Author: Aylin D. Miller

  • The Bloody Co-existence of…

    The Bloody Co-existence of…

    The Bloody Co-existence of
    Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots

    (1963-1974)
    George Nakratzas

         Any nationalist expansionist policy can be carried out only by means of war. And the people have to be psychologically prepared for this by a propaganda device which idealises their own acts and demonises those of the enemy.
         Greece has employed this device in the past, and continues to do so today, one typical exponent being the new Archbishop of Athens, Christodoulos, who has publicly, in the presence of the President of the Hellenic Republic, referred to the Turks as ‘the eastern barbarians’.
         It is a well-known fact that the Turks treated the Greek minority in Istanbul with great barbarity in 1955; and it is equally well known that dozens, if not hundreds, of Greek Cypriot captives were executed in Cyprus in 1974. Rauf Denktash has publicly admitted it.
         But what the young people of Greece have no idea of is that Turkish Cypriots were murdered by the parastatal groups run by Sampson, Yeorgadzis, and Lyssaridis between 1963 and 1967. It should be borne in mind that at that time the Cypriot government was responsible for safeguarding the life, the honour, and the property of all Cypriot citizens, irrespective of national or religious identity.
         A somewhat more detailed analysis of the Greek and foreign literature on the events in Cyprus in this period may fill the gap in young modern Greeks’ knowledge.
         The invasion of Cyprus by the Turkish army in 1974 resulted in the partition of the island into two zones, a northern zone populated by Turkish Cypriots and Turkish settlers and a southern zone populated by Greek Cypriots. Since then, the Cypriot government has steadfastly demanded the withdrawal of the Turkish occupation forces so that Cyprus may be restored to its former status. However, a study of the relations between the two communities between 1963 and 1967 may tell us something about the quality of their ‘peaceful co-existence’.
         Regarding the Greek Cypriots’ supposed intention to live in peace and equality with the Turkish Cypriots, an extract from a speech by Archbishop Makarios in the village of Panayia is particularly telling. It is quoted by Rustem and Brother, according to whom, on 4 September 1962, Makarios said:
    Until this small Turkish community, forming a part of the Turkish race, which has been the terrible enemy of Hellenism, is expelled, the duty of the heroes of EOKA can never be considered as terminated. (1, p. 47) A letter from Denktash protesting about the Panayia speech was never answered.
         Fourteen months later, on 30 November 1963, Makarios submitted his famous thirteen-point amendment of the Constitution, in direct contravention, as he himself publicly admitted, of the Geneva Convention (2, p. 56). The Geneva Convention ruled out any unilateral change to the Cypriot Constitution, as also any partition of the island or unification with Greece. It should be borne in mind that even today the Republic of Cyprus derives its legitimacy from the Geneva Convention.
         Makarios’s proposed changes would have meant that the Turkish Vice-President would lose his right of veto and would be elected not by the Turkish Cypriots but by the parliamentary majority, i.e. the Greek Cypriots. These two articles, together with another nine similar ones, would have lost the Turkish Cypriots the rights which the Cypriot Constitution had guaranteed them until then.
         The Cypriot mass media presented the Turkish Cypriots’ refusal to accept this unilateral amendment of the Constitution as ‘Turkish insubordination to the state’, which was quite untrue, because, as we have seen, from a legal point of view it was not the Turkish Cypriots, but Makarios who had made a unilateral, arbitrary attempt to violate the Constitution.
         General Karayannis, Commander of the Cypriot National Guard, confirmed that it was not the Turks who initiated the so-called insubordination in an interview in Ethnikos Kirix on 15 June 1965: When the Turks objected to the amendment of the Constitution, Archbishop Makarios put his plan into effect and the Greek attack began in December 1963. (3, p. 87)
         That Makarios had a premeditated plan to exterminate the Turks is also indirectly confirmed by the Communist Party of Cyprus, which published the following critique of the Archbishop in issue No. 57 of its organ Neos Dimokratis in July 1979: Armed by Makarios, Mr Lyssaridis . . . formed his own armed bands, which, in 1963-4, together with those of Yeorgadzis and Sampson, waged a ‘liberation struggle’ against the Turkish Cypriots and as a result brought
    us the Green Line and, eventually, Attila. (2, p. 67) That the sole purpose of the so-called liberation struggle was to force the Turkish Cypriots to yield to Makarios’s unilateral amendment of the Constitution is also officially revealed by an article in the Cypriot newspaper Haravyi, which was published on the second day of the clashes, 22 December 1963: And since it is accepted that the tension is the result of the climate created by the Zurich and London agreements and the undemocratic terms of the Constitution, . . . the Turkish government, . . . which is inflaming the tempers of our fanatical compatriots, and the Turkish Cypriot leadership must reconsider their negative attitude and approach the President of the Republic’s proposals in a constructive manner. (2, p. 73) 
         The Greek Cypriot assault on the Turkish Cypriots started on 21 December 1963, when Greek Cypriot police officers shot and killed a Turkish Cypriot couple in the Turkish sector of Nicosia while attempting to carry out a spot check. 
         The most serious attack was the assault on Omorfita, a suburb of Nicosia inhabited by 5,000 Turkish Cypriots. The Greek Cypriot parastatals were headed by Nikos Sampson, whom the Greek Cypriot press henceforth dubbed ‘the conqueror of Omorfita’. The material damage wreaked by Sampson’s parastatals in Omorfita is described in the UN Secretary General’s report No. S/5950 to the Security Council, which states that 50 houses were totally destroyed and 240 partially destroyed (4, para. 180). As for the human losses, 4,500 Turkish Cypriots managed to flee to the Turkish sector
    of Nicosia and 500 were captured and taken to Kykkos School in Nicosia, where they were held with 150 Turkish Cypriots from the village of Kumsal.
         On Christmas day, 150 of the 700 or so captives were selected and dragged away, and the sound of shooting followed.
         Gibbon reports that an English teacher at Kykkos School told the High Commission that she had seen the results of the shooting; whereupon, for security reasons, the British administration put her on the first plane to London, because she was the only eye witness to what had happened (5, p.
    139). As for the 150 captives, the Greek Cypriot authorities told their families for many years that they should regard them as missing. Other major assaults by the Greek Cypriots near Nicosia targeted the villages of Mathiati, Ayos Vassilios, and Kumsal. In Kumsal, the Greek Cypriot parastatals executed 150 people in cold blood.
         The most apalling photograph, which went round the world, showed three small children and their mother lying dead in a pool of blood in the bath in their home. These unfortunates were the family of Major Ilhan, an officer in the Turkish expeditionary force in Nicosia (3, p. 95).
         In the surgical clinic in Nicosia Hospital, the Greek Cypriots dragged from their beds twenty-two Turkish Cypriot convalescents, all trace of whom vanished for ever (3, 91). 
         Government and parastatal armed forces continued their attacks on the Turkish Cypriots over the next four months. One notable incident, which almost provoked a Greek-Turkish war, took place at Famagusta, where, on 11 May 1964, three Greek officers and a Greek Cypriot policeman took their
    car into the Turkish sector, possibly intending to make a display of power. A Turkish Cypriot policeman attempted to obstruct them, there was an exchange of fire, and in the end two of the Greek officers, the Greek Cypriot policeman, and a passing Turkish Cypriot lay dead. Two days later,
    the Greek Cypriots abducted thirty-two Turkish Cypriots, who were never seen again. The abduction is confirmed by the UN Secretary General’s report No. S/5764 (6, para. 93).
         Lastly, on 9 August 1964, there was the attack on the Turkish Cypriot enclave of Kokkina-Mansoura, where the Turkish air force ended the hostilities by dropping napalm bombs.
         The UN Secretary General’s report No. S/5950, para. 142, tells us that, during the period of the hostilities ? from 21 December 1963 to 8 June 1964 ? 43 Greek Cypriots and 232 Turkish Cypriots disappeared and have been officially posted as missing ever since. The missing Turkish
    Cypriots include the 150 hostages from Kykkos School in Nicosia and the 32 abductees from Famagusta.
         The Cypriot media constantly show pictures of Greek Cypriot women holding photographs of their nearest and dearest and seeking information about their whereabouts; yet the Greek media have never shown similar pictures of Turkish Cypriot women seeking information about their own lost
    relations.
         The termination of the Cypriot government’s assaults on the Turkish Cypriots led to the creation of Turkish Cypriot enclaves, where the Turkish Cypriot refugees lived in wretched conditions for no less than eleven years. According to Kranidiotis, in his book Unfortified State: Cyprus 1960-74
    (in Greek), these enclaves occupied 4.86 per cent of Cypriot territory Seeing that the Greek Cypriot armed bands were unable to assert themselves over the Turks, . . . on 26 December, Makarios was obliged to accept the Green Line. . . . Six large Turkish enclaves were formed, . . . which
    corresponded to 4.86 per cent of the territory of Cyprus. (2, p. 75) From 1964 to 1967, owing to the restrictive measures imposed by the Greek Cypriot government, the day-to-day efforts of the confined Turkish Cypriots consisted exclusively in a struggle for survival. Apart from imposing an economic embargo on the enclaves, the Makarios administration also banned the supply of strategic commodities, such as cement, tractors, men’s socks, and wollen clothing.
         The imposition of the military dictatorship in Greece in 1967 heralded fresh oblems for Cyprus. On 15 November 1967, Greek and Greek Cypriot forces armed with cannon, machine-guns, and bazookas attacked the lightly armed Turkish Cypri- ots in the villages of Ayos Theodoros and Kofinou in the Larnaca area. As the defen- ces crumbled, the Greek Cypriots killed twenty-seven Turkish Cypriots (3, p. 139).
         The incident brought Greece and Turkey to the brink of war, which was avoided only when the illicit Greek division and General Grivas were recalled from Cyprus.
         The slaughter and looting at Kofinou were confirmed in the Greek parliament on 21 February 1986 by Andreas Papandreou, who spoke, inter alia, of the ‘great provocation of 15 November 1967,’ and added that the operation had been ‘ordered by the Supreme Command of the Greek Armed Forces [and] killing and looting took place’ (2, p. 33).
         The military junta brought its political career to an end in 1974 with the invasion of Cyprus and an attempt on Makarios’s life. We shall not discuss subsequent events here, because both warring sides perpetrated crimes against humanity during that period.
         Even now, both the Greek and the Turkish propaganda do their best to convince us that such acts of barbarity were commited exclusively by the other side. But this sort of propaganda is mainly intended for domestic consumption.
         What needs noting is that a war was fought between two nations in 1974, and it is usually the case in any war situation that criminal elements seize the opportunity to legitimise acts that would land them in prison in peace time. The reason why the blame lies so heavily on the Greek Cypriot side is the fact that, between 1963 and 1967, the Cypriot government was exclusively responsible for any acts committed by Greek Cypriot government or parastatal armed forces.
         During the forthcoming talks on the island’s entry into the European Union, the Republic of Cyprus will have two questions to answer.  Since the Cypriot government refuses 
                      1)     either to recognise the Turkish Cypriot state
    or
                      2)   to countenance a loose Greek-Turkish Cypriot confederation, 
                        which of the two remaining solutions has it in mind? 
    1) That the Turkish Cypriots should return to the villages in which they were living before 963?            or 
    2) That the Turkish Cypriots should return to the enclaves in which they were confined for eleven years?

    Literatur 
    1.   Rustem, and Brother,. (1998) : Excerpta Cypria For Today 
          Edited by Andrew Faulds MP , Lefkosha-Istanbul-London 
          The Friends of North Cyprus Parliamentary Group
          The House of Commons, London SW1,   ISBN 9963-565-09-3 
    2.   Oberling, P., (1982) : The Road to Bellapais, Social Science
          Monographs, Boulder Distributed by Columbia University Press, New York, ISBN
          88033-0000-7

    3.   Report of the Secretary-General to the Security Counsil on the United
          Nations operation in Cyprus , Document S/5950, 10 September 1964. 

    4.   Gibbons, H, S., (1997) : The Genocide Files 
          Charles Bravos, Publishers, London ,  ISBN 0-9514464-2-8

    5.  Report of the Secretary-General to the Security Counsil on the United Nations
         operation in Cyprus , Document S/5764, 15 Juni 1964.

     

     

  • The Secrets in the Cypriot Graves

    The Secrets in the Cypriot Graves

    GREEK ARMY MEMBERS MASSACRED GREEK CYPRIOTS AND TURKISH CYPRIOTS BODIES FOUND IN MASS GRAVES , MASS GRAVES LOCATED IN GREEK CYPRIOT SIDE WHERE TURKISH PEACE KEEPING FORCES WERE NEVER ABLE TO REACH.
    STORY IN GUARDIAN REVEALS THE SECRETS OF MISSING GREEK AND TURKISH CYPRIOTS AND THE LAST KNOWN MASSACRE- MASS GRAVE CREATED BY GREEK ARMY MEMBERS, AND ENOSIS DREAMERS.

    THE SO CALLED “DEMOCRAT-GREEKS” BLAMED 26 YEARS TURKISH GOVERMENT TO GAIN WORLDWIDE SUPPORT.. FOR THE CRIMES THEY WERE COMMITTED AGAINST HUMANITY.

    Read the full article at :

  • Turkey as a security partner

    Turkey as a security partner

    by F. STEPHEN LARRABEE
    Prepared for the United States Air Force

    Turkey has long been an important U.S. ally, but especially with the end of the Cold War, the relationship has been changing. Divergences between U.S. and Turkish interests have grown, in part because of Turkey’s relationships with its neighbors and the tension between its Western identity and its Middle Eastern orientation. Further, relations with the European Union have also deteriorated of late. As a result, Ankara has come to feel that it can no longer rely on its traditional allies, and Turkey is likely to be a more difficult and less predictable partner in the future. While Turkey will continue to want good ties to the United States, it is likely to be drawn more heavily into the Middle East by the Kurdish issue and Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Consequently, the tension between Turkey’s Western identity and Middle Eastern orientation is likely to grow even more.

    Limited Electronic Distribution Rights

    This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated in a notice appearing later in this work. This electronic representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for non-commercial use only. Unauthorized posting of RAND PDFs to a non-RAND Web site is prohibited. RAND PDFs are protected under copyright law. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents for commercial use. For
    information on reprint and linking permissions, please see RAND Permissions.

    This product is part of the RAND Corporation monograph series. RAND monographs present major research findings that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND monographs undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity.

    Approved for public release; distribution unlimited

    The research described in this report was sponsored by the United States Air Force under Contract FA7014-06-C-0001. Further information may be obtained from the Strategic Planning Division, Directorate of Plans, Hq USAF.

    The research described in this report was sponsored by the United States Air Force under Contract FA7014-06-C-0001. Further information may be obtained from the Strategic Planning Division, Directorate of Plans, Hq USAF.

    Download document in pdf : rand_mg694

    Buy this product :

  • Samuel Weems Commentaries, and Interview

    Samuel Weems Commentaries, and Interview

    Let me also make the point that there are individuals and groups such as Turkish Forum in the U.S., who do a great job in publishing information to the Turkish Community around the world. They do good work tirelessly defending the cause of Turks. I have great respect for individuals like Dr. Kaya Buyukataman and all others who work diligently every day to insure that the world knows the truth. Turkish Forum needs more support and contribution from Turks to organize and spread truth to the United States and the world…….    (Judge Sam WEEMS)

    Read More :

     

  • Ottoman Armenians

    Ottoman Armenians

     

    OTTOMAN ARMENIANS: “WHO KILLED WHO ?”

     

     

    I. Introduction: “Chronology and History”

     

    These two branches are confused in general; unfortunately, we witness such confusion initiated by several persons, having studied history.

     

    In fact, while the first of these branches places the events in time and place,                     the second branch researches or is obligated to research reasons and consequences of such events. While the history is making the research, it shall stick to the time-table presented by the chronologist, but at the same time evaluate its information on legal, cultural, geographical, sociological matters and the like.

     

    We will able to get the conclusion only after the examination we would carry out under the following titles:

     

     

    II. Reasons Triggering Degeneration of the Ottoman-Armenian Relations

     

    1. Sovereignty Fight Lasted for five (5) Centuries in the Balkans: Bogomilism  

     

    When the Ottoman/Turkish Army entered the Balkans in the mid of XIVth century, both anarchy and despotism existed in the peninsula. The political power was tyrannically exploiting small principalities based on territory and the village class people through these principalities and the village class people were not able to resist impositions and insistences of the political power and were being oppressed by the bandits living in the rural areas.

     

    On the other hand, the real victims of the fight between the churches were the small principalities and the villagers; while the Catholics on one hand and the Orthodoxies              on the other hand were fighting. Large blocks of people were wildly being exterminated by these two denominations, as they have strictly believed in Bogomilism.

     

    The Ottoman Empire has benefited such situation by the way of securing and protecting the oppressed classes; and therefore in a short period of time, it could find the way to settle in the Balkan peninsula. In the meantime, Turk tributes continuously and Sufistic Connoisseurs (“Tasavvuf Erbabı”) migrating from Asia were constantly being placed in the Balkans. Although this spread was suspended and even regressed upon lost of Ankara war in the East and dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, it was going to be completed more strongly than ever within fifty years and the South and Central Balkans were going to be Ottomanized/Turkicized. In the mid of the XVth century.                   Ottoman-Germen fight was going to continue for one more century in the North Balkans, constituting the current Hungary. The challenge on the Balkans was going to continue until the beginning of the XVIIIth century and until even today. The difference is that Austria, representing the Germen authority, left its role to the Tsarist Russia since XVIII.

     

     

     

    Russia, which has been more dangerous than the Austrian Empire, has planned the policy of “sailing along the warm waters” for establishing its sovereignty in the territory and considered this as a matter of life and death. However, this has been considered by Austria as an economic development area. Then, having eliminated its powerful neighbor Sweden, it has edged towards the Ottoman Empire with all of its power but had to divide its power, as Austria could not have solved its problems in the Western Europe. However, the most important point is that as Austria was catholic, the Orthodox Church was on the side of the Ottoman Empire. At that time, Russia usurped the church. Furthermore, Russia’s being a Slav Country was going to turn the conflict between the church and the nationalists to its own pims; so the Ottoman was going to gradually be considered to be a foreigner or occupier in that territory.

     

     

    2. Russia and Pan-Slavism: Küçük Kaynarca Treaty and First Political Losses

     

    Nobody should doubt that that the date to be considered to be milestone in                   Ottoman-Russian fight was the execution of 1774 Küçük Kaynarca Treaty. Until this date, Ottoman Empire from time to time lost or won the wars it entered; but, no records other than border arrangements and/or commercial matters have been kept to bear political consequences. However, it was the first time that it was accepted in this treaty that Russia was the protector of the orthodoxies in the Ottoman State and                     they would be able to open a consulate anywhere they wish. 

     

    This situation, considered unimportant by many of our well-known historians, has been described by Hammer, Austrian Historian as follows: “…this peace has been the reason for all the troubles of the Republic of Turkiye (“Turkiye”) since then and has been the commencement of dissolution of this Empire and was going to cause disintegration of the same at least in the West”.

     

    Before ending this matter, we should emphasize: “these provisions, considered to be critical, have been continuously imposed to Turks thereafter and are still imposed even today.” We call you to think on this matter.

     

    However, we would like to draw attention to the expression of “at least in the West”. This is because, at that time, Armenians were still considered “Loyal Nation                        as expressed as “Tebaa-i Sâdıka or Millet-î Sıdıka” in the Ottoman Turkish and they were not expected to have contrary acts against the State. Anyhow, there has been no reason for such a contrary action; this loyal nation has increased their welfare by conducting the activities of trade and by governing the foreign relations of the Ottoman Empire.

     

    Upon the execution of Küçük Kaynarca Treaty, the Russians have increased their activities in the Balkans. They have established consulates and accordingly, sensitive zones. They have firstly formed armed committees by sending weapons and ammunition and even rebels; and afterwards caused rebellions. They had roles in establishment of independent Romania, Greece and Serbia. However, they could not in any way rouse the Armenian public mind in the Eastern Anatolia; because Armenians have preferred to be under the control of the Ottoman Empire where they have dominant situation in economic terms, as they had fear for religious sovereignty to possibly be established by Orthodox Russia. This lasted until the mid of                              the XIXth century.

     

    3. Events until Paris Imperial Reform Edict: The Issue of Minorities

     

    Russia already seized the Eastern Anatolia in 1828s and has been in close contact with the Armenian population. A significant change occurred in the mid of XIXth century. Having expanded, Russia reached the border of India; and England has suffered from this progress and France has suffered from availability of Russian navy in the Mediterranean. In the future these two countries, would on the side of the Ottoman Empire (in the future the Kingdom of Piedmont would join to them) declare war against Russia by using Russia’s request of control of the straits as an excuse.

     

    Although Russia lost the war, the peace settlement was going to cause dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. However, after England had secured the Indian border and together with France, settled the matter of Straits, these two countries put the                                  Matter of Minorities in the Ottoman Empire on the agenda, as if they won the war together with Russia against the Ottoman Empire; and thereafter, commenced to discuss the articles required to be accepted by the Grand Governorship. Sublime Porte, afraid of such a plot hatched against it, was obligated to declare in Istanbul a mandate including a series of arrangement upon recommendation and even intervention of                          a French Representative, while Paris Conference was going on. This mandate was briefly regarding equal rights and liabilities granted to non-Muslims in the Empire.

     

    It is quite strange that the objection to the provisions of this mandate was raised by the non-Muslims, who have been granted equal rights with the Muslims. Moreover,                 even Fener (“Phanar”) Greek Patriarch has read the mandate and stated  I hope it would not any longer come out of its bag” and replaced it into the bag.  The reason is quite simple: “Equal rights and liabilities as well as the status of the Muslim Ottoman Society, who spent 20 years of their lives in the military service and failed to penetrate into the commercial life, do not suit the purpose of the other societies in the Empire, who have been exempted from the military service until that time”. However, Europe has placed pressure on this matter and the non-Muslims would have been exempted from such duty by the way of payment of the “cost” of the military service and would have maintained their economic superiority.

     

    During all of these arrangements, Armenians were still loyal Ottoman citizens,                 who have been stuck to the State.  However, this was not going to last long !..

     

    Due to the influence of the missioners, who have entered from the borders, opened following Paris Conference, and due to enthusiasm for the scholarships granted, Armenians were going to be willing to go to Europe or Russia and start to be organized against the State there. However, it is not coincidence that committees, which were going to be, in the future, a great trouble to both Armenians and Turks, have been established in either Europe or Russia: “Taşnakustyan (“Taşnak” or “Tashnak”) Committee was established in Tiflis and Hinchak (“Hınçak”) Committee was established in Geneva.”

     

    Following the Treaty of Ayastefanos executed on March 3, 1978 after the war called          93 War”, concluded with great defeat of the Ottoman Empire and following the                  Berlin Conference, which is a darned version of the preceding Treaty in terms of borders; the Ottoman shrinked in the east; therefore, 800 years of Turkish sovereignty in the North-East Anatolia ended; and the territories as well as the Muslim society living thereon were left on the hook of the Armenians together with whom they have lived for 800 years. 

    The Ottomans, aware of the aforementioned facts, have been obligated to ignore a series of agitations in the country due to binding treaties and in order to prevent any jeopardy to the Muslims left on the hook of Armenians. Of course, this situation was going to be considered to be soft spot of the Ottoman Empire and the Armenian societies were going to aggravate the situation. For instance, members of Hinchak Committee were going to start consecutive rebellions.

     

    4. Ottoman – Russian War: Erzurum Cemetery, Dram and Muslims Force to Emigrate

     

    While border arrangement was being made following the Ottoman-Russian War in 1978, Russian delegates and Ottoman Delegates gathered at the provincial house. Russians demanded the province of Erzurum in addition to Kars, Ardahan and Ağrı, they occupied in this war. As support, or in other terms proof, for such demand, they asserted the claim that the majority of the population of these territories was constituted by Armenians. Upon such claim, one of the Ottoman delegates took the Russian delegate by the arm to the window and said: this is the Erzurum Cemetery; this large land from here to there is the cemetery of the Muslims and this small part is the cemetery of Armenians. As we know, Armenians bury their corpses as we do, but don’t eat !..” This dialogue is in fact quite dramatic.

     

    Then, the idea adopted in the East was: “If a peace negotiation is held and the population of one of the parties is higher than the other one’s, the other party is going to loose the relevant territories” Therefore, the Muslims on the other side of the border were forced to emigrate with pressure of any nature. When the war was started, Armenians on this side of the border were compulsorily being repressed.                   We should particularly state that while the oppressions to the Muslims in the Russian side were wildly being made by Tashnak Armenian Guerillas,                             the obligatory emigration on this side of the border was conducted by                            the disciplinary gendarme.

     

    5. 1914 Declaration of War against Russia and Armenian Rebellions: Obligatory Emigration-Emigrants

     

    As soon as war was declared against Russia in 1914 autumn, Russia forced approximately 387,000 Muslims to immediately cross the border and emigrate into the Ottoman Side. Afterwards, the Sublime Porte decided that the villages would be evicted excluding Armenians, such as the doctors, pharmacists and veterinaries, offering public services in the villages on the borders; and the emigrant Armenians would be transferred and placed in the South under security; and the immigrants coming from the Russia would be placed in the evicted villages.

     

    Three points should be considered in this decision:

    i.                     The decision was made after Russia had forced the Muslim society to emigrate.

    ii.                   The decision is not related to emigration of Armenians and members of several occupational group living in the provinces. This means that this is not a decision made against a group, as they are Armenians.

    iii.                  The decision has arrangements with respect to that Armenians would be sent to South for residence and the assets of these Armenians would be sold and the costs of the same would be delivered to them or to the Armenian church, in case of failure in finding the owners of such assets. Documents evidencing such arrangements are available.

     

    6. Obligatory Emigration Circumstances: Fatigue, Diseases and Kurdish Bandits

     

    At the preliminary stage, 180,000 – 300,000 Armenians were gathered together and repressed from their villages and collectively caused to depart towards the South.                  This departure lasted under quite hard circumstances and particularly old population died of fatigue and diseases and young population in considerable number died of the attacks of the Kurdish Bandits. There are many telegrams filed by the guardian officers requesting subsidiary forces.

     

    7. Armenian Rebellions: Yozgat and Tokat

     

    In the meantime, there has been considerable number of Armenians stayed. These have been Armenians living in the provinces or those, succeeded in staying in the villages by hiding or bribing. Those staying in the territory (Erzurum, Oltu, Erciş, Van, Malazgirt, Muş surrounding, Tekman), occupied by general attacks of the Russian Army upon Sarıkamış Event and in the provinces left to Russia by 1978 Treaty, have put to the torture and killed the Muslim society in the territory. As for Armenians living in the provinces; the major evidence that these Armenians have not been forced to emigrate is 1917 Yozgat, 1917 and 1918 Sivas Armenian Rebellions. If these Armenians had been murdered, it is so hard to understand how they were up in arms !..

     

    8. The fact of Van: “Paris of the Orient

     

    We kindly ask you to allow us to disclose a fact, the evidence of which still exists today, about Van with respect to which we have talked to the old people:

     

    The city of Van has born the title of “Paris of the Orient” and the Muslim or                   Non-Muslim ladies of Van had been wandering around the lake by silver embossed phaetons at sundown at the beginning of the last century according to the claims.                    The population of Van had consisted of 1/3 Muslims, 1/3 Armenians and 1/3 Jews.

     

    Well off Muslim society had resided in the quarter on the coast of the lake in the skirts of the castle, remained from the ancient Urartu times, and all of the aforementioned societies had lived together in the skirts of the mountain, 4-5 km far from the lake.

     

    After the Russian Army had arrived, a considerable number of Muslims left Van together with the Turkish Army falling back towards Edremit. Afterwards, Armenians of Van set fire to the Turkish quarters and in their own words “they left not a stick standing”. Relevant evidences are available.

     

    Even, according to what told by an old native of Van, “Armenians of Van, who hide their neighbors, have shipped these people in the vessels for the so-called purpose of missing them, brought them to Ahdamar Island under the Armenian Control and shot them”. When the Turkish Army pulled back Van, Armenians of Van, afraid of retaliation, evicted their quarters together with the Russian Army falling back. The Turks coming resided in the evicted Armenian quarters. Then, magnificent city of Van on the coast of the lake disappeared and today’s Van became a land city.

     

     

    9. “Armenian Stateand Armenia in Kars

     

    Armenians, surviving compulsory emigration, has put to the North together with Russian Army falling back in all directions. They have settled down in the “Kars centered Armenian State”. The life of this State has been so short and they have been repelled by Kazım Karabekir Pascha as far as today’s Armenia and left Anatolia.

     

     

    III. Incrimination of Armenian Genocide: Malta and Berlin

     

    1. Malta: “No Evidence

     

    As mentioned in the first section hereof, Cabinet in London had difficulties,                                 as no evidence could have been collected about 140 high officials of the State sent to Malta by English forces, based on a series of crime regarding massacres against Armenians in South Caucasus (refers to Eastern Anatolia within the borders of the Ottoman Empire).

     

    However, the Cabinet in London has called off establishment of courts as per                 Article 230 of Sèvres Treaty, as they could not have found any evidence either in the archives under their possession or in the archives of the Ottoman. Nevertheless, they have decided to request from the USA authorities to submit evidences and documents these authorities have been supposed to possess (!), in order to procure that those in Malta were going to be arrested to no purpose.

     

    In the meantime, the Chief Public Prosecutor of England, with its Note dated                         July 29, 1921, stated that there had been no possibility to file an action based on                the documents submitted to them as evidences or statements, the reality of which had been impossible to be believed by any court.”

     

    Having made the situation worse, the response coming from USA has caused disappointment. Washington Embassy in England (dated 13 July 1921 and by British Ambassador Mr. R.C. Craigie in Washington), in its Letter issued to Lord CURZON Committee, authorized to prepare files of the actions against the arrested officials                     in Malta, has stated: “There is no evidence available regarding the aforementioned arrested officials and there are several groundless oral complaints about two of them. The original of this document is as follows:

     

    ‘………. I regret to inform Your Lordship that there was nothing there in which could be used as evidence against the Turks who are being detained for trial at Malta…..

    Having regards to this stipulation and the fact that the reports in the possession of the Department do not appear in any case to contain evidence against these Turks which would be useful even for the purpose of corroborating information already in the possession of His Majesty’s Government.’.

     

    We would like to draw attention to one point herein: “No evidence could have been found against the arrested officials at Malta”. We would later on return to this matter while evaluating the legal situation.

     

    When the required evidences could not have been found in USA, the English Government has waived from all of its claims and converted the arrested officials into political hostages from the status of possible offenders and accepted their exchange with the prisoner Englishmen in the Anatolia on a subsequent date; but this matter is out of the scope of our matter in respect of its feature.

     

    2. Berlin: “Tayleryan who murdered Talat Pascha” and “Andonian Documents”

     

    The second stage of the request of referral of the event to international platforms has been launched in Berlin.

     

    Talat Pasha, the second important person of the Union and Progress Government (İttihat and Terakki) and the last Grand Vizier of the Ottoman Vizier, was shot by an Armenian commissioner named “Tayleryan” in May 1921. The murderer was caught. At the trial of the relevant case, it was claimed: Talat Pasha is responsible for genocide against Armenians (the first pronunciation of the word “genocide”) and Tayleryan is not               a murderer but an executor and he acted in such a manner under a grievous provocation.” As evidence for this case, telegram texts, which were going to be named “Andonian Documents” in the future; which have been claimed to have been issued from Istanbul Internal Affairs Office (Ministry) (to Şam and Halep Administrations),            then handwriting copies of the same were submitted to the court, as the “originals”, have been burned in a fire, as claimed. In these documents, expressions ordering eradication of Armenians brought for imprisonment were used. The Court REJECTED to take these into consideration as evidence.

     

    These documents have been quite important in claims regarding Armenian Genocide and have even been known as the only source.

     

    Although the Turkish side has claimed that these documents have been false; and that neither the style nor the numbers thereon nor the writing technique has not been compatible; nobody has believed this. Consequently, 75 years has elapsed from these events and falsity of these documents has been detected after the archives were opened and examined.

     

    [* A Technical Matter: A internal affairs telegram may not be deleted from the archives; this is because it is registered in at least six books from the Ministry (Office) to the Administrations (Ministry’s roes, telegram arrival book, telegram acceptance book, receiver telegram house entry book , telegram delivery roes and administration’s entry book). Moreover, nobody claims this; but we wrote for those, who may possibly not know.]

     

    When it was detected that these telegrams were false, came the most ridiculous defense from the Armenian supporters: They firstly claimed; “Armenian genocide has been carried out in the past because Andonian Documents evidence this genocide”, later they started to claim: “Falsity of the Andonian documents does not change anything, this is because it is real that these events occurred.” (Chalian; Les Armenians).

     

     

     

     

     

     

    IV. Sèvres Peace Treaty: “Negotiations”

     

    In the meantime, Sèvres peace negations have been held in Paris. Some of you may perhaps wonder why Sèvres Peace Treaty Negotiations have been held in Paris (and signed on August 10, 1920). This is quite simple; Sèvres Peace Treaty was negotiated by and between the winners at a hotel room in Paris; furthermore, they have neither accepted the interview request of Ottoman Grand Vizier, who has begged for being heard, nor read the letter send by this Grand Vizier.

     

    During these negotiations, any and all opposing groups or ethnic groups, including but not limited to Armenians, were heard but the Turks were REJECTED. After issuance of a decision, the Ottoman delegates were called to Paris and notified of this decision.

     

    Referral of the event to the international platform by Armenians has not come to naught and they have been granted the Eastern Anatolia by a treaty.

     

     When during the war of liberation, the Eastern Provinces were taken back by the 3rd Army, the Armenian events were completely forgotten.

     

    After execution of the Peace Treaty of Gümrü (dated December 3, 1920) which ended this action, the chief delegates of both sides each uttered only one but expressive word:

     

    – “Having left the pen, Turkish chief delegate, asked the Armenian Chief Delegate: “WHY ?.” 

     

    – The response of the Armenian Chief Delegate was “WE’VE BEEN DELUDED !..”.

     

     

    V. Armenian Diaspora: “ASALA and Kurds: PKK

     

    Hereafter, deceptions were tended from Armenians to the Kurds. The requests of Armenians have been forgotten due to the effects of Dersim and Sheik (“Şeyh”) Sait rebellions, financial crisis of 1930s, 2nd World War, Korean War and Cold War.

     

    Communities of interest, which have considered in 1960s that they would do nothing with the Kurds, organized the Armenian Diaspora and founded and supported ASALA.

     

    After each murder by ASALA, the Western Media had repeated the same sentences and supported Armenians. Then, the public, which has not been accustomed to ask any questions, has accepted the same as an “event”. Another update…the number of the lost people, notified by the Patriarchy as 180-300 thousands in 1920s, was mentioned to be  one (1) million as of 1966 and thereafter as 1.5 – 2 million.

     

    Accordingly, we guess that these Armenians, the only nation whose population continues to increase although they die, have losses in 1915.

     

    After seriously acting for approximately 15 years, ASALA has disintegrated officially due to internal conflicts and non-officially as a result of the efforts of the Turkish Intelligence Service.

     

    Afterwards, somehow, the Kurds were started to be used and “PKK” was caused to be established. You know thereafter.

     

    Today, precipitation of PKK, other than small PKK groups, has leaded the effort to               re-agitate Armenians” or “create a new purpose”. What would these excitements lead against us in the future ?.

     

    Sometime several games have been intended to be played on “Alevi society” and they have started to be organized seriously in Germany and Belgium; but the majority of               the Alevi society disregards such efforts for the time being 

     

     

    VI. Armenian Emigration and Rebellions

     

    The act of 1915 Armenian forced emigration (obligatory emigration) was not against                  a group of a religion or a race.

     

    According to the documents under our possession, the political will relating to the event was for non-erudite Armenians, supposed to be Russian comsymps or under the influence of the Russians in the territories adjacent to the front line and it has been understood that such forced emigration was conducted particularly for wiping out of the territory in military terms and making the territory convenient for a military act. However, at the beginning, erudite Armenians such as doctors, pharmacists etc., as well as Armenians living in the cities, Armenians working in the state authorities, sick and older villager Armenians were exempted;

     

    We have a memory; 2 Turkish officers told how they have been taken prisoners and how their imprisonments have been. These two officers could have gone to the 3rd Army in Erzurum from Istanbul in 42 days. The most important reason for their delay has been interruption of their travels due to the Armenian gangs or their short laps. These gangs’ generally being Protestant Armenians might have been taken as basis for issuance of decision on emigration. However, in our opinion, the trigger of the event was the intention to clear a field in the critical zone for about 300,000 Turks, forced                        to emigrate from Russian side to Turkish side. In fact, firstly 300,000 Turks were banished; thereupon 300,000 – 600,000 Armenians were forced to emigrate to              the South.  

     

    Has the Armenian population been as mentioned above? No, but I could not understand the importance of the number of this population; because the entire of this population has not been forced to emigrate. The evidences are the rebellions, which have consecutively broken out after 1915 and particularly upon regression of the Russian Army after dissolution of the Tsarist Russia in the last years of the war. Even if, we disregarded the zones under Russian occupation in 1915s such as Kars, Ardahan,             Doğu Beyazıt. If there have not been Armenians in the zones such as Yozgat, Sivas and Merzifon,  how would these rebellions been explained then ? !…

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    According to what we told in our article relating to lives of the entire of Armenians in the territory of Van in 1916, how could general emigration of Armenians be mentioned without any bad faith? It is hard for a normal person to consider the same! You know that any single Armenian has not been disturbed in the territories of Maraş and Kilikya (“Cilisia”). Moreover, a telegram is regarding refusal by                   the Armenians in the relevant zone of the efforts for placement, in Kilikya, of Armenians forced to emigrate from the East. We should deem well of the same !..

     

    One day, an Armenian Professor, during his visit to Ani Ruins, told us: “The worst behavior of you was conscription of the men and assassination of the women and children in the villages without men”. We told him that “his knowledge was completely wrong. Regardless of whether the women and children in these villages have been murdered, the Armenian men in this zone have established Tashnak gangs and attacked the Turkish villages or taken shelter of the Russian Army and constituted Armenian troops”. We told him that “the Armenian soldiers he mentioned were the aforementioned villagers. He had never heard something like this !..”. We would like to repeat that it was calculated that the Armenian men, taken shelter of the Russian Army and taken part in the newly formed Armenian troops immediately upon commencement of the war before 1915 events counted at least 70,000. Moreover, during the Russian occupation, these are the Armenians, who have caused injustices to the extent these have stroked the Russian officers the wrong way !..

     

     

    VII. Conclusions: “Our Specialists and Our Situation

     

    1. In Terms of Political Will: False Documents of Lewy Aram Andonyan

     

    We told in our article that Armenians’ attitude was so illogical and extraordinary that            the lawyers even could not understand. After the archives had been opened and the falsification of the Andonian documents had been understood, Armenians and their supporters, who at the beginning, made the availability of this political will depend on completely falsified Andonian documents, wisely and coolly stated: “This changes nothing; because the Armenian Genocide is anyhow real and other documents are absolutely available (?!); but, nowadays they are not accessible !..”.

     

    2. In Legal Terms: Burden of Proof

     

    Objective side, contrary to the logic of law, is that the world public opinion has taken the burden of proof from Armenians asserting the claim and given the same to us, Turks.  They asked us to prove that such claim is not true instead of asking Armenians to prove their claim. Moreover, they have even not heard our defense.  Let’s say  “c’est de bonne guerre” in French terms up to that point.  Interests prevail instead of rights and law between the states.

     

    However, the point, which desolates us and which we have difficulty in understanding is that: WE STILL HOLD OURSELVES RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS MATTER; AND WE PREFER ACCEPTANCE OF PRESSURE OF THE FOREIGNERS               TO WHAT TOLD BY OUR MEN OF LETTERS AND OUR HISTORIANS.

     

     

     

     

    3. In Other Terms

     

    Yes, this is true; this act has not been conducted without blood. We guess that approximately 60,000 Armenians have died on the ways and nearly same number of Armenians in the communication zones due to climatic conditions in the territory on one hand and their insufficient supply on the other hand and particularly due to continuous attacks by the Kurdish Gangs to these public processions, emigrating with their precious belongings.

     

    However, Istanbul Armenian Patriarchy has firstly mentioned that 300,000 Armenians have died. The figures, claimed today, are not true and are for the purpose of stirring up disorder in the public opinion. Those wondering the facts may reach information on census of population held during the Constitutional Monarchy (“Meşrutiyet”) and may notice that the population in the territory may not be enough for this.

     

    We would conclude our article with a current event: A program to which a Turkish specialist (?!) attended was held in a Belgian-French Channel. On the matter of acceptance of Armenians by the European Union and request from Turkiye for recognition of the Armenian Genocide and if not acceptable, request from EU Parliament for issuance of a decision on this matter, this Specialist (!) only and only stated that this is not possible under EU negotiation conditions and such a condition may not be claimed. He even uttered any other unfortunate sentences. If we were in his shoes, we would state that there has been no Armenian Genocide and the claims on this matter are factitious instead of stating that negotiation of this matter is not possible.

     

    Do you consider the claim of Armenians that those accepting the Armenian Genocide has been made are sentenced to imprisonment according to the Turkish Former Criminal Code? A specialist (!?), being at the same time a legal advisor, did not state that there is not such a provision in the Turkish Former Criminal Code; but instead he stated that there has been no person put in the prison for such reason. Do you consider                  our situation ?!..

     

    Mustafa Kemal ATATÜRK, at his speech during the opening of the Turkish Grand National Assembly, stated: The problem called as “Armenian Problem” and intended to be resolved according to the economic interests of the world capitalists rather than according to the requests of the Armenian Nation was resolved by the Treaty of Kars              in the most correct manner. Good faith relations of the two hardworking societies living together in amity for centuries were re-established with pleasure.”

     

    Please take into consideration my writings as a knowledge sharing. How come that everybody informs its studies and such studies are not considered to be abnormal,                     we would also like to share our knowledge as they do.

    Kindly submitted…

     

    Hakan HANLI

    Attorney at Law

    International and EU Law Specialist

    Brussels, April 23, 2006         [email protected]

     

    Telif Hakkı © 2006 Hakan HANLI. Her hakkı mahfuzdur.

    Copyright © 2006 Hakan HANLI.  All rights reserved.

  • SWEDEN TURNS DOWN ARMENIAN GENOCIDE BILL

    SWEDEN TURNS DOWN ARMENIAN GENOCIDE BILL

    On June 12only 37 of 245 members of the Parliament of Sweden voted for the
    recognition of the Armenian Genocide. According to Vahagn Avetian, head of
    Armenica.org, the Parliaments of Sweden held very long debates on the
    issue the day before.

    The parliamentarians figured out 4 points against the recognition of the
    Genocide. In particular, they explained their position by absence of any
    UN official document on the Armenian Genocide.

    Secondly, the negationists insisted that in 1948, when the relevant UN
    resolution was adopted, the Ottoman Empire existed no more. The last two
    points were rather vague and hardly had any relationship with the issue.
    They said that there are still controversies about the scenarios of the
    downfall of the Ottoman Empire and that the recognition of the Armenian
    Genocide may provoke unpleasant actions by certain nationalistic forces.

    By A. Haroutiunian, translated by A.M.