Turkish Forum

Author: Aylin D. Miller

  • Obama again avoids calling 1915 Armenian killings ‘genocide’

    Obama again avoids calling 1915 Armenian killings ‘genocide’

    President Barack Obama speaks to members of Congress and other guests in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, Tuesday, April 21, 2015, to thank those who supported a compromise that permanently changed how Medicare pays doctors. Also on Tuesday administration officials said that Obama will once again stop short of calling the 1915 massacre of Armenians a genocide, prompting anger and disappointment from those who have been pushing him to use the politically fraught term. Top administration officials discussed the decision with Armenian-American leaders. (Pablo Martinez Monsivais/Associated Press)

     

    By Matthew Lee and Julie Pace | AP April 22 at 3:23 AM

    WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama will once again stop short of calling the 1915 massacre of Armenians a genocide, prompting anger and disappointment from those who have been pushing him to fulfill a campaign promise and use the politically fraught term on the 100th anniversary of the killings this week. Officials decided against it after opposition from some at the State Department and the Pentagon.

    After more than a week of internal debate, top administration officials discussed the final decision with Armenian-American leaders Tuesday before making it public. The White House said the officials pledged that the U.S. would use Friday’s centennial anniversary “to urge a full, frank and just acknowledgement of the facts.” That language echoed the administration’s five previous statements on the anniversary, as well as those of previous administrations. But it did not use the word “genocide,” as many had hoped.

    As a senator and presidential candidate, Obama did describe the killings of Armenians as “genocide” and said the U.S. government had a responsibility to recognize them as such. As a candidate in January 2008, Obama pledged to recognize the genocide and at least one of his campaign surrogates — the current U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power — recorded a nearly five-minute video at the time imploring Armenian-Americans to vote for Obama precisely because he would keep his word on the issue.

    But Obama has never used that description since taking office, mainly out of deference to Turkey, a key U.S. partner and NATO ally, which is fiercely opposed to the “genocide” label.

    Tuesday’s announcement, accompanied by word that Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew will attend a ceremony in Armenia on Friday to mark the anniversary, was made shortly after Secretary of State John Kerry met with Turkey’s Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu in Washington.

    In brief comments to reporters at the State Department, neither Kerry nor Cavusoglu mentioned Armenia or the upcoming April 24 anniversary.

    The White House later said National Security Adviser Susan Rice met with Cavusoglu and encouraged him to take “concrete steps to improve relations with Armenia and to facilitate an open and frank dialogue in Turkey about the 1915 atrocities.”

    Historians estimate up to 1.5 million Armenians were killed by Ottoman Turks, an event widely viewed by scholars as genocide. Turkey, however, denies the deaths constituted genocide and says the death toll has been inflated.

    Several U.S. officials said there had been a sharp internal debate over whether to use the 100-year anniversary to call the killings “genocide” and make good on the president’s campaign promise, particularly after Pope Francis used the term earlier this month. That comment by the pope prompted an angry response from Turkey, which recalled its ambassador to the Vatican over the matter. Several European governments and parliaments are also expected to use the word in discussions of the events 100 years ago.

    Some at the State Department, particularly those who deal directly with Turkey and its neighbors in the Middle East, as well as at the Pentagon, argued against using the word, according to the officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss internal deliberations.

    They said the damage it would cause to U.S.-Turkey relations at a critical time, notably when Washington needs Ankara’s help in fighting the Islamic State group in Syria and Iraq, would far outweigh the immediate benefits. The safety of U.S. diplomats and troops in Turkey was also a consideration, the officials said.

    On the other side, officials at the White House and State Department who deal more directly with human rights issues, including Power, wanted the president to use the word “genocide,” the officials said. Asked if there was an internal rift on the issue, one senior official involved in the discussion said simply “yes.”

    That official noted that alienating the Turks at this point in Obama’s presidency would mean accepting that the U.S. investment in good relations with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan had failed. That relationship has been fraught with difficulty in recent years over human rights concerns, among other issues.

    Another senior U.S. official acknowledged the decision would be a disappointment to some who were “hoping to hear different language this year” and said the administration understood that perspective. But the official also said the administration believed its approach is right “both for acknowledging the past, and for our ability to work with regional partners to save lives in the present.”

    Negative reaction to the announcement was intense from both the Armenian-American community and members of Congress who have championed the Armenian cause.

    Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said he was “deeply disappointed” by the president’s decision.

    “The United States has long prided itself for being a beacon of human rights, for speaking out against atrocity, for confronting painful chapters of its own past and that of others,” said Schiff. “This cannot be squared with a policy of complicity in genocide denial by the president or Congress.”

    The head of one of the Armenian-American groups briefed on the decision by White House chief of staff Denis McDonough and deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes went further.

    “President Obama’s surrender to Turkey represents a national disgrace,” said Ken Hachikian, the chairman of the Armenian National Council of America. “It is, very simply, a betrayal of truth, a betrayal of trust.”

    Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

     

  • Fourteen important reasons why Obama Would not use the word “ Genocide” ;

    Fourteen important reasons why Obama Would not use the word “ Genocide” ;

    By Orhan Tan

    Presedent Obama knows;

    1.That, The Armenians’  claims are  mostly based on  rumours.

    2.That, The   decision to blame  a nation with genocide guilt is under the  authority of an international  court.  Therefore, if he would state the word genocide his saying would be illegal and would not suit for the USA Presedent.  

    3.That, The Armenians’ revolts started in 1890 s and occured more than 30  times.     

    4. That, The most reliable documents for Armenians are a. Ambassador Morgenthau’ s Memories  was  written by his  two Armenian  secretaries  using the  hearsays, b. Blue Book  which was prepared by Britain  as  a  WW I  propaganda  document ( i.e .  Psychological Warfare document , and Obama’ s military advisers know what it means)          

    5.That, the British government decided  to judge the  accused  144 dignitaries / commanders  in Malta.  More than  two years  (1919 -1921) trial the  British court   without  a  single  indictment  closed the court  and  set the  dignitaries free.

    6.That, US Senate  sent Major  General Harbord with a delegation to  Turkey.  Gen. Harbord  reported  to Senate  also  that  provacations  by British on Armenians  to induce them to fight.  In his report Gen. Harbord  mentioned moslem losses too.
    7.That, Mr. Fridthof Nansen, Secretary General,  League of  Nations,  Sep. 21, 1929 quotes; “Western Powers had said to Armenians “ If you figfht  with us against  the Turks we promise to give you a national home  and  independence!”   Armenians    fought, 200.000 volunteers sacrificed their lives,  but  when Peace  was signed  given promise  was  forgotten.

    8. That, the  first PM of  Armenia  Hovannes Katchaznouni says, in 1923 ; “The Sevres Treaty had blinded everyone’s eyes… We now see that if we had agreed on a settlement with the Turks directly (in spite of the Sevres Treaty) we might have gained a lot. But we could not see this point…It is also a reality, an unforgivable reality that we did not do anything to avoid war, but did just the opposite;  we created excuses for it.”
    9. That, Armenians,  referring to Hitler,  use  a clause as such; “ Who remembers Armenians” . That clause  was found as an unreal one during the Nuremberg trials..
    10. That, Dec.17, 2013 The  European Court of  Human Rights decision states; “……Moreover, Court acknowledged the fact that it would be very difficult to identify a general consensus in the academic community concerning the legal characterization of the events of the time as genocide.”                                                                                             

    11.That, the Turkish government proposed establishing a  commission  of international  historians  and judges  to study the 1915  events, but, Armenian side never accepted.     

    12.  That, genocide  claims must be scrutinized in the  context of UN  rules  and  regulations. 

    13. That, Turkey is a very credible, strong ally, and a globally strategic partner for the USA.  

                                                                                                                                    14.That, if he accepts Armenians’ proposal and recognize genocide  that decision  would not suit USA’s  moral values,  international law,  justice  and it would  establish a blemished  decision in American history. 

    ap_obama_presser_01_lb_141219_16x9_992

     

  • Canakkale/Gallipoli: The Road to Peace Out of War

    Canakkale/Gallipoli: The Road to Peace Out of War

    To commemorate the centennial of the Battle of Çanakkale/Gallipoli, a panel discussion titled   Çanakkale/Gallipoli: Road to Peace Out of War will be held on

    Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at Boston University.

    A collaborative exhibition of photographs from war archives of Turkey and Australia on the Battle of Çanakkale/Gallipoli will accompany the panel.

    Light refreshments will be served.

    The event is free and open to public. R.S.V.P is required.

    To R.S.V.P., please send an e-mail to [email protected] with your name and affiliation.

    unnamed

  • LA MERDE NE SE PREND PAS POUR DE LA MERDE

    LA MERDE NE SE PREND PAS POUR DE LA MERDE

     

    Je connais Ilber Ortayli depuis ses années d’université. Il était l’assistant de Sina Aksin. Il écrivait des articles sur le théâtre syrien pour le compte de la revue Dost. J’avais son adresse mail mais il s’avère qu’elle n’est plus valide. C’est pourquoi j’écris ces lignes alors que je me trouve loin de la Turquie. Si je connaissais son adresse, je lui écrirais brièvement. (Je prie quiconque la connaît de lui envoyer cet article). Il faut dire, avant tout, que le mot merde est un mot sublime. Tous les Français l’affectionnent et l’utilisent fréquemment. Ils en ont même dérivé le verbe emmerder qui signifie : ennuyer, importuner. Il s’agit d’un terme à la fois argotique et soutenu. Les philosophes l’emploient autant que les ministres, tout comme les femmes, belles ou laides… Un terme hors classe sociale.

    Ilber Ortaylı a répondu «  Merde ! » à la bande d’imbéciles qui prétend fonder une nouvelle république.  Il a bien fait !

    J’ai lu les articles des bonimenteurs qui pleurnichent : « Cela est indigne d’un débat d’idées ! » Or merde est un terme extrêmement intellectuel. D’une ironie on ne peut plus spirituelle. On pourrait à la rigueur riposter à ces individus « Chiche ! », en ponctuant ce mot d’un joli bras d’honneur.

    Des gens ne connaissent ni l’histoire ni la géographie de leur pays… On ne va tout de même pas répondre à ces ignares par des centaines de pages de démonstration, en leur opposant des faits incontestables, en déployant des arguments subtils et variés : ils n’ont pas la faculté d’appréhender le savoir !… Alors c’est par un petit geste et un mot rugueux que vous pouvez leur montrer leur erreur…  Et vous pouvez être sûr qu’ils comprendront !

    Une horde de bouffons occupe l’arène, des incapables rivalisant d’ineptie… Prétendant que la république de 1923 a fait son temps, ils projettent d’en instaurer une nouvelle. Or c’est à peine si ces balourds peuvent confectionner des bocaux des cornichons, quand ils n’organisent pas  des défilés de mode à l’ottomane… Pourtant ils ignorent tout des Ottomans. Je leur recommande vivement la lecture de l’Histoire des Turcs d’Ilber Ortayli.

    Je viens d’apprendre que le pape a utilisé le mot de « génocide ». D’aucuns y voient une occasion de détruire notre république. De réveiller ainsi les ambitions arméniennes du XIXe siècle et de ressusciter le traité de Sèvres enterré à Lausanne. Au point où en est le gouvernement AKP, la situation de la Turquie évoque celle de l’empire ottoman dans sa décrépitude. Les hyènes et les chacals sont à l’affût. Mais le gouvernement emploie toute son énergie à arabo-islamiser la société turque. Coupable incurie ! Au demeurant vouloir créer, de l’intérieur, une nouvelle Turquie à la place de la République actuelle constitue une ineptie tout aussi condamnable ! Cela ne revient-il pas en effet à collaborer avec le Pape, les Arméniens et l’impérialisme de la CIA ? Mais cela, ils le savent pertinemment !

    Comme le rappelle à point nommé Ilber Ortayli, « ces gens-là » collaboraient déjà avec l’ennemi pendant la guerre d’indépendance, à l’époque ottomane, contre ceux qui voulaient libérer et moderniser le pays. Merde à ceux qui prétendent détruire cette République !

    NOTA BENE:

    1. Mes amis étrangers (des intellectuels : poètes, romanciers, écrivains, peintres) accusent la Turquie à propos de la Syrie : « Elle a ouvert les portes aux assassins de tous poils qui voulaient passer en Syrie ! » Puis ils ajoutent : « Nous sommes contre Assad, bien entendu, mais il ne faut pas oublier le combat qu’il mène contre Al Qaida et Daech. Je leur réponds : « N’incriminez pas la Turquie et les Turcs. Ce n’est pas la Turquie qui est responsable de ces actes mais le gouvernement AKP conduit par le grand maître Erdogan. » Nous nous mettons d’accord. « Le salut c’est pour bientôt ! »
    2. Quant à la question arménienne, il est très difficile à ce gouvernement antipathique d’imposer l’expression « massacres réciproques » à la place du mot « génocide ». Surtout après la récente intervention du Pape.
    3. On n’entend plus parler de la question kurde mais la revue MOYEN ORIENT a publié un numéro intitulé KURDISTAN(S). Un salmigondis : on y trouve tout et son contraire.
    4. La politique commence à occuper dans ma vie une place bien plus importante que je ne l’imaginais. Comme le disait Rilke «  Il va falloir y remédier ! »

    Özdemir İnce

    Le 15 Avril 2015

    Traduit du turc par Ferda Fidan

  • Armenian Revolt English Dubbing & French Subtitle ( Armenian Documentary banned in the U.S.)

    Armenian Revolt English Dubbing & French Subtitle ( Armenian Documentary banned in the U.S.)

  • Mehmet Sukru Guzel: A Turkish Genocide Denier Pope Francis Pope Francis’s Crime against Humanity and Pope Francis’s Act of Genocide

    Mehmet Sukru Guzel: A Turkish Genocide Denier Pope Francis Pope Francis’s Crime against Humanity and Pope Francis’s Act of Genocide

    A Turkish Genocide Denier Pope Francis

    Pope Francis’s Crime against Humanity and Pope Francis’s Act of Genocide

    Mehmet Sukru Guzel

    Pope Francis called Armenian deaths as the “First Genocide of 20th Century” without mentioning more than 500,000 civilian Turks killed by non-state Armenian armed groups.

    In fact, if the word “genocide” is to be used for the First World War period, Pope Francis should accept that the first genocide of the First World War was committed by non-state Armenian armed groups in the former territories of the Ottoman Empire of Kars, Ardahan and their environs that were lost by the Ottoman Empire to Russia after the 1877-78 Ottoman-Russian War. [1]

    Ottoman sources reported some 30,000 Muslim civilians killed; more recent scholarship has pointed to an even higher number, as many as 45,000 in the Chorokhi valley alone. Traveling the Ardahan-Merdenek road in Ardahan province in early January 1915, an Azeri Duma deputy, Mahmud Yusuf Dzhafarov, witnessed “mass graves of unarmed Muslims on both sides of the road.” Whatever the exact number of victims, the wave of Christian vengeance killings against Caucasian Muslims was serious enough that the long-serving viceroy of the Caucasus, Count I. Vorontsov-Dashkov, issued a series of decrees forbidding further atrocities while also ordering the deportation of about 10,000 Muslims from sensitive areas near the front lines to the Russian interior. [2]

    Genocide is accepted as a jus cogens crime.” Jus cogens is a peremptory norm and is a fundamental principle of international law that is accepted by the international community of states as a norm from which no derogation is permitted. There is no clear agreement regarding precisely which norms are jus cogens nor how a norm reaches that status, but it is generally accepted that jus cogens includes the prohibition of genocide, maritime piracy, slaving in general (to include slavery as well as the slave trade), torture, non-refoulement and wars of aggression and territorial aggrandizement”. [3]

    In addition, “genocide and crimes against humanity also give rise to obligation of the perpetrating States toward the entire international community, erga omnes doctrine. Ergo omnes doctrine also includes non-state armed groups’ acts. [4]

    Pope Francis should remember the International Court of Justice’s judgment in the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, adjudicating claims by Bosnia and Herzegovina that Serbia had breached its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948 (“Genocide Convention”). The International Court of Justice found that Serbia, as a state, had neither committed genocide in Bosnia nor been complicit in the crime of genocide.

    The International Court of Justice did, however, conclude that Serbia -through its continued support of Bosnian Serbs in light of the probability that some of them would commit the crime of genocide- had “violated the obligation to prevent genocide in respect of the genocide that occurred in Srebrenica in July 1995. [5]

    We have to remember that Bosnian Serbs were a non-state armed group and they committed the crime of Genocide. On 9 January 1992, the Republic of the Serb People of Bosnia and Herzegovina (subsequently renamed the Republika Srpska on 12 August 1992) was declared with the proviso that the declaration would come into force upon international recognition of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. On 28 February 1992, the Constitution of the Republic of the Serb People of Bosnia and Herzegovina was adopted. The Republic of the Serb People of Bosnia and Herzegovina (and subsequently the Republika Srpska) was not and has not been recognized internationally as a State; it has however enjoyed some de facto independence. [6]

    The Republika Srpska never attained international recognition as a sovereign State, but it had de facto control of substantial territory as the non- state Armenian armed groups in the Eastern Anatolia. [7]

    The International Court of Justice confirmed that genocide had been committed in Srebenica. If a single massacre satisfies the criterion of Article 2 of the Genocide Convention, certainly the Armenian massacres against the Turks in Russian controlled territory before the relocation – resettlement decision of Armenians in Ottoman Empire would qualify as genocide. Non-state armed Armenian groups committed massacres against Turks at the back of the war frontier in different parts of Anatolia as well.

    In the context of the armed conflict in the former Yugoslavia, the United Nations General Assembly in its resolution No.47/121 of 18 December 1992 found that Bosnian Serbians policy of “ethnic cleansing” constituted “a form of genocide”. This resolution was confirmed in General Assembly Resolution 48/143, 49/295, 50/192, 51/115, etc. [8]

    In the same vein, the “ethnic cleansing by killing” committed by Armenians in Kars, Ardahan and their environs constituted the first genocide of the First World War in January 1915.

    As all historian and international politicians knows that for a specific date and specific place of historical events based on religious and racial issues, if only a portion, or one side of the specified events is to be mentioned and only one side is side to be accused of the same actions, this is a discrimination on religion and racial origin. And this is the legitimization of crimes of the other side on religious and racial reasons which is a crime by itself. No normal person can believe then more than 500.000 civilians Turks could be killed including children, woman and older people on self-defence actions of Armenian non-state armed groups. By not mentioning of the killings of more than 500.000 Turks, Pope Francis’ speech s should be accepted as the legitimation of the war crime acts of Armenian non-state armed groups and this is a crime against humanity.

    International Court of Justice gives the definition of Crimes against Humanity as:

    Include any of the following acts committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack: murder; extermination; enslavement; deportation or forcible transfer of population; imprisonment; torture; rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity; persecution against an identifiable group on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious or gender grounds; enforced disappearance of persons; the crime of apartheid; other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering or serious bodily or mental injury. [9]

    All these crimes were committed by non-state Armenian armed groups to the Turkish civilians and Pope Francis ignored these crimes in his speech.

    Without mentioning the genocide to Turks committed by non-state Armenian armed groups just in the beginning of the First World War till the end of year 1921 and the calling Armenian genocide by Pope Francis can only be explained by racial and religious discrimination. This call of Pope Francis was based on blaming only one side for what happened in the past. It is call from the international community to accept acts of so-called “superior” and “civilized” Armenian non-state armed groups acting against to Muslims Turks. This is the mind-set of a holy Christian War against Muslims, as was the case during the Crusades. In such a mind-set, no one can blame Armenians for committing genocide against Turks in the Christian world.

    The logic of call of Pope Francis is based on superiority of Armenian race in their actions and do not accept any responsibility of the non-state Armenian armed groups war crimes. This is against the equality of the nations and equality of religions.

    In his speech Pope Francis, by not mentioning and ignoring genocide of more than 500.000 civilian Turks, killed by the non-state Armenian armed groups, makes racial and religious discrimination for the legitimization of this crime. As mentioned Genocide is a jus cogens crime. Jus cogens is a peremptory norm and is a fundamental principle of international law that is accepted by the international community of states as a norm from which no derogation is permitted. With this, Pope Francis speech is against a fundamental principle of international law and elementary considerations of humanity principle.

    And most important, Pope Francis’s speech is against Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 9 December 1948 and should be accepted as a crime of genocide as Pope Francis tried to legitimize genocide crimes of non-state Armenian Armed groups means; “ direct and public incitement to commit genocide” on racial and religious bases.

    [10)

    And some one can wonder what is the difference between Vatican and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) after the speech of Pope Francis. Since Pope Francis and ISIS use the same logic of religious discrimination to legitimize the war crimes acts of military groups.

    Pope Francis will be remembered in the future as a Turkish Genocide denier.

    Mehmet Şükrü Güzel

    Switzerland Representative of Center for International Strategy and Security Studies

    1), Definition of non-state armed groups are defined as: ‘any armed group, distinct from and not operating under the control of, the state or states in which it carries out military operations, and which has political, religious, and/or military objectives. Bellal, A., Giacca, G., CaseyMaslen, S. “International Law Applicable to Armed Non State Actors in Afghanistan”, International Review of the Red Cross, No. 881, 2011, p. 48. The methodology used by non-state Armenian groups against the Turks should much more be categorized under the acts of terrorism as defined in the Dictionary of Criminal Justice. “Terrorism is different from murder, assault, arson, demolition of property, or the threat of the same; the reason is that the impact of terrorist violence and damage reaches more than the immediate target victims (e.g., government or military). It is also directed at targets consisting of a larger spectrum of society (e.g., civilians or even society as a whole). Terrorism is distinct from regular crime because of its powerful objectives. The change is desired so desperately that the inability to achieve change is perceived as a worse consequence than the deaths of civilians. Terrorist acts are both mala prohibita acts and mala in se acts. Mala prohibita acts are “crimes that are made illegal by legislation”; mala in se acts are crimes “that are immoral or wrong in themselves.” Rush, George E. The Dictionary of Criminal Justice (5th Ed.). Guildford, CT: McGraw-Hill, 2002 pp.204–205

    2), Sean McMeekin,”The Russian Origins of the First World War”, Harvard University Press, Cambridge 2011, p.160

    3), M. Cherif Bassiouni. “International Crimes: ‘Jus Cogens’ and ‘Obligatio Erga Omnes’.” Law and Contemporary Problems. (Autumn 1996) Vol. 59, No. 4, p. 68. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/lcp/vol59/iss4/6/, 20.02.2015

    4), The term erga omnes refers are the obligations concern all States by their nature. International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion Concerning Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory , 18.02.2015

    5), Dermot Groome, “ Adjudicating Genocide: Is the International Court of Justice Capable of Judging State Criminal Responsibility?”, Fordham International Law Journal, Volume 31, Issue 4 2007, pp-912

    6), International Court of Justice, Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro)

    7), International Court of Justice, Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment of 26 February 2007, paragraph 235, , 05/01/2015

    8), Alfred de Zayas, “The Genocide against the Armenians 1915-1923 and the Relevance of the 1948 Genocide Convention”, Haigazian University, Beirut 2010, p.21

    9),What are crimes against humanity? International Criminal Court, x 01.02.2015

    10), Article 3 (c) of Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide accepts direct and public incitement to commit genocide as an act which shall be punishable.