Journal de Genève
- The Sino-Belgian dispute
- Notes on the budget
- The hat question in Turkey
The Journal de Genève of 3 November 1926 opened its account of the Sino-Belgian dispute by recalling that on 16 April the Chinese government had told Belgium it meant to revise the 1865 treaty's clauses on denunciation, customs tariffs, consular jurisdiction and extraterritoriality. A budget column quoted the federal government's aim of making 1927 the last step in restoring Swiss finances. It argued that the accounts would already be sound if 18 million had not been set aside for social insurance and 4 million in milling premiums had not been charged to the federal treasury. A report on Turkey explained that the hat had long marked the foreigner and the Christian, so that a photograph of a Constantinople politician in a bowler or a boater could ruin his reputation.
Translation
The Sino-Belgian dispute
The facts are well known; they have been clearly set out in this newspaper and can be summed up in a few lines. On 16 April last, the Chinese government notified the Belgian government of its intention to revise the treaty of 1865 by amending the clauses concerning the right of denunciation, the customs tariff, consular jurisdiction and the right of extraterritoriality. The …
Notes on the budget
"It is necessary," we read in the introduction to the budget, "that 1927 be the final stage towards the definitive recovery of our finances." Thus, next year, the situation will be put on a sound footing; it would, moreover, already have been so this year, had 18 million not been set aside from ordinary revenue for social insurance and had the 4 million represented by the milling premiums not been charged to the federal treasury (which shows, incidentally, that they will be paid even if the grain monopoly should disappear).
The hat question in Turkey
Until now, for example, the hat has always appeared in the eyes of the Turks as the distinguishing mark of the foreigner, or rather of the Christian. Under the last sultans, any "believer" who had dared to put one on would immediately have been imprisoned and given a severe sentence. Indeed, at every moment of tension between Turkey and the European powers, hat-wearers were particularly reviled. And only yesterday, if one wished to discredit a political figure in Constantinople, it was enough to publish in a newspaper a photograph showing him in foreign headgear: a boater, a bowler or a soft felt hat.
Context
How the Belgian–Chinese talks broke down in November 1926
The article appeared while the treaty talks in Peking were in their final days. On 5 November 1926 the Belgian legation told the Chinese Foreign Office that the Belgian government did not find the latest Chinese proposal acceptable, even though Belgium had earlier put forward the abrogation of the 1865 treaty by mutual agreement. On 6 November the Foreign Office replied that the Chinese government saw no other course open to it but to declare the Sino-Belgian treaty of 1865 terminated. A presidential mandate issued with the reply declared that the treaty had expired on 27 October and ceased to be effective from that date. The excerpt from the Journal de Genève piece of 3 November recalls the April notice of revision; the piece appeared three days before Peking took this unilateral step.
The 1865 treaty and China's campaign against the unequal treaties
The historian Tang Chi-hua calls the revision of the 1865 treaty the touchstone of the Peking government's treaty-revision policy. In his account Peking regarded the treaty as unequal and based its demand on the treaty's own revision clause and on the principle of rebus sic stantibus. In its reply of 6 November the Chinese Foreign Office cited a nation-wide sentiment against the indefinite continuance of unilateral treaties and unequal treatment. The clauses the article lists, on denunciation, tariffs, consular jurisdiction and extraterritoriality, are the provisions Peking wanted to change. Belgium filed an application with the Permanent Court of International Justice dated 25 November 1926. In early 1927 Belgium informed the Court that the two governments had agreed to reopen negotiations for a treaty abrogating that of 1865. A draft was reached, but no formal treaty was concluded before the Peking government fell; the Nanking government then took over the talks and signed a new treaty soon afterwards.
How Turkey's 1925 Hat Law was imposed
The attitudes the article describes were ones Mustafa Kemal's government had begun changing by law a year earlier. Mustafa Kemal wore a wide-brimmed white hat in Kastamonu on 24 August 1925. On 25 November 1925 the Turkish parliament adopted Law No. 671 on hats, which prohibited Turks from continuing to wear traditional headgear such as the fez or the turban. The law met resistance. Protests broke out in Erzurum on the day it passed, martial law was declared in the province for a month, and 13 of those arrested were sentenced to death. In Rize, 143 people were arrested after about ten days of unrest. In Istanbul's Fatih district, many people accused of inciting revolt with their speeches were arrested and tried in Ankara. Against this background, the article's remark that only yesterday a hat photograph could ruin a politician in Constantinople points to a sudden reversal that the state backed with arrests and courts.
Jean-Marie Musy and the 1927 federal budget
The 1927 federal budget was prepared while Jean-Marie Musy headed the Federal Department of Finance. Musy was elected to the Federal Council on 11 December 1919, served until 30 April 1934 and held the Department of Finance throughout his time in office; he was also President of the Confederation in 1925. The budget introduction quoted by R. P. set 1927 as the final stage of the recovery. The writer accepted that aim while arguing that this year's finances would already be sound but for 18 million reserved for social insurance and 4 million in milling premiums. His parenthetical remark that the premiums would be paid even if the grain monopoly disappeared shows that the monopoly's survival was itself in question in the autumn of 1926.
Original
Le litige sino-belge
On connaît les faits, qui ont été clairement exposés dans ce journal et que l'on peut résumer en quelques lignes. Le 16 avril dernier, le gouvernement chinois prévenait le gouvernement belge de son intention de reviser le traité de 1865 en en modifiant les clauses qui concernent le droit de dénonciation. le tarif douanier, la juridiction consulaire et le droit d'exterritorialité. Les
Notes sur le budget
«Il faut, lit-on dans l'introduction au budget, que 1927 soit l'étape finale vers le redressement définitif de nos finances.» Ainsi, l'an prochain, la situation sera assainie; elle l'aurait, d'ailleurs, déjà été cette année-ci, si l'on n'avait pas réservé sur les recettes ordinaires 18 millions pour les assurances sociales et mis à la charge de la caisse fédérale les 4 millions que représentent les primes à la mouture (ceci montre, entre parenthèses, qu'elles seront payées même si le monopole des blés vient à disparaître).
La question des chapeaux en Turquie
Jusqu'à ce jour, par exemple, le chapeau a toujours paru aux yeux des Turcs la marque distinctive de l'étranger, mieux du chrétien. Sous les derniers sultans, tout «fidèle» qui aurait osé s'en coiffer eût été immédiatement incarcéré et condamné à une peine sévère. En fait, dans tous les moments de tension entre la Turquie et les puissances européennes, les porteurs de chapeaux étaient particulièrement honnis. Et hier encor si l'on voulait discréditer à Constantinople un personnage politique, il suffisait de publier dans un journal une photographie le représentant coiffé à l'étranger, d'un canotier, d'un melon ou d'un chapeau mou.