 |
 |
Dear Lowell, harunyahya is the alias of Adnan Oktar, a contraversial personality in Turkey. He runs a seemingly religious (Islamic) sect consisting of mostly rich young men and beatiful young women. There is a note at the end of the piece stating he is the author of more than 70 books. Most of them are aimed to discredit and refuse evolution theory on religious basis. I would not read his articles to understand Turkish position about the tomb. Naturally you would not know about him, but I felt that I must warn everbody about this source’s reliability. For ones who like to read about official Turkish position, there are several news articles there: http://www.turkishweekly.net/search.asp?keyword=Suleyman+Shah <http://www.turkishweekly.net/search.asp?keyword=Suleyman+Shah&B1=GO> &B1=GO Best Funda From: International boundaries discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Lowell G. McManus Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 4:15 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: [Caution: Message contains Redirect URL content] Re: [INT-BOUNDARIES] The Tomb of Suleyman Shah I agree that the 2003 agreement linked by Evan in number 2 below is probably the definitive writing, but I don't read Turkish. There is a good discussion in English of the Turkish position on the tomb (as of last October) and its history at http://m.harunyahya.com/tr/ABD/192623/Turkey%E2%80%99s-Executive-Decision . Lowell G. McManus Eagle Pass, Texas, USA From: Evan Centanni (PolGeoNow) <mailto:[log in to unmask]> Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 7:08 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [INT-BOUNDARIES] The Tomb of Suleyman Shah For those interested in the discussion regarding the sovereignty status of the Tomb of Suleyman Shah, I have received a couple more replies from list members on this topic (apparently replying to the whole list requires hitting the "Reply All" button - was this always the case?). They pointed out a few important points: 1. Although the 1921 treaty does not speak of sovereignty over the land surrounding the tomb, the 1956 Aleppo Protocol or subsequent agreements (such as the one approving the removal of the tomb to a new location in 1973) may have. None of us have been able to find copies of any of these agreements (any help very welcome!) 2. A 2003 agreement between Syria and Turkey (in Turkish here <http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/main.aspx?home=http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2003/12/20031212.htm&main=http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2003/12/20031212.htm> ) speaks of delimiting the boundaries of the Turkish land, but I am told there is ambiguity as to whether it refers to "borders" in the strict sense of the term (i.e. boundaries between sovereign territory). 3. There seems to be no evidence that Syria has actively disputed Turkey's widely-disseminated claim of sovereignty over the tomb, despite a history frought with small disputes and disagreements over the border between the two countries. This suggests that the Syrian government may be in agreement with Turkey regarding the tomb's sovereignty status. As always, I welcome any more perspectives or new information. Cheers, Evan -- Political Geography Now www.polgeonow.com www.twitter.com/PolGeoNow www.facebook.com/PolGeoNow http://polgeonow.tumblr.com On 3/3/2015 12:30 AM, Evan Centanni (PolGeoNow) wrote: Thanks to those who replied confirming the unclear nature of this case. Is anyone else able to offer any insight into Turkey's claim of sovereignty over the tomb? Are any other country's governments on record endorsing or rejecting the claim? I've been unable to find anything of the sort, even on the part of Syria itself. Regards, Evan -- Political Geography Now www.polgeonow.com www.twitter.com/PolGeoNow www.facebook.com/PolGeoNow http://polgeonow.tumblr.com On 2/27/2015 1:40 AM, Evan Centanni (PolGeoNow) wrote: Dear Colleagues, I am curious whether any of you know something about the legal context of the "exclave" surrounding the Tomb of Suleyman Shah, which made the news this week <http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/suleyman-shah-turkish-troops-raid-syria-isis-tomb/385864/> after Turkey launched a major military incursion into Syria to evacuate and relocate the tomb. The Turkish government apparently considers the land on which the tomb was located to be sovereign territory of Turkey, and the international news media for its part seems largely to take this claim for granted. However, the relevant treaty <http://www.hri.org/docs/FT1921/Franco-Turkish_Pact_1921.pdf> , frequently cited for claiming the exclave as Turkish territory, only says that the land is Turkey's "property" (with the additional rights to post guards and fly the Turkish flag). Is this perhaps then a case of extraterritoriality rather than sovereignty, meaning that Turkey's claim to sovereignty over the exclave is unilateral and perhaps disputed? I would very much like to know, at least, the official positions of countries other than Turkey on the matter, but I have been unable to find anything of the sort online. Best regards, Evan Centanni -- Political Geography Now www.polgeonow.com www.twitter.com/PolGeoNow www.facebook.com/PolGeoNow http://polgeonow.tumblr.com