zeki kuneralp and the turkish foreign service kuneralp... · 2020. 1. 17. · selim kuneralp, who...

Zeki Kuneralp and the Turkish Foreign Service


By

Yücel Güçlü

Zeki Kuneralp and the Turkish Foreign Service, by Yücel Güçlü

This book first published 2015

Cambridge Scholars Publishing

12 Back Chapman Street, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2XX, UK

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Copyright © 2015 by Yücel Güçlü

All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or

otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner.

ISBN (10): 1-4438-6457-9, ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-6457-2

CONTENTS Acknowledgments .................................................................... x Foreword ............................................................................... xiii Professor Ahmet Davuto lu Introduction .............................................................................. 1

Turkish Diplomatic Biographies Subject Matter Sources

Chapter One ........................................................................... 23 Family and Educational Background

Birthplace and Environment Ancestry Education and Early Youth Military Service

Chapter Two ........................................................................... 92 Entry to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Turkish Foreign Policy in the Second World War

New Entrants Ankara in 1941 The Foreign Service as Career The Organization of the Turkish Ministry of Foreign

Affairs in 1941 The Directorate General of the Department of Commercial

and Economic Affairs Contemporary Practitioners of Turkish Diplomacy The Course of Turkish Foreign Policy

Contents

vi

Chapter Three ....................................................................... 139 Third Secretary at the Bucharest Legation, 1943-1947

Rumania and the Balkans Turkish-Rumanian Commercial Relations The Rumanian Domestic Scene in 1942-1943 Hamdullah Suphi Tanr över as Ambassador The Turkish Legation in Bucharest and the Consulate

in Köstence Kuneralp’s Duties Turkish-Rumanian Political Relations The Departure of Hamdullah Suphi Tanr över

from Bucharest

Chapter Four ........................................................................ 180 Chief of the Private Cabinet to the Secretary General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 1947-1949

Responsibilities of the Private Cabinet Fuat Car m as Secretary General The Reorganization of the Turkish Ministry

of Foreign Affairs in 1948 Post-1945 Developments in Turkish Foreign Policy

Chapter Five ......................................................................... 198 First Secretary at the Prague Legation, 1949-1952

The Communist Coup and Turkey The Czechoslovak Internal Situation and the Foreign

Missions Turkish-Czechoslovak Commercial Relations Kuneralp’s Work in the Legation The Prague Legation and Minister Selahattin Arbel


vii

Chapter Six ........................................................................... 229 Counselor at the Permanent Mission to NATO, 1952-1957

Turkey’s Entry to NATO The Turkish Permanent Mission to NATO

and Fatin Rü tü Zorlu Kuneralp and his Chief

Chapter Seven ...................................................................... 254 The Offices of First Deputy Secretary General and Secretary General, 1957-1960

First Deputy Secretary General Secretary General Ambassadorial Recalls After 27 May 1960 Post-1960 Changes in Turkish Foreign Policy Appointment to Berne as Ambassador

Chapter Eight ....................................................................... 275 Ambassador at Berne, 1960-1964

Before Departure from Ankara The Swiss Capital and the Presentation of Credentials Swiss Democracy Turkish-Swiss Relations The Staff and the Business of the Embassy Transfer from Berne

Chapter Nine ........................................................................ 302 Ambassador in London, 1964-1966

Predecessors in the Office and the Importance of the Post Audience with the Queen The Staff of the Embassy and the Consulate General Turkish-British Relations Cyprus and Britain Work in the Embassy and Social Life Return to Ankara

Contents

viii

Chapter Ten .......................................................................... 348 The Office of Secretary General, 1966-1969

hsan Sabri Ça layangil’s Assumption of Office as Minister of Foreign Affairs

Kuneralp’s Visits to Cyprus, 7-13 March 1967 and 15-17 July 1967

Ke an-Dedea aç Talks on Cyprus, 9-10 September 1967 The Cyprus Crisis of 15-28 November 1967 The Cyprus Crisis of 29-30 December 1967 hsan Sabri Ça layangil’s Conduct of Foreign Policy

The Reorganization of the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1967

The Appointment and Efficiency of Career Officers Growing Ties with Africa and the New Consulates

in Western Europe Second Assignment to London

Chapter Eleven ..................................................................... 416 Ambassador in London, 1969-1972

Intercommunal Dispute in Cyprus and Turkey’s Interest in the European Economic Community

Row over Air Services Michael Stewart’s Visit to Turkey, 5-9 April 1970 Turkish-British Economic and Cultural Cooperation Embassy Staff State Visit by Queen Elizabeth II to Turkey,

18-25 October 1971 The Timothy Davey Case, the European Summit

of October 1972 and Trade Exhibitions Visitors from Turkey and Official Entertainment


ix

Chapter Twelve .................................................................... 459 Ambassador in Madrid, 1972-1979

Gregorio Lopez-Bravo de Castro’s Visit to Turkey,5-9 November 1972

Presentation of Credentials and Franco The Spanish Internal Situation and the Foreign MissionsThe Embassy Staff in Madrid and the Consulate General

in BarcelonaMadrid and San SebastianSpanish and SpaniardsTurkish-Spanish RelationsDeparture from Madrid Assassination of Mrs Necla Kuneralp, 2 June 1978

Conclusion ........................................................................... 490

Appendix I ............................................................................ 503 Foreign Secretary Michael Stewart’s Speech at Farewell Luncheon for the Turkish Ambassador Zeki Kuneralp, 17 June 1966

Appendix II .......................................................................... 505 Turkish Statement for a Settlement of the Intercommunal Dispute in Cyprus, 4 January 1971

Bibliography ......................................................................... 508

Index ..................................................................................... 551

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Research for this book was carried out in various places in

the course of the last six years. Several colleagues and friends gave willingly of their time to read and criticize the manuscript. All have shown great generosity of spirit and effort, and their help has been invaluable.

I have benefited from the useful comments of Ambassador Selim Kuneralp, who read this study in earlier drafts and generously shared his collection of family photographs. He responded to questions of substance, provided data, or helped check my memory of events where no written record exists or was available. I am grateful to Sinan Kuneralp for providing many constructive suggestions for amendments and improvements on the entire text at a late stage, and for answering my endless queries. Needless to say, neither of them is responsible for, or would necessarily agree with, all that appears in the book.

I must thank Ambassador Ertu rul Apakan, a former Under Secretary of the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, for inspiring me to undertake the subject of this research, and for his constant encouragement. This is in no way an official or authorized biography, however.

My thanks also go to the fellow historians and authors whose writings have been my principal sources over many years. In the bibliography are listed all those works of which I have made use. Without the work of other writers—contemporaries, eyewitnesses, participants, bystanders, journalists and historians—no survey such as this could be attempted. In particular, the researches of historians over decades form an indispensable bedrock of information.


xi

The staffs of various archives and libraries have been understanding and helpful in gathering the materials required for this inquiry. Indebtedness is due to the staffs of: the Archive of the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Karakusunlar, Ankara; the Prime Minister’s Office Ottoman Archive in Ka thane, stanbul; the Archive of the Turkish Embassy in London; the British National Archives in Kew, London; the United States National Archives and Records Administration in College Park, Maryland; the National Library and the Turkish Historical Society Library in Ankara; the British Library in London; the Library of Congress and the Middle East Institute in Washington, DC.

I owe a particular debt to An l Gökalp and Nevin Y lmaz of the Archive of the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, who sifted through inaccessible personnel records of former diplomats in order to provide me with many biographical details. They guided me to sources not to be found elsewhere, and both proved to be unfailingly helpful in this regard. Gökalp and Y lmaz took time out from their official duties to decipher various documents in Ottoman script for me; they helped me in less tangible ways as well. A special word of appreciation goes to Cansel Ahali for her assistance in locating relevant files in the Archive of the Turkish Embassy in London. At the United States National Archives and Records Administration, Lawrence McDonald (Archivist: Modern Military Records), gave me the benefit of his decades of experience. Before each visit to the United States National Archives and Records Administration, I spent many hours poring over the relevant guide or guides so that I could inspect a relatively small number of files or rolls of film once I got there. When I could not find what I was seeking, I would simply go up to McDonald’s office and ask if he knew where there might be additional material on a particular event. Often he gave me specific citations off the top of his head; sometimes

Acknowledgments xii

he checked comments he had scribbled on the front of his catalogue. Richard Peuser, Assistant Chief NWCT (A II) Reference, seemed to know instinctively what I was likely to find in the archives; he used his vast knowledge of the records and the field to point me in the right direction on a number of occasions. At the Library of Congress, Christopher Murphy, Turkish Area Specialist, African and Middle Eastern Division Near East Section, complied promptly and cooperatively with all of my requests. At the Middle East Institute, Simone Braune, Librarian, extended courtesy and cooperation to me during my research there. Kamil Dalyan and Hakan K l ç have done expert computer work on the manuscript.

British crown copyrighted quotations from the collections at the National Archives are used with the kind permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.

I gratefully acknowledge Belleten, Mediterranean Quarterly and Middle Eastern Studies for allowing me to use material I have published in “Fascist Italy’s ‘Mare Nostrum’ Policy and Turkey,” Vol.63, No.238 (December 1999), pp.813-845, in “The Legal Regulation of Passage through the Turkish Straits,” Vol.11, No.3 (Summer 2000), pp.87-99, and in “Turco-British Relations Before the Second World War,” Vol.39, No.4 (October 2003), pp.159-205 respectively.

I also wish to record my deep appreciation to the publishers of this book—editors, designer, and production staff—for the patient understanding, encouragement, good counsel, and effective assistance they have unfailingly provided at every step along the way.

It remains to add that I shall always be obliged for any corrections or new material from interested readers.

FOREWORD The office of the Secretary General and the Secretary

General himself are at the apex of the officials and diplomats who play a role in determining foreign policy in the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Ambassador Zeki Kuneralp’s nomination as Secretary General in 1960 and again in 1966-1969 was an obvious recognition of his talents. His success was remarkable. His Swiss legal training stood him in good stead. His resources never failed when difficulties were greatest. His judgment was accurate. The wide acceptance which Kuneralp’s abilities earned him at a relatively young age did not in any way change his innate kindness and modesty. He was always ready with help and best advice for his junior colleagues.

This is the first full-length biography of Ambassador Zeki Kuneralp written in any language, and the third book in a trilogy about the Secretaries General of the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Zeki Kuneralp and the Turkish Foreign Service completes the cycle of biographies undertaken by Dr Yücel Güçlü which began with his volumes on Numan Menemencio lu and Cevat Aç kal n, both published in 2002.

I sincerely appreciate all these valuable studies by our colleague, Dr Yücel Güçlü. His efforts are to be commended for a notable achievement. I hope that this book will arouse more interest in the staff and the functioning of the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs and will be a stimulus to further enterprises.

Professor Ahmet Davuto lu Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Turkey

INTRODUCTION The year 2014 marked the centennial of the birth of the

Turkish diplomat Zeki Kuneralp and the sixteenth year since his death in 1998. He was one of the most able Turkish Ambassadors in the second half of the twentieth century and an integral member of the small group of men who formulated and implemented foreign policy at this critical juncture in Turkey’s history. He was often at the heart of historic events during his long years of diplomatic experience. Perpetually at the eye of the storm, he was involved in handling the Cyprus crisis, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) situation, and the Baghdad Pact and Central Treaty Organization (CENTO) affairs, among many other foreign policy challenges. Throughout this period, relations with Greece were the most pressing concern.

Kuneralp held the office of Secretary General, the highest position for a diplomat in the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, on two separate occasions. Although ultimate responsibility for making foreign policy rested with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, in practice the Secretary General frequently exercised real power not only in implementing but also in formulating foreign policy. Almost all important communications were seen by the Secretary General before they were forwarded to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. It was the Secretary General rather than the Minister of Foreign Affairs who maintained regular contact with Turkish diplomats abroad. Yet there is no single study of either the role of the Minister of Foreign Affairs or that of the Secretary General in twentieth-century Turkish foreign policy. Inevitably the picture of the former is, however, more

Introduction

2

complete through biographies and detailed studies of foreign policy problems than the picture of the latter.

To be Secretary General put Kuneralp at the hub of events as well as capping his career. He was near the center of power during many crises of Turkey’s Cold War decades. The momentous events he witnessed were significant preludes to the present situation in the eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East. It seems probable that he was unsurpassed among contemporary Turkish diplomats in character and intellectual attainment.

This extraordinary man represented Turkey abroad under all sorts of circumstance. A man with no political axes to grind or personal ambition to satisfy, Kuneralp considered his public service a responsibility that a patriotic Turk should willingly shoulder. He was a fine example of what determination and brains could achieve. What he did, and how and why he did it remain little known to his compatriots. He had acquired an enviable reputation as a diplomat, but the nation as a whole knew about him in a vague way only, because public opinion did not take widespread interest in a man on account of his role in foreign affairs alone.

Turkish Diplomatic Biographies

Biography is a thriving and lucrative field of history writing. The modern method of history writing has to a great extent shaped itself into biographical form and the student in search of a contemporary staging of the drama of the recent past will find it for the most part in character studies of the great men of the period. This insures for the narrative a central figure; it links the reader intimately with one of the participants, stirring the reader’s imagination, awakening their sympathy. Biographies suggest how certain individuals had an impact on events or how they exemplified larger forces and conditions. To understand the past one must study individual


3

biographies. The British historians Keith Neilson and T.G. Otte contend that it is people who make institutions work, and that it is through the lens of individual personalities that the student of the past can best elucidate past international affairs.1

Biographies have always been a favorite with historians, and although a great many have been written for Western diplomats, the same cannot be said of their Turkish colleagues.2 The acute shortage of biographical information about the servants of diplomacy is among the serious lacunae in Turkish history, and Hamit Aral therefore performed a singular service in providing biographical notices for 467 members of the diplomatic service on 31 December 1967. Biographical entries range from detailed curriculum vitae of senior figures to a few lines for junior officials. Certainly, at the senior level it is possible to follow in detail the evolution of careers, individual and collective, and in understanding the men we understand the structures much better. Aral provides considerable information on geographical origins, marital status and the number of children of marriages, which will be of interest to prosopographers. It would have been useful to have had some idea of the character of these men as well, but Aral confines himself to information on bare elements of their careers. D i leri Bakanl 1967 Y ll also lacks analysis

1 Keith Neilson and T.G. Otte, The Permanent Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, 1854-1946 (New York: Routledge, 2009), p.xv. 2 Özgür Türesay, “Tarihyaz m ve Biyografinin Dönü ü” (Historiography and the Return of Biography), in Ta k n Tak and Sunay Aksoy, eds., Halil nalc k Arma an – I Tarih Ara t rmalar (Dedication to Halil nalc k – I Historical Studies), ( stanbul: Do u Bat Yay nlar , 2009), p.330.

Introduction

4

regarding the importance of the different types of duty Turkish diplomats undertook in their rise through the ranks.3

All the same this biographical lexicon acts as a useful resource for historians of Turkish diplomacy, providing quick and easy access to information from a variety of sources. Aral is the foremost expert on the prosopography of the Turkish Foreign Service, and his publication is a consolidated descriptive listing of service personnel. D i leri Bakanl 1967 Y ll may not itself have been unerringly comprehensive in its coverage, and it inevitably provides only a skeletal description of internal appointments and promotions, but it is the only list historians have available to them. It may be that future research will compile better and more complete sources, but all subsequent work on this subject will clearly be indebted to Aral’s pioneering survey.

Another important reference work for many aspects of this book is the Mülkiye ve Mülkiyeliler Tarihi, which was edited by Ali Çankaya. The three volumes of this work offer a substantial amount of information about Ottoman and Turkish administrators.4

Turkish diplomats have not generated complete and thorough biographical inquiries, and it is felt that these personages deserve a more generous treatment. They are men and women who do not always act in unison or present a collective view. There are times when the Minister of Foreign Affairs and his officials disagree over policy or when the latter recommend alternative options. Ambassadors may offer advice which the Minister of Foreign Affairs ignores or home 3 See Hamit Aral, ed., D i leri Bakanl 1967 Y ll (1967 Yearbook of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs), (Ankara: Ankara Bas m ve Ciltevi, 1968). 4 Ali Çankaya, ed., Mülkiye ve Mülkiyeliler Tarihi (History of the Faculty of Political Sciences and Its Alumni), 3 Vols., (Ankara: Mars Matbaas , 1968-1969).


5

officials contradict. The diplomat abroad may act on his or her own without consultation with Ankara. Their oddly contrasting characters, actions and opinions, their personal experiences, and their relation to contemporary international questions might well merit separate studies.5

Examining the way in which Turkish diplomats carried out their tasks requires some study of their personalities and beliefs. The men who represented Turkey abroad were not simply impersonal cameras, recording a changing panorama for their superiors back in Ankara. Their own convictions and experiences shaped the way they went about their work.

As with the roles of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Secretary General, there is no general study of the impact of ambassadors on Turkish foreign policy in the twentieth century. In recent years, there has been a marked increase in

5 Ali Birinci, Tarihin Gölgesinde Me ahir-i Meçhûleden Birkaç Z t (In the Shadow of History: A Few Persons Among the Unknown Famous), ( stanbul: Dergah Yay nlar , 2001); idem, Tarih U runda Matbuat leminde Birkaç Ad m (For the Sake of History: A Few Steps in the World of Press), ( stanbul: Dergah Yay nlar , 2001); idem, Tarih Yolunda Yak n Maz nin Siyas ve Fikr Ahv li (In the Path of History: The Political and Intellectual Environment of the Recent Past), ( stanbul: Dergah Yay nlar , 2001); lber Ortayl , “Türk Tarihçili inde Biyografi n as ve Biyografik Malzeme Problematiki” (Biographical Construction in Turkish Historianship and the Problematic of Biographical Material) in Osmanl ’dan Cumhuriyet’e: Problemler, Ara t rmalar, Tart malar. I. Uluslararas Tarih Kongresi (24-26 May s 1993, Ankara), (From the Ottoman to the Republic: Problems, Studies, Debates. First International History Congress [24-26 May 1993, Ankara]), ( stanbul: Türkiye Ekonomik ve Toplumsal Tarih Vakf , 1998), pp.56-63; Bekir Kütüko lu, “Son Devir Osmanl Biyografik Kaynaklar ” (Late Period Ottoman Biographical Sources) in Bekir Kütüko lu, Vekayi’nüvis Makaleler (The Chronicler Articles), ( stanbul: stanbul Fetih Cemiyeti Yay nlar , 1994), pp.211-216.

Introduction

6

the number of studies of individual ambassadors6, but the view they give is constricted by tight chronology and concentration on Turkey’s relations with just one country or region.7

The careers of Turkish representatives who staffed the embassies8, legations9 and consulates10 have not been examined 6 lber Ortayl , K rk Ambar Sohbetleri (Forty Store Conversations), (Ankara: A ina Kitaplar, 2006), pp.256-258; Onur K rl , “An lar ve Ya amöyküleri” (Memoirs and Biographies) in Engin Berber, Türk D Politikas Çal malar Cumhuriyet Dönemi çin Ulusal Rehber (Studies on Turkish Foreign Policy: National Guide for the Republican Period), ( stanbul: stanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yay nlar , 2007), pp.140-144. 7 See, for example, Ömer Engin Lütem, Türk-Bulgar li kileri 1983-1989 (Turkish-Bulgarian Relations 1983-1989), Vol.1: 1983-1985 and Vol.2: 1986-1987, (Ankara: Avrasya Stratejik Ara t rmalar Merkezi Yay nlar , 2000 and 2010); Ayhan Kamel, Dost Pakistan (Friendly Pakistan), (Ankara: A ina Kitaplar, 2008) and Numan Hazar, Küreselle me Sürecinde Afrika ve Türkiye-Afrika li kileri (Africa in the Process of Globalization and Turkish-African Relations), (Ankara: Uluslararas Stratejik Ara t rmalar Kurumu, 2011). Unfortunately, these works are not yet available in English translation. 8 The Embassy is the residence of an ambassador. It is also inaccurately used to denote the building which contains the offices of the ambassador and other key members of his staff. The proper term for the latter is the “chancery.” Confusion is avoided through the practice of using the two terms “embassy residence” and “embassy office.” 9 Legations are rare now, but they were once very common. A legation is a diplomatic mission similar for most practical purposes to an embassy, but lower in rank, and presided over by a minister rather than an ambassador. 10 A consulate is an office established by one state in an important city of another state for the purpose of supporting and protecting its citizens traveling or residing there. In addition, these offices are


7

heretofore with the exception of a few prominent individuals. Not that scholars were not interested, but the identity of most diplomatic and consular representatives was unknown. Those whose names were mentioned in histories—even Ambassadors and Ministers—were not usually included in encyclopedias and biographical dictionaries.

Although the personality and ability of individual Ambassadors played a vital role in determining the atmosphere at the Embassy, other senior officials also influenced both the course of day-to-day work and the texture of everyday life. Some of them were consistently acute commentators, not afraid to give their own opinions on political events. These men provide an interesting cross-section of views and perspectives on diplomacy during the Cold War period in Turkish history. Their careers intertwined at various points; some of these diplomats formed friendships, others merely demonstrated a professional respect for one another. The Archive of the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs for the period contains numerous tributes to the skill and dedication of individual members of staff. The present book puts living faces on what are generally just names in most of the diplomatic studies of the time, fleshing them out with their career histories and personal attributes.

charged with performing other important administrative duties such as issuing visas (where these are required) to host country nationals wishing to travel to the country the consulate represents. All consulates, whether located in the capital city or in other communities, are administratively under the ambassador and the embassy. They often also serve as branch offices for the embassy, supporting, for example, the latter’s political and economic responsibilities. Consulates are expected to play a particularly significant role in the promotion of their own country’s exports and other commercial activities.

Introduction

8

No full-dress scholarly effort has been made to examine Kuneralp’s career in diplomacy or any other aspect of his fascinating life. He is poorly served by historians. He was the subject of some commentaries in the press, which usually appeared at the beginning or end of one of his many important assignments.11 References to him in other works are slight and inadequate: brief pen-portraits in the recollections of his contemporaries and occasional mentions in erudite studies record his abilities and acknowledge his greatness, but fall short of giving a satisfactory explanation for his success as one of the stars of Cold War Turkish diplomacy and foreign policy.

The study of ambassadorial diplomacy is important because it offers an opportunity not only to examine the impact and effect of diplomatic strategies but also to view Ministers of Foreign Affairs and their officials and the Turkish government as a whole from the perspective of a foreign power. It provides proof of the old adage that theory and practice are seldom the same thing.

Perhaps few Turkish diplomats have had sufficiently eventful and interesting lives to merit full-length biographies, but Kuneralp hardly belongs to their number. His stature might itself be reason enough to earn him that accolade. A biography of him was long overdue.

Subject Matter

This book is not a conventional biography. It is not only a portrait of a larger-than-life Turkish diplomat, whose Foreign Service career spanned almost four decades – from 1941 to 1979 – but it also offers a glimpse into the evolution of the

11 See, for instance, Bedi ehsuvaro lu, “ Londra’ya Bir Büyükelçi Zeki Kuneralp” (An Ambassador to London: Zeki Kuneralp), Yeni stanbul, 6 August 1969, p.2.


9

organization of the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs and gives an account of the attitudes and methods of the Ministry’s officials. A good biography should cast light upon its subject’s times as well as upon his – or her – life: upon the way things were done as much as upon the way a particular individual reacted and behaved. Hence not only Kuneralp the man is addressed but also the great developments of his time. An attempt is made to blend biographical narrative with explorations of various aspects of the foreign policy issues Kuneralp was involved in. The book treats in detail the major problems with which Kuneralp was directly concerned at each of his postings, that is, meeting the right people abroad, promoting Turkish interests, reporting to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, subordinating local matters to the political and economic goals of Turkey, and conducting diplomacy so as always to be in accord with Ankara’s policy makers whose big picture he always kept in mind. However, no pretence is made to have covered the whole field of Turkish foreign policy during the period under review.

The men who conceived and executed Turkish diplomacy rather than the policies and stratagems through which they attempted to advance Turkey’s interests are examined. The study aims to present a group of people, identified by their common employment in a branch of the Turkish bureaucracy, and the circumstances under which they pursued their careers. The beliefs and attitudes that united these diplomats or the differences in background and experience that separated them are explained. The Turkish Foreign Service is described, its structure and its role in government, the conditions of service, and the opportunities it offered to those who sought a career in it.

The emergence of a professional mentality, Foreign Service reform, the training of diplomats, and the sources of their views on world politics are discussed. It is argued that

Introduction

10

Turkish diplomats in the Cold War period were realistic in their assessment of international affairs and convinced of the importance of their role in the maintenance of international stability. Of all the prominent diplomats mentioned, only a few have been the subject of full scholarly biographies; for the rest one must rely on memoirs, or the press.

The present survey covers events with which most readers will already be familiar from history books or morning newspapers and nightly news broadcasts. But a new human dimension is added by blending biography and diplomatic history. The book recalls many facts that are known, but some that have been ignored. It goes into details and events in the wider historical context.

More space is given to Cyprus affairs and Turkish-British relations than to other questions in which Kuneralp was involved, because the difficulties he encountered are little known but interesting and dramatic. He was a major policy actor in the Cyprus conflict. He took up his appointment as ambassador to St James’s Court during the critical period in Turkish-British relations caused by the Cyprus crisis. He had to deal with tense situations. Cyprus was at the forefront of Turkish thinking. For almost six decades, from the early 1950s onwards, the foreign policy of the Turkish Republic was influenced (to an inordinate degree) by the country’s concern with the island. Greece remained the principal adversary. Kuneralp himself is the prism through which these matters are seen. His role with reference to the diplomatic efforts which were made to preserve the peace in Cyprus merits close scrutiny.12

12 Cyprus is situated in the easternmost part of the Mediterranean, roughly equidistant from Asia Minor to the north and Israel to the east, some 240 miles north of Egypt, and 500 miles east of Greece. It measures about 3,572 square miles.


11

In many ways the story of Kuneralp’s service is the story of Turkish policy in the eastern Mediterranean over a 38-year period, in which the Turkish role evolved from one of relatively detached observer to one of primary and often decisive actor. What made the difference, in addition to Cyprus, was the competition with Greece for regional power and influence. There was almost inevitably a difference of outlook between the political leaders and strategists in Ankara, with their eyes on the international balance, and the officials in the field and in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, concerned above all with how to protect and advance Turkey’s diverse interests amid the conflicts and complexities of local and regional politics. As Secretary General in Ankara, where his work was more arduous than when he was assigned abroad, Kuneralp always spoke clearly and forcefully in offering assessments and counsel to his own government, and then used all his tactical skills to make Turkish policy effective in Ankara for the foreign diplomats. He was able to judge the Turkish-Greek conflict coolly and to appreciate the views and emotions of both sides; at times he had a key part in Turkish endeavors to contain the conflict and promote peaceful agreements.13 13 For much of the twentieth century, the eastern Mediterranean area has been plagued by territorial disputes that are partly ethnic or religious, partly economic, and partly a legacy of past European colonial involvement. Unlike the Arab-Israeli conflict, which has received widespread attention in the world, the international public knows relatively little about strife in Cyprus. It entered the international arena as an issue of decolonization in the 1950s; was transformed into an ethnic clash in the 1960s; and further metamorphosed into a dangerous regional problem between two NATO allies,—namely, Turkey and Greece. Relations between Turkey and Greece have not usually been a major international issue in the eyes of most of the world, but they have frequently been of concern to members of NATO, to the United Nations—

Introduction

12

After providing background on Kuneralp’s family and education, the survey outlines his entry to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1941 and the course of Turkish foreign policy during the Second World War, discusses his assignment as Third Secretary at the Bucharest Legation in 1943-1947, examines his position as Chief of the Private Cabinet to the Secretary General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1947-1949, reviews his role as First Secretary at the Prague Legation in 1949-1952, and considers his Counselorship at the Permanent Mission to NATO in 1952-1957. This senior diplomat’s offices of First Deputy Secretary General and Secretary General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1957-1960 are dealt with. Special emphasis is placed on Kuneralp’s Ambassadorship in Berne in 1960-1964; his post as Ambassador in London in 1964-1966 is treated extensively; considerable space is devoted to his second term as Secretary General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1966-1969; his second tenure as Ambassador in London in 1969-1972 receives particular attention, and his last official duty as Ambassador in Madrid is focused upon. Finally, general observations and conclusions about various aspects of Kuneralp’s career are summarized. The least well-known part of the story is the account of Kuneralp’s life up to 1938.

The story of any man’s life, however close its contacts with important events in history and with some of the outstanding people of his day, can be but a cold and colorless thing if it affords no intimate glimpse of the personalities involved. Thus a wide cast of characters is introduced, many of whom crop up throughout Kuneralp’s career. The leading politicians and officials of Turkey, Britain and the United States animate

which has maintained a peace-keeping force on Cyprus since 1964—and to the various countries that Turkey and Greece have sometimes sought to enlist in support of their cases.


13

an information-intensive account and recreate the atmosphere of tension and brinkmanship that characterized the era.

Every piece of information about Kuneralp’s life and career is clearly linked to particular pieces of evidence, and the information driving the analysis is never hidden from the reader. He is characterized in considerable detail, but patterns are also brought out to connect him with others, such as with the Ministers of Foreign Affairs Fatin Rü tü Zorlu and hsan Sabri Ça layangil, with both of whom he worked smoothly. This approach is bound to emphasize overarching similarities, but it remains attentive to subtle differences without sacrificing the coherence of the account.

As the historian Sinan Kuneralp himself correctly put it, “very little has been published either in Turkey or elsewhere on the Turkish foreign service.”14 The position of the Turkish Foreign Service personnel therefore receives the attention it deserves. A topography of the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs and its staff is given and the procedures of recruitment, assignment and promotion of the officers are described.

The evolution of the Foreign Service in the second half of the twentieth century and the way in which it responded to Turkey’s changing role in international affairs is examined. The last century was one of unprecedented change in the way foreign policy and diplomacy were conducted. The work of the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs expanded enormously in the twentieth century, and oversaw the transition from Empire to Republic. The significance of the continuity provided by the Secretary General and other senior officials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs can be seen in the wider 14 Sinan Kuneralp, “The Ministry of Foreign Affairs under the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish Republic,” in Zara Steiner, ed., The Times Survey of Foreign Ministries of the World (London: Times Books, 1982), p.510.

Introduction

14

context of contemporary Turkish foreign policy. The book aims to add to the literature on Turkish diplomatic practice, as distinct from diplomatic history or foreign policy making and management.

The history of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, its operation and its impact on Turkish foreign policy have received scant investigation. There has yet to be a substantial academic study of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the second half of the twentieth century. This is a major gap.

Sources

The work is based primarily on Kuneralp’s reminiscences, now declassified dossiers in the Archive of the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, files in the Turkish Embassy in London, the Prime Minister’s Office Ottoman Archive documents, British and American diplomatic records, memoirs and autobiographies of pertinent Turkish and Western officials and statesmen, contemporary press accounts, relevant secondary sources, and the author’s interviews and communications with the Kuneralp family. Unfortunately, few details of Kuneralp’s youth and early adulthood are preserved in the record to give much idea of the circumstances which molded the mature diplomat.

Memoirists have two choices. They can recycle their diaries—telling the reader where they went, who they saw, and what they did—or they can critically interpret events through which they lived. In the second approach, which I consider more interesting and useful, the daily events are synthesized to support a larger argument. Kuneralp uses this approach.

The choice of the title of Kuneralp’s reminiscences, Sadece Diplomat may make some wary that the work presents an oversimplification of him and his evolving views, but the opposite is true. He relates in detail how, when, and why his


15

positions changed or remained constant. His analysis provides clear insight into administering foreign policy throughout the Cold War. The book is not “official,” and has not been written as an apologia for an Ambassador or for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or for Turkey. It is, rather, a scholar’s candid and factual record of what he saw and knew at first hand.15

The records of the retired Foreign Service officers in the Personnel Department of the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs contain information to be found nowhere else. They include: name, rank and grade, duty status, date of rank, geographic location of assignments, source of assignment, educational level, awards, medals and decorations, date of birth, official photograph, dependents’ names, genders and ages, and type of discharge. All of this lies buried in files identified only by the name of the officer. Depending on the richness of the file, one can collect anything from a few details to a fairly complete life history and character sketch of an individual. These files are of historical value not only in relation to the personal information they contain, but also, and far more importantly, as evidence of the way in which the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs itself actually worked.

The accessible political, economic and protocol files in the Archive of the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs also contain a great deal of other potentially very useful miscellaneous information. They comprise original material enabling the reader to form a judgment about the quality of Turkish foreign policy and its representatives. Indeed, obtaining such material became my main activity for a number of years. The more I read, the richer the reality began 15 Zeki Kuneralp, Sadece Diplomat An lar-Belgeler (Just a Diplomat: Reminiscences-Documents), ( stanbul: S S, reprinted, 1999). For a favorable assessment of Zeki Kuneralp’s memoirs, see Ortayl , K rk Ambar Sohbetleri, p.257.

Introduction

16

to look. But at the same time I experienced renewed frustration because of the lack of access to material dealing with the wider aspects of the Turkish position in the Cold War era.

As far as possible, I examined the files of the years from 1938. The Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ filing system was reorganized in that year to conform to a change in the structure of the Political and Economic Departments of the ministry. The filing system, therefore, can be most clearly studied in relation to the organization of the offices it served. The division of responsibility within the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 24 January 1938 is shown in chapter two.

The documents in these files are arranged so as to facilitate the work of the individual departments and officials: sometimes the arrangement is alphabetical (by countries, by subjects, or by individuals), sometimes it is chronological, sometimes it is topical. Sometimes secret papers are segregated; sometimes they are not. There is no uniform filing system. There is no place where, for instance, all the telegrams from the Embassy in London may be found. Several copies of one telegram may be found in various files; the only surviving copy of another telegram may be found in the file of another mission abroad to which it was sent for information (bearing the departmental file number, and not the telegram number given in London); occasionally no copy can be found.

All Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs documents cited here exist in the archives either as original typescripts or manuscripts, or, in the case of many summary reports, as typed copies. The authenticity of these is not in question. Most of these materials are used for the first time in this biography.

Here, a cautionary note is in order. The Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs archive is far from complete in so far as much


17

of it is still classified, so that the documentary record for Republican Turkey’s foreign relations remains essentially fragmentary. It has to be supplemented, if possible, by other archival sources, as well as by personal memories and testimony. A false antithesis is often drawn between oral testimony, regarded as inherently unreliable, and the documentary record preserved in some file, which is assumed to be objective. As one well-informed historian has written, “files, too, are human products, and even when compiled in good faith can be partial, biased and misleading, especially when produced […] immediately for [political] reasons and not for the sake of some future historian.”16

The files of the Turkish diplomatic missions abroad are comparable by and large with those of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and are very important for filling gaps in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ records. The files of the Embassy in London are particularly valuable. They yielded rich returns in data, providing original information regarding Kuneralp’s relationship with the British authorities and with various sections of British society. Access to these files also furnished other unpublished information which has contributed to the accuracy of the book. The correspondence is classified in folders kept in the chancery.17

Ample use is made of the British National Archives in London (known until 1 April 2003 as the Public Record

16 David Stafford, Mission Accomplished (London: Bodley Head, 2011), pp.xix-xx. 17 Chancery is the office where the chief of mission and his staff work. This office is often called the embassy but this is a misnomer. Technically, the embassy is where the ambassador lives, not where he works, although in earlier times when diplomatic missions were smaller, this was usually the same building. Today, for clarity’s sake, many diplomats now distinguish between the two by using the terms “embassy residence” and “embassy office.”

Introduction

18

Office). Most of the National Archives materials utilized in this book are Foreign Office documents, usually of the 371 series arranged by date, nation and topic followed by a slash and a volume number. They contain numerous summaries, paraphrases, and general references. Other materials are from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and War Office files.

The National Archives was found to be a rich treasure house of information about various aspects of British policy on Turkey and Cyprus. They also include personality files consisting of biographical details about Turkish diplomats, documents describing their activities, and documents transcribing certain conversations that British representatives held with them. It should be noted, however, that many files have been withheld from public scrutiny for fifty or seventy-five years, well beyond the normal thirty-year rule; also that not all the telegrams sent at the time were kept for future reference. I found myself deep in a thicket of yellow notes thoughtfully left behind by scrupulous archivists to indicate where pages of a sensitive nature had been removed. In addition, intelligence papers remain closed to the general scholarly community, although copies of some intelligence reports did find their way to the files of other departments and thus to the National Archives.18

British Documents on Foreign Affairs: Reports and Papers From the Foreign Office Confidential Print, complete with a list of principal office holders, detailed schedules of documents, brief biographical notes and some maps, were of benefit. It is an important collection of printed material on international relations, as well as more narrowly on British 18 On the long-term closure or inaccessibility of records in the British National Archives see Gerhard Weinberg, “The End of Ranke’s History? Reflections on the Fate of History in the Twentieth Century,” Syracuse Scholar, Vol.9, No.1 (1988), pp.51-59.


19

foreign policy, in the 1950s. Editors of British Documents on Foreign Affairs: Reports and Papers From the Foreign Office Confidential Print offer much more guidance to readers than editors of the French collection, Documents diplomatiques français.

The value of American diplomatic documents as a source for the history of Turkish foreign policy has, for the Cyprus problem at least, long been recognized by historians. American diplomats in the post-Second World War era were often well informed, and the following have all proved useful: the retired records and papers of the Department of State (the central files of the Department); the special decentralized files (“lot files”) of the Department at bureau, office, and division levels; the files of the Department’s Executive Secretariat, which contain the records of international conferences and high-level official visits, correspondence with foreign leaders by the President and Secretary of State, and memoranda of conversations between the President and Secretary of State and foreign officials; and the files of overseas diplomatic posts. These diplomatic files consist of instructions, dispatches19, telegrams, memoranda, reports, and other correspondence with the Department of State; notes to and from the host government; correspondence with the embassies of other countries; telegrams and other correspondence with other United States embassies and consulates; correspondence with private individuals and businesses; and internal memoranda and reports exchanged between embassy officials. Subjects covered include the internal political, economic, governmental, and social affairs of the host country; the bilateral relations of the United States and the host country; the relations of the host country with its neighbors, international organizations,

19 A dispatch is a written, as opposed to a telegraphic, message from an embassy to its home office or vice versa.

Introduction

20

and other nations; and any subject which embassy officials felt might impact the interests of the United States.20

Some volumes in the Foreign Relations of the United States series were of special assistance. They consist of meticulously edited documents from the files of the Department of State (particularly by officials on the spot and in the Division of Near Eastern Affairs), supplemented by material from other sources, concerning American foreign policy. The documents on Cyprus illustrate very clearly the United States’ concern over developments in the area. The issue of Turkey and Greece resulted in a United States commitment to containment in 1947, and American diplomacy in the mid-1960s concentrated on preserving both countries as important members of NATO, in spite of the complications of the Cyprus question.

Autobiographies are an important and legitimate source for historians, especially in the case of Turkey, because they contain eye-witness reports of events or secret meetings in more recent years that cannot as yet be studied from the documents they generated. Biographies are a further valuable source when their authors have also come upon otherwise inaccessible evidence. We should distinguish here between memoir and autobiography. A memoir is typically understood to be a life narrative that locates its subject in a specific social environment, focusing attention on the lives and actions of others and on significant historical incidents of which the subject was a witness or in which they participated. What themes of a general diplomatic nature emerge from the memoirs? One of them is certainly the difficulty of the diplomatic career: its unpredictability, disruption of family life, and—in some posts—acute discomforts and sheer physical 20 For a general description of these records, see Guide to the National Archives of the United States (Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Service, 1974), particularly pp.131-140.


21

danger. Autobiography is usually understood to be (comprehensively) focused on its author’s experience.

Autobiographies, memoirs, and oral testimony must, of course, be consulted with proper caution since, by definition, they are usually self-interested. Memoirs are supposed to be honest reminiscences of individuals who seek to put on the record their assessment of how the course of events proceeded. This suggests that errors of memory do not crop up. But they do, and historians must be wary of this. Using memoirs as sources poses obvious problems of dealing with hindsight, faulty memories, and authors determined to put their version of events in the public domain. Yet, until the current declassification process of the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs records is completed, the analyst can penetrate authoritative documentation in no other way. Some former Turkish diplomats have recorded their experiences dealing with the complex wider world. These records contain observations and comments, many of which complement and corroborate the historical record.

Turkish and foreign newspapers offer a wealth of information about the political, economic, social and cultural life of the period. Newspaper obituaries also provide, on an almost daily basis, records of historical events and details of the lives of those who participated in them. A critical reading of them leads to significant insights into how politicians and diplomats came to understand themselves and the world around them. History must be built upon contemporary comment, presented as accurately as surrounding circumstances permit.

This biography of Kuneralp adopts a roughly chronological approach, from childhood to death. The text and the conclusions are supported by evidence in the footnotes. Titles of Turkish books, journals, and newspapers are given in the original language, followed by a translation.

Introduction

22

Footnotes provide suggestions for further reading, especially for non-specialists of Turkish diplomatic history. Readers are not referred to an archival source when the document in question is readily accessible in a published volume, or to an indirect or secondary source when an available primary source would be more appropriate.

Kuneralp is a long-forgotten figure in Turkish diplomacy; this book may do a little to bring him back to the collective memory, and in the process illuminate Turkey’s international role and thinking in the second half of the twentieth century.

CHAPTER ONE

FAMILY AND EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND

Before examining individuals, there are some generalities that need consideration. One such is a look at the family background and education of the holders of the public office.

Kuneralp was born in an old wooden mansion in the Nizam quarter of Büyükada in stanbul1 on 2 September 1914.2 By the autumn of 1914, the Ottoman Empire was in its death throes. It had been the most successful empire of modern times, lasting from the fourteenth century to the twentieth. At its height it was the dominant power in Europe. But from the

1 Except in quoted passages, modern Turkish place names will be used in the text: stanbul for Constantinople, Ankara for Angora and zmir for Smyrna. 2 Archive of the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Karakusunlar/Ankara (henceforth referred to as MFA), Personnel Department, Records File 519/7262. There are discrepancies between the exact date of Kuneralp’s birth in the available sources. Some documents give it as 5 October, for example: his Swiss high school immatriculation certificate; Zeki Kuneralp 1914-1998: A Tribute by Friends and Family ( stanbul: ISIS, n.d.), p.2; Faruk Gezgin, Ali Kemal Bir Muhalifin Hikayesi (Ali Kemal: The Story of a Dissident), ( stanbul: sis Yay nc l k, 2010), p.137; “ Zeki Kuneralp," The Times, 30 July 1998, p.13; “Zeki Kuneralp: Turkish Envoy to London Whose Father Outlawed Ataturk,” The Daily Telegraph, 3 August 1998, p.21, and David Barchard, “Zeki Kuneralp,” The Independent, 12 August 1998, p.6. Since the copy of his birth certificate in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs dossiers give it as 2 September, we take it as certain.

Chapter One

24

late eighteenth century onwards, other powers meddled in its internal affairs, helping its Christian subjects to break away. Because of the active intervention of Russia, Britain, Austria, and France, these groups won autonomy and then independence. By the end of the nineteenth century, Christendom had regained much of Ottoman Europe as well as the fringes of the Black Sea, and the Caucasian Muslims—Circassians, Tartars, Bosnians, and Turks—fled southwards to the safety of the shrinking Empire. There, too, Christian activists hoped that what the Greeks had won might yet come to them. Reports of Ottoman atrocities against the Slav peasants led in 1878 to the creation of Bulgaria. Macedonian terrorists tried to provoke the Ottoman authorities into violence as a way of gaining independence for Macedonia. Within the Empire, continual international humiliation led to demands for political reform and military revitalization. In 1908 the revolt of the Young Turks brought to power a group of officers determined to halt the Empire’s decline. The nationalist turn became more prominent after losing two Balkan Wars almost virtually ended Ottoman power in Europe. By 1914, the Empire had shrunk to eastern Thrace, stanbul, Anatolia and the Arab lands as far as Suez.

Birthplace and Environment

Büyükada is the finest of nine green, hilly islands in the Sea of Marmara about thirty kilometers southeast and within sight of stanbul. For centuries ferry boats have plied between the city and the islands.3 In 1914 the paddle boats that went

3 Reha Aytaman, Sinirli Y llar: D i lerinde 42 Y l (The Nervous Years: 42 Years in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs), ( stanbul: Milliyet Yay nlar , 1996), pp.27-29. In his memoirs, Reha Aytaman has presented his judgments on men and incidents with praiseworthy force and candor.

Family and Educational Background 25

from the Galata-Karaköy Bridge to the wharf in Büyükada took about an hour and a half, including stops at the other islands, to complete the trip. This quiet, bright red-cliffed island is about twelve kilometers in circumference: no motorized vehicles were allowed on it. A large part of it was not then inhabited. The population was concentrated on the northeast coast in a village, almost a small town, near the wharf. Mansions were spread out along the northern coast of the island, becoming rarer and rarer in the west, and the southwestern part of the island was uninhabited. As one moved from the coast inland, the ground rose steeply. At various times of day, the sea and the sky took on vivid, ever-changing colors. At dawn and sunset, these colors were purple and mauve. Büyükada, abounding in pines, was celebrated for the mildness and salubrity of its climate and for the excellent sea-bathing on its shores. The locality, much frequented in spring and summer, was cosmopolitan and polyglot: most residents were Turkish, Greek, Armenian, Jewish or of mixed European stock. Here it was a delight to sojourn. British prisoner of war Major General Charles Townshend in 1916-1918 and Leon Trotsky from 1929 to 1933 became the island’s most famous residents in comfortable seaside villas.4

The mansion occupied by Kuneralp’s family was on the northern coast, a fifteen-minute walk from the wharf, where

4 Jak Deleon, Büyükada An tlar Rehberi (The Big Island A Guide to the Monuments), ( stanbul: Remzi Kitabevi, 2003), pp.13-81; Andrew Finkel, John Carswell, Elizabeth Meath Baker and Angela Berzeg, “Postcards from Paradise: A Grand Tour of Büyükada,” Cornucopia, Vol.3, No.16 (1998), pp.42-77; A.J. Barker, Townshend of Kut: A Biography of Major-General Sir Charles Townshend (London: Cassell, 1967), pp.209, 212-216, 234, 236 and 240; Jean van Heijenoort, With Trotsky in Exile: From Prinkipo to Coyoacan (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978), pp.7-11.

Chapter One

26

houses were less frequent. The house was solidly made and had been the summer residence of his maternal grandfather. It stood in the middle of a rectangular garden, surrounded by stone walls, some two meters high. The house was reached via a dead-end street, Nizam Soka , which ran down to the sea. The garden was full of shrubs and flowers, and during the afternoon lizards basked in the sun on the mansion. One could go through the house and out on the side facing the sea. There the garden fell away steeply to the shore, and the path zigzagged amidst rich Mediterranean vegetation. At the end of the garden was a gate which opened onto the mansion’s private wharf, solidly built of heavy stones. Kuneralp spent his early childhood summers in Büyükada swimming off the rocks in the garden, studying in the drawing room, and sailing with his parents on their yacht.5

In October, when the weather grew cool, the family moved back to the city, spending the winter—in the European quarter of Beyo lu, former Pera, in old stanbul, along the shores of Arnavutköy and Büyükdere on the Bosphorus.6 They had a big mansion in the Ak nt burnu area of Arnavutköy.7

Beyo lu is located on the northern, European, side of the city, which developed in the late nineteenth and early

5 Kuneralp, Sadece Diplomat, p.14. For a description of Büyükada in the summer and autumn of 1914, see Yahya Kemal Beyatl , Çocuklu um, Gençli im, Siyasi ve Edebi Hat ralar m (My Childhood, My Youth, My Political and Literary Recollections), ( stanbul: Baha Matbaas , 1973), pp.129-130. 6 Most Turkish place names mentioned in text are spelled in the contemporary forms, except for localities likely to be more internationally familiar in an earlier version, such as “Bosphorus” instead of “Bo aziçi,” and “Golden Horn” instead of “Haliç.” 7 Kuneralp, Sadece Diplomat, pp.14-15; R za Tevfik, ed., Abdullah Uçman, Biraz da Ben Konu ay m (Let Me Also Talk a Bit), ( stanbul: leti im Yay nlar , 2nd rev. edn., 2008), p.222.


twentieth centuries as stanbul expanded outward from its historical peninsula. Here, harbors were developed for trade with European countries. The European embassies and consulates, as well as a large proportion of the European businesses and banks, were in Beyo lu and Galata (as the lower part of Beyo lu is called). Until 1914 the embassies in Beyo lu were the center of the Europeans’ world, providing justice, protection, employment, entertainment and news. Ottomans also frequented the embassies of Beyo lu, and many wealthy Turks resided in this area. It was in Beyo lu that technological innovations from the West had always been introduced: the city’s first gas lamps in 1856, the city’s first film in 1895 and, in 1875, the city’s first underground line, the suitably named Tünel, burrowing from the Galata quayside to the top of Beyo lu Hill. On either side of the Caddei Kebir (the Grande Rue), and down adjoining streets and alleys, lay stanbul’s European bars, dance halls, and shops, and the Italian circus, a French theater, the Pazar Alman (German Market) department store, and the Bon Marché, where shopfloor assistants would call out the prices in French. Beyo lu was inevitably the part of the city where Ottomans would go to drink, or to buy a foreign newspaper or a foreign book. The city’s leading hotels were all in Beyo lu—the Pera Palace first among them—and then those of the second rank, such as the Khedival Palace, the Hotel de Saint Petersbourg or the Armenian-owned Hotel Tokatl yan. Arnavutköy was a picturesque, ancient neighborhood, with its wooden houses built on stone foundations along the edge of the waterway and its streets paved in the “Albanian” manner. Life was more relaxed. High above on the hill, the white marble façade in Graeco-American style was the American Girls’ College. It was transferred here just before the First World War. The beautifully situated area of Büyükdere on the Bosphorus was a favorite resort of the prosperous inhabitants

Chapter One

28

of the capital, many of whom passed the summer months in the elegant seaside villas, which, rising behind each other up the steep hill, command magnificent views of the wonderful waterway and its banks.8

Standing at a point where east and west meet, stanbul is the natural gateway from Europe into Asia. More than 2500 years old, it was the seat of three great empires. Legend and history are indelibly interwoven in stanbul, one of the world’s most magnificent and fabled cities. It has had a longer continuous history than any other metropolis in the world. Its justly documented history begins in the year 657 BC. It would be difficult to find anywhere in the world a city with so many historic associations as stanbul. Ever since its foundation, it has played a part in the history of mankind. European intellectuals, travelers, and adventurers flooded the Ottoman capital. They wrote books dedicated to it.9

Since 1453, stanbul had been the capital of the Ottoman Empire, ruled by an Emperor who was at once a mighty temporal potentate—ruling an empire which at its peak covered most of north Africa, all of the Arabian peninsula, and much of southeastern Europe—and Caliph of the world’s Muslims. Although the Empire was much reduced since its heyday, even in 1914 the Ottoman Turks still ruled the hearts of the Near and Middle East. The holy cities of Jerusalem, Mecca and Medina were all in their hands—and many Muslim, Christian and Jewish pilgrims would pass through stanbul on their way to visit them. In the east, Ottoman

8 Philip Mansel, Constantinople: City of the World’s Desire, 1453-1924 (London: John Murray, 1995), pp.207-208; Charles Emmerson, 1913: The World before the War (London: Bodley Head, 2013), pp.370-372. 9 For contemporary travelers’ romantic impressions of stanbul, see for example, Harrison Griswold Dwight, Constantinople: Old and New (New York: Longman, 1915).


territory stretched towards the Russian Caucasus and Iran; in the south it ran along the coast of the Red Sea; in the north it went up to the shores of the Black Sea, and, in the west, it retained a small corner of Europe. The city was coveted by outsiders—particularly the Russians—who saw it as the rightful seat of Christian Orthodoxy and resented the Ottoman stronghold on the strategic waterway running through the center of stanbul, the gateway from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean. stanbul was home to many different populations, all keenly aware of their historical ties to the place, and all sensitive to their relative positions within it. To be an Ottoman, in the fullest and most political sense of the word, was to understand and celebrate these different religions and cultures as part of a whole, whatever one’s own background.10

In 1914, the population of stanbul was 909,978 according to a map issued by Captain Mehmet Salih, based upon statistics of that year, and printed in 1920 by the Government Printing House. There lived 560,434 Muslims in the city in that year.11

To Turkish eyes the Ottoman capital at the time of Kuneralp’s birth stood unique in its beauty and importance. By then much had been done to improve the general aspect of the city, and also to facilitate communication. A new bridge had been thrown across the Golden Horn, streets had been widened and paved, electric trams had taken the place of horse-drawn ones, public parks had been opened in various parts of the city, the Ottoman post-office had been reorganized, and a telephone system had been established.12 10 Emmerson, 1913:The World before the War, pp.358-360. 11 Clarence Johnson, Constantinople Today: The Pathfinder Survey of Constantinople (New York: Macmillan, 1922). 12 Details of a vivid description of the city of stanbul in the years immediately preceding the First World War can be found in Ahmed

Chapter One

30

Ancestry

Kuneralp’s paternal grandfather, Hac Ahmed, born in 1813, was a self-made man. He was of very humble origin. He had come from the Kalfat village of Çank r , a town in northwestern Anatolia, to stanbul as a youngster where through unremitting industry he managed to make a fortune in the manufacture and sale of beeswax. Upon the death of his wife Ay e he married a slave girl named Hanife Feride, born of immigrant Caucasian parents.13

Ali Kemal, Kuneralp’s father, was born in 1869 in the conservative Muslim neighborhood of Süleymaniye, in old stanbul. His real name was Ali R za, and he took the name

Kemal because of his sympathy for the poet Nam k Kemal. He had two younger sisters, Nuriye and Emine Münevver. After the Koranic school in Süleymaniye, he attended the Kaptanpa a and Gülhane military preparatory schools. Later he entered the College of Administration. There he came under the influence of three of the leading Ottoman writers of the time, novelist Ahmed Midhat Efendi14, who had written numerous novels about the social and economic problems which the nineteenth- century Tanzimat (Reorganization)15 Rasim, ehir Mektuplar (Letters from the City), 4 Vols., ( stanbul: Dersaadet Kütüphanesi, 1912-1913). 13 Ali Kemal, ed., Zeki Kuneralp, Ömrüm (My Life), ( stanbul: S S Yay nc l k, 1985), pp.5 and 12-15. 14 Efendi, Bey and Pa a are Ottoman civilian/military titles that are generally treated as part of a name. None of them is a surname. 15 The Tanzimat was a period of reform that began in the 1830s and lasted through the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire after the First World War. In response to the decreasing military, political, and economic power of the empire, reformers (first the Young Ottomans, and later the Young Turks) embarked upon on a series of programs to modernize the imperial government and the way officials related to subject peoples across the various lands under


reforms had brought to all classes of society; the Young Ottoman liberal journalist Mizanc Murat Bey, one of the founders of the Union and Progress movement, and the poet Muallim Naci. All were instructors at this college, and they left him with a special feeling for Ottoman literature that always colored his work. The College of Administration whetted his interest in French and, through French, in Western liberal thought. Joining the Union and Progress movement, like many of his colleagues he went to Paris to avoid Sultan Abdülhamid II’s secret police before returning to complete his studies at the college in 1888. In stanbul he engaged in mild literary-conspiratorial activities, was admonished, arrested and finally sent in exile as a paid civil servant to Aleppo, where he spent six years.16

From Aleppo, Ali Kemal went illegally but unimpeded to Paris in 1895, graduating after four years at the Ecole Libre des Sciences Politiques, one of France’s most prestigious academic institutions and the nursery of this country’s governing elite, and the Faculty of Letters. Breaking with the imperial rule. The notion of “modernity” was not easily or completely definable, but to government officials—especially those trained in Europe or European schools—it meant an increase in central government control and a shift from treating the population as subjects to treating them as citizens. See Enver Ziya Karal, Osmanl Tarihi: Nizam- Cedit ve Tanzimat Devirleri (1789-1856) (Ottoman History: Eras of New Order and Reorganization [1789-1856]), Vol.5, (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Bas mevi, 1961). 16 R za Tevfik, Biraz da Ben Konu ay m, pp.14-15; Stanford Shaw, From Empire to Republic:The Turkish War of National Liberation 1918-1923. A Documentary Study, Vol.1, (Ankara: Turkish Historical Society, 2000), pp.159-160; Andrew Mango, “Remembering the Minorities,” in Ali Çarko lu and William Hale, eds., The Politics of Modern Turkey: Critical Issues in Modern Politics, Vol.1: Historical Heritage of Politics in Modern Turkey, (London and New York: Routledge, 2008), pp.283-285.

Chapter One

32

Young Turks, however, for reasons which still remain unclear, he developed a bitter enmity for their leaders as well as their programs, which remained with him for the remainder of his life and later endeared him to Sultan Vahdettin. He made a comfortable living managing the estates of the wife of Mahmud Muhtar Pa a in Egypt before returning to stanbul as the result of a general amnesty which Sultan Abdülhamid II issued just before the Young Turk Revolution in 1908.17

Ali Kemal spoke French as fluently as his own language. Slender, with clean cut features, fair, gray hair, blue eyes, cold and penetrating, he presented a rather English appearance. He knew and understood and loved the British people. He spoke English with extreme facility.18

Ali Kemal was a convinced admirer of British ideals and institutions, and believed perhaps more strongly than any other journalist-politician that the Ottoman Empire’s only hope of salvation lay in a close understanding with Britain.19 In that regard, it is noteworthy here that Sir Gerard Lowther, the new British Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, in a dispatch of 1 August 1908 that he sent to the Foreign Office, reported that on his arrival in stanbul he was met at the Sirkeci railway station by a large and well-behaved crowd, including Ali Kemal, a member of the Council of Public Instruction. Lowther said that Ali Kemal, who had been in exile for some time, and who had only returned to stanbul a few days

17 Ali Kemal, Ömrüm, pp.163-168; Ahmed Bedevi Kuran, Osmanl mparatorlu unda nk lap Hareketleri ve Milli Mücadele (Reform

Movements in the Ottoman Empire and the National Struggle), ( stanbul: Türkiye Bankas Kültür Yay nlar , reprinted, 2012), pp.294-296. 18 R za Tevfik, Biraz da Ben Konu ay m, p.156. 19 Ali Kemal, “Ya as n ngilizler! Ya as n Osmanl lar!” (Long Live the British! Long Live the Ottomans!), editorial, kdam, 11 October 1908, p.1.


previously, addressed to him some words of welcome, and gave expression on behalf of the nation to their admiration of Britain, the champion of constitutional government, and as the country which gave the example to the world of liberal laws and institutions. The incoming Ambassador thanked the spokesman for his courteous and flattering expression regarding Britain and the welcome that had been given him, and assured Ali Kemal that he would not fail to inform his government of what had been said.20

Ali Kemal’s first wife Winifred, was half English (on her mother’s side) and half Swiss (on her father’s). Winifred’s family were living in Lucerne in Switzerland when Ali Kemal first met her. They spent as much time as they could together and were clearly very attached to each other. When it was time for him to go back to the Ottoman Empire, he said to her: “I have to go now. You will not hear from me nor must you try to communicate with me, but at this exact time, exactly a year from today, I will be at this bridge in Lucerne. If I find you here, then we will be married.” For a whole year there was total silence from Ali Kemal. Not a letter, not a telegram. No communication at all. Exactly a year later, as the clock struck noon, Ali Kemal, from the far end of the bridge, walked towards Winifred.21

Ali Kemal and Winifred had two children, Selma and Osman. Selma was two years Osman’s senior. Winifred gave

20 Great Britain, “Correspondence Respecting the Constitutional Movement in Turkey, 1908,” Parliamentary Papers, 1909,105, p.36. See also Süleyman Kani rtem, ed., Osman Selim Kocahano lu, Me rutiyet Do arken: 1908 Jön Türk htilali (While the Constitutionalism Was Rising: Young Turk Revolution of 1908), ( stanbul: Temel Yay nlar , 1999), p.172. 21 Stanley Johnson, Stanley I Presume (London: Fourth Estate, reprinted, 2010), pp.64-66 and Andrew Grimson, The Rise of Boris Johnson (London: Pocket Books, updated edn., 2008), p.8.

Chapter One

34

birth to Osman in Bournemouth on 4 September 1909. Some days later she died from puerperal fever, her sister Viva having reached her bedside just before she expired, though Ali Kemal himself never had a chance to say goodbye to his wife. The two children that Ali Kemal had with Winifred stayed in Britain in the care of Winifred’s own mother, Margaret. Margaret later called Osman “Wilfred” in tribute to the late Winifred. Ali Kemal came to Britain to visit his British family, by then residing in Wimbledon, before the outbreak of the First World War. Osman Wilfred formally acquired the surname Johnson, derived from his maternal grandmother’s maiden name. (Before she remarried the Swiss businessman Herr Brun, Margaret Johnson had lived in Yorkshire.)22

Ali Kemal lost contact with his children in Britain, an interruption in which the First World War, in which the Ottoman Empire joined the German side, had a role. On 27 June 1919, Margaret Johnson wrote the following formal letter from 15 Foxholes Road, Southbourne-on-Sea, just east of Bournemouth, to the British Delegation to the Versailles Peace Conference:

I beg leave to inquire if you can inform me whether I should be able to have an interview with one of the Turkish Delegates at present in Paris, under the following circumstances: (1) The Delegate referred to is Ali Kemal Bey, who I am informed is at present staying at the Château de Monteclin, Jouy-en-Josas, near Paris. (2) He was married to my daughter, who died in the year 1909, leaving two children, a girl now aged 12, and a boy 10 years of age. By arrangement with their father, the above mentioned Delegate, these children were, on the death of their mother, (my daughter), left in my care, and were both baptized into the Church of England. Both are now being educated here. (3)

22 Johnson, Stanley I Presume, pp.66-67.


Since the outbreak of war with Turkey the father has not contributed anything towards their maintenance. (4) As I am unfortunately left without means, the support of these dear children has been a very great strain on my efforts. (5) Knowing that their father is now in Paris in connection with the preparation of the Treaty of Peace with Turkey, I am very anxious to see him, if possible, in order to get money from him towards the support of his two children. That is my sole and only reason for seeking an interview with him, and I am most anxious not to take any steps that would not meet with the approval and be in strict accordance with the permission of the British Delegation. If you will be so kind as to let me hear from you on these points, with any other assistance you are disposed to offer me, at your earliest convenience, I shall be very greatly obliged.23 George Clarke of the British Delegation to the Versailles

Peace Conference replied on 5 July 1919:

I am directed by Secretary Balfour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of June 27 enquiring whether an interview could be arranged with one of the Turkish delegates at present in Paris. Balfour regrets that such an arrangement has (now) been rendered impossible by the fact that the Turkish Delegation and Ali Kemal Bey are now returning from Paris to Constantinople. A copy of this correspondence is, however, being sent to the FO and it may be possible to take some action in the matter through H.M. High Commissioner at Constantinople.24

However, concerning Ali Kemal, the British High Commissioner in stanbul, Vice-Admiral Sir Somerset Arthur

23 Foreign Office Papers, National Archives, Kew/London (henceforth referred to as FO) 608/85/7. Claim for Maintenance Allowance for Children of Ali Kemal Bey, 27 June 1919. 24 Ibid., 5 July 1919.

Chapter One

36

Gough-Calthorpe had already informed his superiors in London on 6 June 1919 as follows:

There has been a question of attaching Ali Kemal Bey, Minister of the Interior, to the [Ottoman] Delegation, but I am not sure of his sentiments, and a hint from me was sufficient to procure his elimination.25

Calthorpe was right. Contrary to what Margaret Johnson had written and what George Clarke answered, Ali Kemal did not leave stanbul at any time to take part in the Paris Peace Conference as an Ottoman delegate.26 25 Kenneth Bourne and David Cameron Watt, eds., British Documents on Foreign Affairs: Reports and Papers From the Foreign Office Confidential Print (henceforth referred to as BDFA), Part II: From the First to the Second World War, Series B: Turkey, Iran, and the Middle East, 1918-1919, Vol.1: The End of the War, 1918-1920 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985), p.64. 26 See Kaz m Karabekir, stiklal Harbimiz (Our War of Independence), ( stanbul: Türkiye Yay nlar , 1960), pp.382-383; Ali Fuad Türkgeldi, Görüp ittiklerim (Those I Saw and Heard), (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Bas mevi, 1951), pp.224-225; Tayyib Gökbilgin, Milli Mücadele Ba larken (Beginning of the National Struggle), Vol.1: Mondros Mütarekesinden Büyük Millet Meclisinin Aç l na Kadar (From the Moudros Armistice to the Opening of the Grand National Assembly), (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Bas mevi, 1959), p.54; Tar k Zafer Tunaya, Türkiye’de Siyasi Partiler (The Political Parties in Turkey), Vol.1: kinci Me rutiyet Dönemi (The Period of Second Constitutionalism), ( stanbul: leti im Yay nlar , 3rd rev. edn., 2009), p.287 and Mehmet Tevfik

Biren, ed., Rezan Hürmen, II. Abdülhamid, Me rutiyet ve Mütareke Devri Hat ralar (Reminiscences of the Periods of Abdülhamid II, Constitutionalism and Armistice), Vol.2, ( stanbul: Arma Yay nlar , 1993), p.200 fn1. Mehmet Tevfik Biren, Minister of Finance, was a member of the Ottoman delegation that participated in the Paris Peace Conference in June 1919.


In 1964 when Kuneralp came to London as Turkish Ambassador to the Court of St James’s, Osman Wilfred and his wife invited the Kuneralps to their sister Hilary’s wedding in Winsford, Somerset. That was the first encounter between the two brothers. By then Osman Wilfred was almost 55 and Kuneralp himself was nearing 50.27

Ali Kemal’s great-grandson Boris Johnson, a polemical journalist, entered the House of Commons for the Henley-on-Thames constituency as a Conservative Member of Parliament at the General Election on 7 June 2001. He was to be elected Mayor of London in 2007.28 In City Hall, some said, his limitations would be exposed, his charisma would lose its traction, the grown-ups would have to step in to clear up the mess. Yet on 4 May 2012, after a grueling contest with Ken Livingstone, Mayor Johnson secured a second term in City Hall and—more importantly—a prime spot among the runners and riders to succeed Prime Minister David Cameron. According to the October 2012 issue of British GQ, he handled London’s Olympic summer with “the erudition of an Oxford classicist, the aplomb of a statesman in the making and no little humour.” For all the carping, he has “improved London’s transport, made progress in the fight against crime and defended the City when it was daringly unfashionable to do so.”29

Ali Kemal had studied European diplomatic history with enthusiasm and admired such Continental statesmen as William Pitt, Charles Maurice de Talleyrand, Paul Metternich, Lord Palmerstone, Count Cavour and Otto Bismarck. His 27 Johnson, Stanley I Presume, pp.84-85. 28 Grimson, The Rise of Boris Johnson, p.144; Lale Çak ro lu, “ ngiliz Parlamenter Ali Kemal’in Torunu Ç kt ” (The British Parliamentarian Turned Out to Be the Grandson of Ali Kemal), Milliyet, 29 September 1983, p.1. 29 http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk

Chapter One

38

academic work had landed him teaching positions in political history in the College of Administration, and in Turkish literature in the Faculty of Letters of stanbul University from 1908 to 1910. Students enjoyed Ali Kemal’s classes. He had worked as a teacher in Aleppo when he was exiled there from 1888 to 1894. He then escaped to Paris in 1894, where he acted as the special correspondent of the daily kdam and became the editor of this paper during the early part of 1909 in stanbul. kdam was important as being the organ of Kamil Pa a and the Ahrars or Liberals; it was, con