Armenian issue is alive please send the following Letter as prepared by Honorable Pulat Tacar, and sign your name to it
PARLEMENTERIANS e-mail adresses also given in two blocks, cop paste either block to your address section
DO NOT FORGET TO WRITE YOUR NAME IN SIGNATURE SECTION
E-MAIL BLOCK 1:
arj@althingi.is,ossur@althingi.is,atlig@althingi.is, thback@althingi.is,
thrainnb@althingi.is, thkg@althingi.is, thorsaari@althingi.is,
vigdish@althingi.is, ubk@althingi.is, vbj@althingi.is, tryggvih@althingi.is,
sjs@althingi.is, svandiss@althingi.is, skulih@althingi.is, siv@althingi.is,
sij@althingi.is, sii@althingi.is, ser@althingi.is, sdg@althingi.is,
marshall@althingi.is, ragnheidurr@althingi.is, rea@althingi.is,
petur@althingi.is, olofn@althingi.is, olinath@althingi.is,
oddnyh@althingi.is, ludvikge@althingi.is, agnusorri@althingi.is,
mordur@althingi.is, klm@althingi.is, kristjanj@althingi.is,
kristjanj@althingi.is, lrm@althingi.is, jong@althingi.is, jrg@althingi.is,
katrinja@althingi.is, katrinj@althingi.is, johanna@althingi.is,
jb@althingi.is, illugig@althingi.is, helgih@althingi.is,
hoskuldurth@althingi.is, gunnarbragi@althingi.is, glg@althingi.is,
einarg@althingi.is, gudlaugurthor@althingi.is, eygloha@althingi.is,
gudbjarturh@althingi.is, bjorngi@althingi.is, bjarniben@althingi.is,
bgs@althingi.is, birkir@althingi.is, asbjorno@althingi.is,
birgir@althingi.is, arj@althingi.is, asmundurd@althingi.is,
alfheiduri@althingi.is, arnij@althingi.is, arnipall@althingi.is,
arnithor@althingi.is,
ALTERNATE E-MAIL BLOCK 2 : (ONLY ONE FORM OF E-MAILS CAN BE USED BY YOUR COMPUTER)
arj@althingi.is;ossur@althingi.is;atlig@althingi.is; thback@althingi.is;
thrainnb@althingi.is; thkg@althingi.is; thorsaari@althingi.is;
vigdish@althingi.is; ubk@althingi.is; vbj@althingi.is; tryggvih@althingi.is;
sjs@althingi.is; svandiss@althingi.is; skulih@althingi.is; siv@althingi.is;
sij@althingi.is; sii@althingi.is; ser@althingi.is; sdg@althingi.is;
marshall@althingi.is; ragnheidurr@althingi.is; rea@althingi.is;
petur@althingi.is; olofn@althingi.is; olinath@althingi.is;
oddnyh@althingi.is; ludvikge@althingi.is; agnusorri@althingi.is;
mordur@althingi.is; klm@althingi.is; kristjanj@althingi.is;
kristjanj@althingi.is; lrm@althingi.is; jong@althingi.is; jrg@althingi.is;
katrinja@althingi.is; katrinj@althingi.is; johanna@althingi.is;
jb@althingi.is; illugig@althingi.is; helgih@althingi.is;
hoskuldurth@althingi.is; gunnarbragi@althingi.is; glg@althingi.is;
einarg@althingi.is; gudlaugurthor@althingi.is; eygloha@althingi.is;
gudbjarturh@althingi.is; bjorngi@althingi.is; bjarniben@althingi.is;
bgs@althingi.is; birkir@althingi.is; asbjorno@althingi.is;
birgir@althingi.is; arj@althingi.is; asmundurd@althingi.is;
alfheiduri@althingi.is; arnij@althingi.is; arnipall@althingi.is;
arnithor@althingi.is;
SAMPLE LETTER FOR PARLEMENTARIANS
I. Why Turkey does not qualify the tragic events of 1915-1916 as genocide?
1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
The main incrimination of the author is that Turkey denies recognizing the 1915-1916 Armenian genocide. Let us scrutinize if such an accusation is legally sustainable.
“The concept of the “Armenian genocide” is being used in a historical and political rather than in a legal perspective. It has become a catchword which reveals deep scars in the Armenian collective memory. Learned legal discussions on the issue of genocidal intent are of little or no relevance to the perception by the Armenians of one of the most defining moments of their history [1]”.
The term “genocide” is a legal term; it describes a crime specifically defined by the 1948 Genocide Convention and must be addressed accordingly. The existence of the crime of genocide can be legally determined only by the judges of a competent tribunal on the basis of the prescribed legal criteria and after a fair and impartial trial. The Genocide Convention does not allow for convictions on genocide by legislatures, scholars, pamphleteers, politicians or others. Some historians, sociologists, politicians and even political scientists who dealt with these issues tend to describe almost any incident which involves a significant number of dead[2] as genocide; they sometimes purposely mislead those who are not familiar with the law; they created an “Armenian taboo” and now they are prisoners of it.[3] Indeed,
“To term the events of 1915 as genocide is to detach genocide from its legal definition and to use it for political or moral purposes. Whether it is sound to keep hammering on a legal term based on non-legal considerations is doubtful… it adds to a wrong conceptualization of the legal system and eventually could lead to a devaluation of the norm itself…” [4]
But, Armenians and some of their supporters have deliberately set aside the legal aspects of the issue, because –they thought- it would weaken their genocide claims. They have chosen to adopt a dogmatic political approach to underline the tragic nature of the incidents so that they can make genocide claims more easily acceptable by the public.[5]
Dolus specialis – special intent
The most important characteristic of the Genocide Convention is that for the crime of genocide to exist, acts must have been committed with the intent to destroy the protected groups as such. The mental or subjective element (mens rea) is a constituent of that crime. The concept of “general intent,” which is valid for ordinary crimes, is inadequate in the identification of acts of genocide.
Sociologically and psychologically, the intent “to destroy a group as such” emerges in the most intensive stage of racism. Racial hatred is quite different from the ordinary animosity laced with anger, which parties engaged in a substantial dispute may feel toward one another. Racial hatred is a deeply pathological feeling or complicated fanaticism. Anti-Semitism is an example in this context.[6]
According to the Genocide Convention, the intent to destroy a group must be in the form of “special intent,” dolus specialis, beyond any doubt. This crucial aspect of the crime of genocide has been underlined by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in paragraph 187 of its verdict on Bosnia Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro[7]: The International Court of Justice (ICJ) examined the allegations by Bosnia and Herzegovina and conducted long and detailed investigations regarding the alleged atrocities, the findings of which are grouped according to the categories of prohibited acts described in Article II of the Genocide Convention. With regard to killing members of the protected group, the Court found that massive killings throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina were perpetrated during the conflict. However, with the exception of Srebrenica, the Court was not convinced that those killings were accompanied by the specific intent on the part of the perpetrators to destroy in whole or in part the group of Bosnian Muslims. So, if the “special intent” is not proven beyond any doubt, judicially an act cannot be qualified as genocide. The cases of civil war, rebellion, and mutual killings should not be confused with the crime of genocide.
A competent tribunal to judge the genocidal acts
Moreover, the existence of the crime of genocide must be decided by a competent tribunal. Article VI of the 1948 Genocide Convention on the subject reads as follows:
Persons charged with genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be tried by a competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act was committed or by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to those Contracting Parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction.
The issue of a competent tribunal had been debated extensively by the International Preparatory Conference of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The question of determining a competent tribunal was resolved[8] after lengthy discussion and the above-mentioned text was approved. During the discussions, a proposal of “universal repression” was rejected[9]. Universal repression foresees the judging of the suspects by any tribunal of any state. Without a valid decision from a competent court, an act cannot legally be qualified as genocide.
The Turkish government and the overwhelming majority of Turks, as well as other governments [10] and many scholars or experts reject qualifying the tragic events of 1915 as genocide, because the sine qua non legal conditions incorporated in the 1948 Genocide Convention have not been fulfilled. These torts may be legally qualified criminal acts foreseen by the Ottoman Penal Code and / or mutual killings.[11]
On this occasion we would like to underline that, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Turkey Mr. Ahmet Davutoğlu very clearly stated he was not insensitive to the sufferings of the Ottoman Armenians, but was expecting the same understanding from the Armenian side with regard to the plight of the Muslim Ottomans which equally suffered during the same tragic events.[12] The Turkish government has more than once declared that it was ready to consider and eventually accept the conclusion of historians and legal experts who will meet to study the tragic events of 1915-1916; but Yerevan refused.[13] Regardless, Ankara has supported the Vienna platform since 2004, which in 2009 published a large compilation of documents.[14] Turkey fully opened its archives—unlike the Armenian Revolutionary Federation and the Armenian Patriarchate at Jerusalem—, and, according to Dr. Hilmar Kaiser, a supporter of the “Armenian genocide” label, there is no evidence for deliberate destruction of Ottoman documents.[15]
Other general principles of international criminal law on internationally wrongful acts
Thos who refer to internationally wrongful acts in the context of 1915 events, should also take into consideration the following principles of international law:
“Nulla crimen sine lege”[16] and “Nulla poena sine lege”[17]
The governing principles of criminal law are also valid for the crime of genocide: “Nulla crimen sine lege,” which means no crime shall exist without law, and “Nulla poena sine lege,” which means no person shall be punished without a law foreseeing such punishment.
Ne bis in idem
The principle “Ne bis in idem”[18] means that no person shall be tried with respect to conduct which formed the basis of crimes for which the person has been convicted or acquitted by the competent court.
The Turkish government and the great majority of Turks do not deny that Ottoman Armenians, together with Muslim and other Ottoman citizens, were the subject of a great tragedy[19] during the 1915-1916 events, that they lost their lives, properties, families as well as their homes. During the relocation or the transfer of a population within the borders of Ottoman territory, a number of military personnel or civil servants and other members of the population committed crimes in spite of orders given by the Ottoman government to protect the lives and properties of the displaced Armenians.
The 1915-1916 trials by the Ottoman government for crimes against Ottoman Armenians
In this respect it should be underlined that the criminality associated with the tragic events and the relocation of the Ottoman Armenians during the years 1915-1916 was addressed by the Ottoman judiciary. Individuals or members of the groups who attacked the Armenian convoys and officials who exploited the Armenian plight, neglected their duties or abused their powers were court-martialed and punished.
In 1915, more than 20 Muslims were sentenced to death and executed for such charges.[20] Following a report of Talat Pasha, the Ottoman government created three commissions[21] to investigate the complaints of Armenians and the denunciations of civil servants. As a result, in March-April 1916, 1673 Muslims—including captains, lieutenants, first and second lieutenants, commanders of gendarme squads, police superintendents, and mayors—were sent to martial courts. 67 were sentenced to death, 524 were sentenced to jail, 68 received other punishments such as forced labor, imprisonment in forts, and exile. Since the author of the manuscript stresses the alleged “confiscation” of Armenian properties by the Ottoman State, it is not unimportant to notice that several people were sentenced to death for plunder, and that other death sentences were justified not only by murders, but also by robberies.[22]
[1] Hans Wilhelm Longva, “The concept of genocide in international law , A wound not healed,”Conference on Turkish-Armenian relationship, University of Oslo, February 1st, 2010.
[2] William A. Shabas, Genocide in International Law, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), p. 7.
[3] Ahmet Insel-Michel Marian “Dialogue sur le tabou arménien” Paris Liana Levi, 2009
[4] Der Jan van der Linde, “The Armenian Genocide Question and Legal Responsibility,” Review of Armenian Studies, n° 24, 2011, pp. 123-151
[5] Gündüz Aktan “The Armenian problem and International Law,” www.mfa.gov.tr//data/dispolitika/Ermeni iddialari/Document.pdf
[6] Aktan ibid p. 270
[7] Para 187 “Article II (of the Convention) requires a further mental element. It requires the establishment of the intent to destroy in whole or in part the protected group as such. It is not enough to establish, for instance in terms of paragraph. (a) That unlawful killings of members of the group have occurred. The additional intent must also be established and is defined very precisely. It is often referred to as the “specific intent” (dolus specialis). It is not enough that the members of the group are targeted because they belong to that group that is because the perpetrator has a discriminatory intent. Something more is required. The acts listed in Article II, must be done with the intent to destroy the group as such in whole or in part. The words “as such” emphasize that intent to destroy the protected group.
[8] See Travaux préparatoires Doc. E/794 page 294 and 97, the meeting of the Conference page 360 and following pages
[9]With regard to the “Power to Exercise Universal Repression” or “Universal Repression” (see: April 5, 1948. Doc. E/794. pp.29-33) The Committee rejected a proposal in this respect (Ibid, p.32).Those rejecting the principle of universal repression argued as follows: “ … universal repression is against the principles of traditional law; permitting the courts of one State to punish crimes committed in another state by foreigners will be against the sovereignty of the State; as genocide generally implied the responsibility of the State on the territory of which the crime was committed, the principle of universal repression would imply national courts to judge the acts of foreign governments. The result will be dangerous international tensions.”
[10] The British government on many occasions officially declared its position on the matter. On April 14, 1999 the Foreign Office spokesperson Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale said that “the British government has not recognized the events of 1915 as indications of genocide”; On February 7, 2001, acting on behalf of the British Government, Baroness Scotland of Asthal declared: “The government, in line with the previous British governments, have judged the evidence not to be sufficiently unequivocal to persuade us that these events should be categorized as genocide as defined by the 1948 United Nations on genocide….The interpretation of events in Eastern Anatolia in 1915-1916 is still the subject of genuine debate among historians.” The UK government did not accept qualifying as genocide the 1915 events. The Israeli government refused to accept the parallelism between the Holocaust and the tragic events of 1915. The Ambassador of Israel Rivka Kohen in Yerevan declared on February 7, 2002, during a press conference that “the 1915 events couldn’t be considered genocide because the main killings in these events were not planned and the Ottoman government had no intention to destroy a nation or a group of people as such. As a well-known fact many people from the Armenian and Muslim groups had lost their lives in these events. The Holocaust is unique. At this stage nothing should be compared with the Holocaust.” On April 10, 2001 the Nobel Prize-awarded Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Perez said that “the fate of Armenians in Anatolia was a tragedy, not genocide.” He added: “Armenian allegations are meaningless. We reject attempts to create a similarity between the Holocaust and the Armenian allegation. If we have to determine a position on the Armenian issue it should be done with great care not to distort the historical realities.”
[11] Justin McCarthy,Esat Arslan,Cemalettin Taşkıran,Ömer Turan, The Armenian Rebellion at Van, Utah Ser ies in Turkish and İslamic Studies, The University of Utah Press,2006 : “The slaughter of Muslims that accompanied the Armenian revolt in Van Province inexorably led first to Kurdish reprisals on the Armenian, then to a general and mutual massaccre of the people of the East. The Armenian revolt began an intercommunal war, in which both sides, fearing their own survival, killed those who, given the chance,would have killed them.The result was unprecended horror. History records few examples of mortality as great as that suffered in Van Province…. pp.265”
[12] “WWI Inflicted Pain to Everyone, Davutoğlu Says,” Hürriyet Daily News, December 30, 2011 ; “Turkey ‘Ready to Share Pain’ With Armenians,” Hürriyet Daily News, March 1, 2012,
[13] For example: Anatolian News Agency, April 11, 2005; “Yerevan Rejects Turkish PM Erdogan’s Dialogue Letter,” The Journal of Turkish Weekly, April 14, 2005, ; Interview of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to Charlie Rose, September 27, 2007; “Turkey’s Proposal Clears Last-Minute Snag in Zurich,” Today’s Zaman, October 12, 2009, ; Michael M. Gunter, Armenian History and…, pp. 125-129.
[14] İnanç Atılgan and Garabet Moumdjian (ed.), Archival Documents of the Viennese Armenian-Turkish Platform, Klagenfurt-Vienna-Ljubjana-Sarajevo: Wieser Verlag, 2009.
[15] “We should be really careful about not mixing information. Anything about the CUP archives is sheer speculation. We don’t have any indication that they have been destroyed.” Hilmar Kaiser, interview to Aztag, September 22, 2005. See also “Historian Challenges Politically Motivated 1915 Arguments,” Today’s Zaman, ; Yücel Güçlü, “Will Untapped Ottoman Archives Reshape the Armenian Debate?”, The Middle East Quarterly, XVI-2, Spring 2009, pp. 25-42, https://www.meforum.org/2114/ottoman-archives-reshape-armenian-debate
[16] Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Article 22.
[17] Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Article 23.
[18] Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Article 20.
[19] Shimon Perez: Statement in April 2001: “What happened to the Armenians was a tragedy, but not genocide.”
[20] Guenter Lewy, The Armenian Massacres…, p. 111.
[21] Yusuf Halaçoğlu, Facts on the Relocation of Armenians. 1914-1918, (Ankara: TTK, 2002), pp. 84-86; Hikmet Özdemir and Yusuf Sarınay (ed.), Turkish-Armenian Conflict Documents, (Ankara: TBMM, 2007), p. 294.
[22] Yusuf Halaçoğlu, The Story of 1915. What Happened to the Ottoman Armenians?, (Ankara: TTK, 2008), pp. 82-87; Guenter Lewy, The Armenian Massacres…, p. 112; Yusuf Sarınay, “The Relocation (Tehcir) of Armenians and the Trials of 1915-1916,” Middle East Critique, XX-3, Fall 2011, pp. 308-314.
Leave a Reply