General Act and Declaration of Brussels of July 2, I890, signed at St. Germain-en-Laye, September 10, 1919;

(13) Convention of October 13, 1919, regulating aerial navigation, provided that Turkey obtains, under the Protocol of May 1, 1920, such derogations as her geographical situation may render necessary;

(14) Convention of September 26, 1906, signed at Berne, prohibiting the use of white phosphorus in the manufacture of matches.

Turkey further undertakes to take part in the elaboration of new international conventions relating to telegraphy and radio-telegraphy.
PART IV.
COMMUNICATIONS AND SANITARY QUESTIONS.
SECTION 1.
COMMUNICATIONS.
ARTICLE 101.

Turkey undertakes to adhere to the Convention and to the Statute respecting the Freedom of Transit adopted by the Conference of Barcelona on the 14th April, 192I, as well as to the Convention and the Statute respecting the regime for waterways of international interest adopted by the said Conference on the 19th April, 1921, and to the supplementary Protocol.

Turkey accordingly undertakes to bring into force the provisions of these Conventions, Statutes and Protocol as from the entry into force of the present Treaty.
ARTICLE 102.

Turkey undertakes to adhere to the Declaration of Barcelona. dated the 20th April, 1921, “recognising the rights of the flag of States not possessing a sea-board.”
ARTICLE 103.

Turkey undertakes to adhere to the recommendations of the Conference of Barcelona, dated the 20th April, 1921, respecting ports placed under an international regime. Turkey will subsequently make known those ports which will be placed under that regime.
ARTICLE 104.

Turkey undertakes to adhere to the recommendations of the Conference of Barcelona, dated the 20th April, 1921, respecting international railways. These recommendations will be brought into force by the Turkish Government on the coming into force of the present Treaty and subject to reciprocity.
ARTICLE 105.

On the coming into force of the present Treaty, Turkey agrees to subscribe to the Conventions and arrangements signed at Berne on October 14, 1890, September 20, 1893, July I6, 1895, June 16, 1898, and September 19, 1906, regarding the transportation of goods by rail.
ARTICLE 106.

When, as a result of the fixing of new frontiers, a railway connection between two parts of the same country crosses another country, or a branch line from one country has its terminus in another, the conditions of working, in so far as concerns the traffic between the two countries, shall, subject to any special arrangements, be laid down in an agreement to be concluded between the railway administrations concerned. If these administrations cannot come to an agreement as to the terms of such agreement, those conditions shall be decided by arbitration.

The establishment of all new frontier stations between Turkey and the neighbouring States, as well as the working of the lines between those stations, shall be settled by agreements similarly concluded .
ARTICLE 107

Travellers and goods coming from or destined for Turkey or Greece, and making use in transit of the three sections of the Oriental Railways included between the Grseco-Bulgarian frontier and the Grceco-Turkish frontier near Kuleli-Burgas, shall not be subject, on account of such transit, to any duty or toll nor to any formality of examination in connection with passports or customs.

A Commissioner, who shall be selected by the Council of the League of Nations, shall ensure that the stipulations of this Article are carried out.

The Greek and Turkish Governments shall each have the right to appoint a representative to be attached to this Commissioner; this representative shall have the duty of drawing the attention of the Commissioner to any question relating to the execution of the above-mentioned stipulations, and shall enjoy all the necessary facilities to enable him to accomplish his task. These representatives shall reach an agreement with the Commissioner as to the number and nature of the subordinate staff which they will require.

It shall be the duty of the said Commissioner to submit, for the decision of the Council of the League of Nations, any question relating to the execution of the said stipulations which he may not have been able to settle. The Greek and Turkish Governments undertake to carry out any decision given by the majority vote of the said Council.

The salary of the said Commissioner, as well as the expenses of his work, shall be borne in equal parts by the Greek and Turkish Governments.

In the event of Turkey constructing later a railway line joining Adrianople to the line between Kuleli-Burgas and Constantinople, the stipulations of this Article shall lapse in so far as concerns transit between the points on the Graoco-Turkish frontier lying near Kuleli-Burgas and Bosna-Keuy respectively.

Each of the two interested Powers shall have the right, after five years from the coming into force of the present Treaty, to apply to the Council of the League of Nations with a view to deciding whether it is necessary that the control mentioned in paragraphs 2 to 5 of the present Article should be maintained. Nevertheless, it remains understood that the stipulations of paragraph I shall remain in force for transit over the two sections of the Oriental Railways between the Graeco-Bulgarian frontier and Bosna-Keuy.
ARTICLE 108.

Subject to any special provisions concerning the transfer of ports and railways, whether owned by the Turkish Government or private companies, situated in the territories detached from Turkey under the present Treaty, and similarly subject to any agreements which have been, or may be, concluded between the Contracting Powers relating to the concessionnaries and the pensioning of the personnel, the transfer of railways will take place under the following conditions:

(I) The works and installations of all the railroads shall be left complete and in as good condition as possible;

(2) When a railway system possessing its own rolling-stock is situated in its entirety in transferred territory, such stock shall be left complete with the railway, in accordance with the last inventory before the 30th October, 1918;

(3) As regards lines, the administration of which will in virtue of the present Treaty be divided, the distribution of the rolling-stock shall be made by friendly agreement between the administrations taking over the several sections thereof. This agreement shall have regard to the amount of the material registered on those lines in the last inventory before the 30th October, 1918, the length of the track (sidings included) and the nature and amount of the traffic. Failing agreement, the points in dispute shall be settled by arbitration. The arbitral decision shall also, if necessary, specify the locomotives, carriages and wagons to be left on each section, the conditions of their acceptance and such provisional arrangements as may be judged necessary to ensure for a limited period the current maintenance in existing workshops of the transferred stock;

(4) Stocks of stores, fittings and plant shall be left under the same conditions as the rolling-stock.
ARTICLE 109.

In default of any provisions to the contrary, when as the result of the fixing of a new frontier the hydraulic system (canalisation, inundation, irrigation, drainage or similar matters) in a State is dependent on works executed within the territory of another State, or when use is made on the territory of a State, in virtue of pre-war usage, of water or hydraulic power, the source of which is on the territory of another State, an agreement shall be made between the States concerned to safeguard the interests and rights acquired by each of them.

Failing an agreement, the matter shall be regulated by arbitration.
ARTICLE 110.

Roumania and Turkey will come to an agreement as to an equitable arrangement for the working conditions of the Constanza-Constantinople cable. Failing agreement, the matter shall be settled by arbitration.
ARTICLE 111.

Turkey renounces on her own behalf and on behalf of her nationals all rights, titles or privileges of whatsoever nature over the whole or part of such cables as no longer land on her territory.

If the cables or portions thereof transferred under the preceding paragraph are privately owned, the Governments to which this property is transferred will have to indemnify the owners. Failing agreement respecting the amount of indemnity, this amount will be fixed by arbitration.
ARTICLE 112.

Turkey will retain the rights of property which she may already possess over those cables of which at least one end remains in Turkish territory.

The exercise of the landing rights of the said cables in non-Turkish territory and their working conditions shall be settled in a friendly manner by the States concerned. Failing agreement, the dispute will be settled by arbitration.
ARTICLE 113.

Each of the High Contracting Parties hereby accepts, in so far as it is concerned, the abolition of foreign post offfices in Turkey.
SECTION II.
SANITARY QUESTIONS.
ARTICLE 114.

The Superior Council of Health of Constantinople is abolished. The Turkish Administration is entrusted with the sanitary organisation of the coasts and frontiers of Turkey.
ARTICLE 115.

A single sanitary tariff, the dues and conditions of which shall be fair, shall be applied to all ships without distinction between the Turkish flag and foreign flags, and to nationals of foreign Powers under the same conditions as to nationals of Turkey.
ARTICLE 116.

Turkey undertakes to respect entirely the right of the sanitary employees whose services have been terminated to compensation to be appropriated out of the funds of the former Superior Council of Health of Constantinople, and all other rights acquired by employees or former employees of the Council, or their representatives. All questions relating to such rights, to the employment of the reserve funds of the former Superior Council of Health of Constantinople, or to the final liquidation of the former sanitary administration, as well as all other similar or cognate questions, shall be regulated by a Commission ad hoc which shall be composed of a representative of each of the Powers represented on the Superior Council of Health of Constantinople except Germany, Austria and Hungary. In the event of disagreement between the members of the said Commission on a question relating to the above-mentioned liquidation, or the employment of the funds remaining after the liquidation, every Power represented on the Commission shall have the right to bring the matter to the notice of the Council of the League of Nations, whose decision shall be final.
ARTICLE 117.

Turkey and those Powers which are interested in the supervision of the pilgrimages to Jerusalem and to the Hedjaz and the Hedjaz railway shall take such measures as are appropriate in accordance with the provisions of international sanitary conventions. With a view to ensuring complete uniformity in the execution of these measures, these Powers and Turkey shall constitute a Sanitary Coordination Commission for pilgrimages, on which the sanitary service of Turkey and the Maritime Sanitary and Quarantine Council of Egypt shall be represented.

This Commission must obtain the previous consent of the State on whose territory it holds its meeting.
ARTICLE 118.

Reports on the work of the Pilgrimage Coordination Commission shall be addressed to the Health Committee of the League of Nations and to the International Office of Public Health, and also to the Government of each country which is interested in pilgrimages and makes a request therefor. The Commission will give its opinion on every question put to it by the League of Nations, by the International Office of Public Health, or by the interested Governments.
PART V.
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
SECTION I.
PRISONERS 0F WAR.
ARTICLE 119.

The High Contracting Parties agree to repatriate at once the prisoners of war and interned civilians who are still in their hands.

The exchange of prisoners of war and interned civilians detained by Greece and Turkey respectively forms the subject of a separate agreement between those Powers signed at Lausanne on the 30th January,1923.
ARTICLE 120.

Prisoners of war and interned civilians awaiting disposal or undergoing sentence for offences against discipline shall be repatriated irrespective of the completion of their sentence or of the proceedings pending against them.

Prisoners of war and interned civilians who are awaiting trial or undergoing sentence for offences other than those against discipline may be detained.
ARTICLE 121.

The High Contracting Parties agree to give every facility in their respective territories for the search for the missing and the identification of prisoners of war and interned civilians who have expressed their desire not to be repatriated.
ARTICLE 122.

The High Contracting Parties undertake to restore on the coming into force of the present Treaty all articles, money, securities, documents and personal effects of every description which have belonged to prisoners of war or interned civilians and which have been retained.
ARTICLE 123.

The High Contracting Parties waive reciprocally all repayments of sums due for the maintenance of prisoners of war captured by their armies.
SECTION II.
GRAVES.
ARTICLE 124.

Without prejudice to the special provisions of Article 126 of the present Treaty, the High Contracting Parties will cause to be respected and maintained within the territories under their authority the cemeteries, graves, ossuaries and memorials of soldiers and sailors who fell in action or died from wounds accident or disease since the 29th October, 1914, as well as of prisoners of war and interned civilians who died in captivity after that date.

The High Contracting Parties will agree to accord in their respective territories all necessary facilities to such Commissions as each Contracting Power may appoint for the purpose of the identification, registration and maintenance of the said cemeteries, ossuaries and graves, and the erection of memorials on their sites. Such Commissions shall not have any military character.

The High Contracting Parties reciprocally undertake, subject to the provisions of their national laws and the requirements of public health, to furnish each other every facility for giving effect to requests that the bodies of such soldiers and sailors may be transferred to their own country.
ARTICLE 125.

The High Contracting Parties further undertake to furnish each other:

(I) A complete list of prisoners of war and interned civilians who have died in captivity, together with all information tending towards their identification.

(2) All information as to the number and position of the graves of all those who have been buried without identification.
ARTICLE 126.

The maintenace of the graves, cemeteries, ossuaries and memorials of Turkish soldiers, sailors and prisoners of war who may have died on Roumanian territory since the 27th August 1916, as well as all other obligations under Articles 124 and 125 regarding interned civilians, shall form the object of a special arrangement between the Roumanian and the Turkish Governments.
ARTICLE 127.

In order to complete the general provisions included in Articles 124 and 125, the Governments of the British Empire, France and Italy on the one hand and the Turkish and Greek Governments on the other agree to the special provisions contained in Articles 128 to 136.
ARTICLE 128.

The Turkish Government undertakes to grant to the Governments of the British Empire, France and Italy respectively and in perpetuity the land within the Turkish territory in which are situated the graves, cemeteries, ossuaries or memorials of their soldiers and sailors who fell in action or died of wounds, accident or disease, as well as those of prisoners of war and interned civil- ians who died in captivity.

The Turkish Government will also grant to those Governments the land which the Commissions provided for in Article 130 shall consider necessary for the establishment of cemeteries for the regrouping of graves, for ossuaries or memorials.

The Turkish Government undertakes further to give free access to these graves, cemeteries, ossuaries and memorials, and if need be to authorise the construction of the necessary roads and pathways.

The Greek Government undertakes to fulfil the same obligations in so far as concerns its territory.

The above provisions shall not affect Turkish or Greek sovereignty over the land thus granted.
ARTICLE 129.

The land to be granted by the Turkish Government will include in particular, as regards the British Empire, the area in the region known as Anzac (Ari Burnu), which is shown on Map No. 3. [See Introduction.] The occupation of the above-mentioned area shall be subject to the following conditions:

(1) This area shall not be applied to any purpose other than that laid down in the present Treaty; consequently it shall not be utilised for any military or commercial object nor for any other object foreign to the purpose mentioned above;

(2) The Turkish Government shall, at all times, have the right to cause this area, including the cemeteries, to be inspected;

(3) The number of civil custodians appointed to look after the cemeteries shall not exceed one custodian to each cemetery. There shall not be any special custodians for the parts of the area Iying outside the cemeteries;

(4) No dwelling houses may be erected in the area, either inslde or outside the cemeteries, except such as are strictly necessary for the custodians;

(5) On the sea shore of the area no quay, jetty or wharfs may be built to facilitate the landing or embarkation of persons or goods;

(6) Such formalities as may be required may only be fulfilled on the coast inside the Straits and access to the area by the coast on the AEgean Sea shall only be permitted after these formalities have been fulfilled. The Turkish Government agrees that these formalities, which shall be as simple as possible, shall not be, without prejudice to the other stipulations of this Article, more onerous than those imposed on other foreigners entering Turkey, and that they should be fulfilled under conditions tending to avoid all unnecessary delay;

(7) Persons who desire to visit the area must not be armed, and the Turkish Government have the right to see to the enforcement of this strict prohibition;

(8) The Turkish Government must be informed at least a week in advance of the arrival of any party of visitors exceeding 150 persons.
ARTICLE 130.

Each of the British, French and Italian Governments shall appoint a commission, on which the Turkish and Greek Governments will appoint a representative, to which will be entrusted the duty of regulating on the spot questions affecting the graves, cemeteries, ossuaries and memorials. The duties of these commissions shall extend particularly to:

(1) the offficial recognition of the zones where burials have or may have already taken place and the registration of cemeteries, ossuaries, or memorials already existing;

(2) fixing the conditions in which, if necessary, graves may in future be concentrated, and deciding, in conjunction with the Turkish representative in Turkish territory and the Greek representative in Greek territory, the sites of the cemeteries, ossuaries and memorials still to be established, and defining the boundaries of these sites in such a way as shall restrict the land to be occupied within the limits indispensable for the purpose;

(3) communicating to the Turkish and Greek Governments in the name of the respective Governments a final plan of their graves, cemeteries, ossuaries and memorials, whether already established or to be established.
ARTICLE 131 .

The Government in whose favour the grant is made undertakes not to employ the land nor to allow it to be employed for any purpose other than that to which it is dedicated. If this land is situated on the coast, the shore may not be employed by the concessionary Government for any military, marine or commercial purpose of whatever nature. The sites of graves and cemeteries which may no longer be used for that purpose and which are not used for the erection of memorials shall be returned to the Turkish or Greek Government.
ARTICLE 132.

Any necessary legislative or administrative measures for the grant to the British, French and Italian Governments respectively of full, exclusive and perpetual use of the land referred to in Articles 128 to 130 shall be taken by the Turkish Government and Greek Government respectively within six months of the date of the notification to be made in accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 130. If any compulsory acquisition of the land is necessary, it will be effected by and at the cost of the Turkish Government or the Greek Government, as the case may be.
ARTICLE 133.

The British, French and Italian Governments may respectively entrust to such organisations as each of them may deem fit the establishment, arrangement and maintenance of the graves, cemeteries, ossuaries and memorials of their nationals. These organisations shall have no military character. They alone shall have the right to undertake the exhumation or removal of bodies necessary for the concentration of graves and establishment of cemeteries and ossuaries, as well as the exhumation and removal of such bodies as the Governments to whom the grant of land is made shall deem it necessary to transfer to their own country.
ARTICLE 134.

The British, French and Italian Governments shall have the right to entrust the maintenance of their graves, cemeteries, ossuaries and memorials in Turkey to custodians appointed from among their own nationals. These custodians shall be recognised by the Turkish authorities and shall receive from them every assistance necessary for the safeguard and protection of these graves, cemeteries, ossuaries and memorials. The custodians shall have no military character, but may be armed for their personal defence with a revolver or automatic pistol.
ARTICLE 135.

The land referred to in Articles 128 to 131 shall not be subjected by Turkey or the Turkish authorities, or by Greece or the Greek authorities, as the case may be, to any form of rent or taxation. Representatives of the British, French or Italian Governments as well as persons desirous of visiting the graves, cemeteries, ossuaries and memorials, shall at all times have free access thereto. The Turkish Government and the Greek Government respectively undertake to maintain in perpetuity the roads leading to the said land.

The Turkish Government and the Greek Government respectively undertake to afford to the British, French and Italian Governments all necessary facilities for obtaining a sufficient water supply for the requirements of the staff engaged in the maintenance or protection of the said graves, cemeteries, ossuaries and memorials, and for the irrigation of the land.
ARTICLE 136.

The British, French and Italian Governments undertake to accord to the Turkish Government the benefits of the provisions contained in Articles 128 and 130 to 135 of the present Treaty for the establishment of graves, cemeteries, ossuaries and memorials of Turkish soldiers and sailors existing on the territories under their authority, including the territories detached from Turkey.
SECTION III.
GENERAL PROVISIONS.
ARTICLE 137.

Subject to any agreements concluded between the High Contracting Parties, the decisions talcen and orders issued since the 30th October, 1918, until the coming into force of the present Treaty, by or in agreement with the authorities of the Powers who have occupied Constantinople, and concerning the property, rights and interests of their nationals, of foreigners or of Turkish nationals, and the relations of such persons with the authorities of Turkey, shall be regarded as definitive and shall give rise to no claims against the Powers or their authority.

All other claims arising from injury suffered in consequence of any such decisions or orders shall be submitted to the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal.
ARTICLE 138.

In judicial matters, the decisions given and orders issued in Turkey from the 30th October, 1918, until the coming into force of the present Treaty by all judges, courts or authorities of the Powers who have occupied Constantinople, or by the Provisional Mixed Judicial Commission established on the 8th December, 1921, as well as the measures taken in execution of such decisions or orders, shall be regarded as definitive, without prejudice, however, to the terms of paragraphs IV and VI of the Amnesty Declaration dated this day.

Nevertheless, in the event of a claim being presented by a private person in respect of damage suffered by him in consequence of a judicial decision in favour of another private person given in a civil matter by a military or police court, this claim shall be brought before the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal, which may in a proper case, order the payment of compensation or even restitution of the property in question.
ARTICLE 139.

Archives, registers, plans, title-deeds and other documents of every kind relating to the civil, judicial or financial administration, or the administration of Wakfs, which are at present in Turkey and are only of interest to the Government of a territory detached from the Ottoman Empire, and reciprocally those in a territory detached from the Ottoman Empire which are only of interest to the Turkish Government, shall reciprocally be restored.

Archives, registers, plans, title-deeds and other documents mentioned above which are considered by the Government in whose possession they are as being also of interest to itself, may be retained by that Government, subject to its furnishing on request photographs or certified copies to the Government concerned.

Archives, registers, plans, title-deeds and other documents which have been taken away either from Turkey or from detached territories shall reciprocally be restored in original, in so far as they concern exclusively the territories from which they have been taken.

The expense entailed by these operations shall be paid by the Government applying therefor.

The above stipulations apply in the same manner to the registers relating to real estates or Wakfs in the districts of the former Ottoman Empire transferred to Greece after 1912.
ARTICLE 140.

Prizes made during the war between Turkey and the other Contracting Powers prior to the 30th October, 1918, shall give rise to no claim on either side. The same shall apply to seizures effected after that date, for violation of the armistice, by the Powers who have occupied Constantinople.

It is understood that no claim shall be made, either by the Governments of the Powers who have occupied Constantinople or their nationals, or by the Turkish Government or its nationals, respecting small craft of all kinds, vessels of light tonnage, yachts and lighters which any of the said Governments may, between the 29th October, 1914, until the 1st January, 1923, have disposed of in their own harbours or in harbours occupied by them. Nevertheless, this stipulation does not prejudice the terms of paragraph VI of the Amnesty Declaration dated this day, nor the claims which private persons may be able to establish against other private persons in virtue of rights held before the 29th October, 1914.

Vessels under the Turkish flag seized by the Greek forces after the 30th October, 1918, shall be restored to Turkey.
ARTICLE 141 .

In accordance with Article 25 of the present Treaty, Articles 155, 250 and 440 and Annex III, Part VIII (Reparation) of the Treaty of Peace of Versailles, dated the 28th June, 1919, the Turkish Government and its nationals are released from any liability to the German Government or to its nationals in respect of German vessels which were the object during the war of a transfer by the German Government or its nationals to the Ottoman Government or its nationals without the consent of the Allied Governments, and at present in the possession of the latter.

The same shall apply, if necessary, in the relations between Turkey and the other Powers which fought on her side.
ARTICLE 142.

The separate Convention concluded on the 30th January, 1923, between Greece and Turkey, relating to the exchange of the Greek and Turkish populations, will have as between these two High Contracting Parties the same force and effect as if it formed part of the present Treaty.
ARTICLE 143.

The present Treaty shall be ratified as soon as possible.

The ratifications shall be deposited at Paris.

The Japanese Government will be entitled merely to inform the Government of the French Republic through their diplomatic representative at Paris when their ratification has been given; in that case, they must transmit the instrument of ratification as soon as possible.

Each of the Signatory Powers will ratify by one single instrument the present Treaty and the other instruments signed by it and mentioned in the Final Act of the Conference of Lausanne, in so far as these require ratification.

A first proces-verbal of the deposit of ratifications shall be drawn up as soon as Turkey, on the one hand, and the British Empire, France, Italy and Japan, or any three of them, on the other hand, have deposited the instruments of their ratifications.

From the date of this first proces-verbal the Treaty will come into force between the High Contracting Parties who have thus ratified it, Thereafter it will come into force for the other Powers at the date of the deposit of their ratifications.

As between Greece and Turkey, however, the provisions of Articles 1, 2 (2) and 5-11 inclusive will come into force as soon as the Greek and Turkish Governments have deposited the instruments of their ratifications, even if at that time the proces-verbal referred to above has not yet been drawn up.

The French Government will transmit to all the Signatory Powers a certified copy of the proces-verbaux of the deposit of ratifications.

In faith whereof the above-named Plenipotentiaries have slgned the present Treaty.

Done at Lausanne, the 24th July, 1923, in a single copy, which will be deposited in the archives of the Government of the French Republlc, which will transmit a certified copy to each of the Contracting Powers.

(L.S.) HORACE RUMBOLD.
(L.S.) PELLE.
(L.S ) GARRONI.
(L.S.) G. C. MONTAGNA.
(L.S.) K. OTCHIAI.
(L-S.) E. K. VENISELOS.
(L.S.) D. CACLAMANOS.
(L.S.) CONST. DIAMANDY.
(L.S.) CONST. CONTZESCO.
( ) ______________
(L.S.) M. ISMET.
(L.S.) DR. RIZA NOUR.
(L S. ) HASSAN.

 

Previous Older Entries