Author: Uluç Gürkan

  • Understanding the Armenian Question

    Understanding the Armenian Question

    Preface

    Overcoming Prejudice and Hatred

    The 1915 relocation was a dreadful operation for the Ottoman Armenians. It is undeniable that they suffered a great disaster with many innocent lives lost on their relocation routes.

    The Armenian genocide lobby claims that the Ottoman government intentionally “marched Armenians to their deaths”, thus committing the first genocide in history, and that the relocation law was only a pretext for the extinction of Armenians. This allegation of genocide does not ring true. It has no historical evidence or legal framework. To term the events of 1915 as genocidze is to detach genocide from its legal definition and to use it for political or religious purposes.

    No one has ever found any dependable documentary evidence to support the claim that the Ottoman government intended to exterminate the Armenians through relocation. On the contrary, there is considerable evidence of attempts to prevent such an outcome, though these were not very successful under the extraordinary conditions of World War I.

    The 1915 relocation law introduced by the Ottoman government was a wartime security strategy and operational measure undertaken for reasons of urgent military necessity. The Ottoman Empire was fighting alongside Germany against Britain, France, and Russia. Armenians saw this as an opportunity to establish their own state and they revolted against the Ottoman Empire, of which they were citizens.

    In Eastern Anatolia, tens of thousands of Armenians, including those under arms in the Ottoman army, fled to join the Russian Caucasian Army. Serving as scouts and advance units, they supported the Russian invaders. In Southern Anatolia, thousands of Armenian volunteers joined French Legion troops and took part in the occupation of numerous Ottoman provinces.

    Those Armenians who stayed behind were also a great threat to the Ottoman war effort and to the lives of the Muslims of Eastern Anatolia. Just before the war, more than 12,000 Armenian males of fighting age had gone to Russia from Eastern Anatolia. There, they were trained in partisan and guerrilla tactics. Immediately after Russia declared war on the Ottoman Empire, they returned to Anatolia. Joining with others who had never left Turkey, as well as Armenian deserters from the Ottoman army, they organized guerrilla activities on both sides of the Ottoman frontier. Henry Morgenthau, the American Ambassador in Istanbul, reported to Washington on 25 May 1915 that nobody estimated the Armenian guerrillas to be “less than 10,000, and 25,000 thousand is probably closer to the truth”.

    In the spring of 1915, when the British were at the Dardanelles, the Russians attacking in the east, and another British force apparently advancing on Baghdad, Armenian guerrilla activities had gained momentum all over Anatolia. Military supply and transport routes, and the communication channels of the Ottoman military units were sabotaged. Meanwhile the Armenian militias were attacking helpless Muslim villages in Eastern Anatolia and committing massacres against wholly innocent people. In some localities the entire Muslim population was killed. Armenian guerrillas were supported by Armenian villagers as well as by Armenians in the eastern cities that were home to leaders of their rebellion.

    For the Ottoman leaders, the Armenian uprising was the deadliest of all national security threats. On 14 November 1922, the New York Times reported that a total of 200,000 Caucasian and Ottoman Armenian volunteers fought against the Ottoman Empire in World War I. In response, at approximately the same time that the Armenians seized the City of Van, the Ottoman government ordered that the Armenian population residing in or near war zones be relocated to the southern Ottoman provinces, away from the advancing Russian army. Armenians living away from the front, if reported or suspected to be enemy collaborators, were also relocated.

    Understanding the Armenian Question uluc gurkan

    The Ottoman government took numerous measures for the care, protection and feeding of those subjected to deportation. However, under wartime conditions these measures were not fully implemented and unwanted suffering was not prevented. On the way to the south-eastern provinces, those being relocated were sometimes attacked by tribal gangs committing robbery or taking revenge for massacres of Muslims by Armenian bands, in some cases with the connivance of officials. Thousands of Armenians died in these attacks. The loss was multiplied by disease and famine.

    In reaction, the Ottoman government investigated the crimes that had been committed. Hearings were held across the eastern provinces, followed by court-martials, at which nearly 1,000 gang members and more than 600 civilian officials or military personnel were sentenced to imprisonment and, in some cases, execution for the attacks on or abuse of the Armenians.

    The Ottoman trials of 1915–1917, much before the end of war, unquestionably prove that the Ottoman government did not intend to exterminate Armenians through relocation. The number of Armenians who survived relocation also proves that there was no genocide. The well-known Armenian historian Richard Hovannisian has estimated that about 275,000 Ottoman Armenian refugees survived in post-war Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, and Iran. More than 100,000 Ottoman Armenians were in France, the United States, and elsewhere. These were survivors who had been completely in the hands of Ottoman soldiers and officials. Had the Ottomans wanted, they could have killed them all. Yet most of the relocated Armenians survived.

    Detailing the suffering and losses during the relocation, even though they were not caused by genocide, is undoubtedly a humanitarian matter. However, this should be treated without prejudice and hatred while giving due scholarly attention to history and facts. The historical fact is that during World War I the suffering of Armenians was one of the many disasters that faced all the peoples of the Ottoman Empire. Those who lived in Anatolia, including Turks, Kurds, Armenians, Greeks, and Jews, suffered and made each other suffer.

    Muslims were the dominant population in the Ottoman lands during World War I. This does not mean, however, that they were not affected by the devastation of this war. As revealed by the reports of some American missionaries, prior to the relocation ruling, Armenians also committed atrocious massacres in the villages they captured, including Van, which they occupied. In addition to the American archives, Russian, French, British, and German national archives are also full of documents recording the suffering inflicted on Muslims by rebel Armenian gangs both before and after the relocation. Moreover, the Greek occupation after World War I was also a period of extreme suffering for Muslims in Anatolia.

    The painful human tragedies of war should be perceived holistically, without any racial and/or religious discrimination. These sufferings should be shared and, when necessary, mourned together. The perception of common suffering can only be realised by understanding the experiences of all Ottoman people, Muslims, and non-Muslims, together.

    However, communicating the suffering in Anatolia during World War I faces two important obstacles today. These stem from the discriminatory and prejudiced approaches of those who try to impose the memory of relocation defined as “genocide”. The first obstacle is that the same sensitivity shown towards the suffering of Christians, especially Armenians, is not shown towards Muslims, Turks, and Kurds. The second is that the one-sided Armenian emphasis on such uffering overrides historical and legal facts and is used to support allegations of “genocide”.

    “Genocide” is a legal concept. The classification of a historical event or a process as “genocide” can only be based on legal rulings, not personal convictions. In other words, the acknowledgement of suffering cannot change the definition of historical and legal facts.

    Furthermore, the Malta Tribunal (1919-1921) which was conducted by the British Attorney General are key to establishing that the alleged Armenian genocide is a farce as it has no historical and judicial basis. The ruling of July 29,1921 corresponds to a “judgement of non-prosecution” which means, “if there is no legal evidence to support the Armenian massacre claims, there is no legal basis to file or bring a lawsuit”. As this ruling constitutes the first step to a court trial, the outcome of the Malta Tribunal is a final judicial decision consistent with the relevant description of 1948 United Nations Genocide Convention. Therefore, absolving the Ottoman Turks that “the “Armenian massacre”, or currently termed “genocide” allegations do not exist.”

    This book aims to cleanse the debate on the “Armenian genocide” of prejudice, positioning it on historical and legal facts, and therefore preventing it from becoming a vicious “hate fight”. This is because prejudice nourishes discriminatory approaches. It damages our will to live together.

    In order to overcome the prejudice surrounding the Armenian genocide and to be freed from the hatred fuelled by this prejudice, historical and legal facts must replace the “subjective-memory records” about the events of 1915, which have been transformed into some kind of “conscience fetishism”.

    Historical and legal facts reveal that life is not black and white, but that there are shades of grey in between. This perspective allows us to see not only that the legitimate reasons for the 1915 relocation do not “justify” Armenian suffering, but also that the suffering inflicted does not eliminate the legitimate reasons for the practice. Historical and legal facts give us the opportunity to meet in this grey zone, which is free from prejudices, is no longer a vicious “hate discourse”, and opens the door to mutual tolerance.

    My primary debt in writing this book is to Bilal Şimşir, a valuable researcher and diplomat who brought the events of the British H.M. Attorney General Office’s prosecution in Malta to Turkey’s agenda and opened his personal archives to me. I would also like to thank Jale (Swailes) Özer, President of the ADD (Atatürk Society UK), who provided me with the missing documents from the British archives.

    My work on this book was made possible by the support of my wife, Nazime Gürkan, and my family. Without their patience and collaboration, it could not have been completed.

    Uluç Gürkan, Ankara 2023

  • Why the Bill (Vol. 703) should be rejected

    Why the Bill (Vol. 703) should be rejected

    Subject: Why the Bill (Vol. 703) brought to the House by Mr. Tim Loughton MP should be rejected at the second reading on the 18the of March 2022?

    Dear Honorable Members of the House of Commons,

    As you may know that Mr Tim Loughton MP put forward a Bill on the 9th of  November 2021 for the recognition of hardships experienced by Armenians in Eastern Anatolia during World War I should be recognised as “genocide”. In the light of this, I am writing to you all to draw attention to some facts.

    Britain has been a notable exception among several Western powers which blindly recognized the tragic war-time events in Eastern Anatolia during World War I as the first genocide of the 20th century. Until now British governments and parliamentarians have followed an exemplary foreign policy, guided by  integrity and credibility.

    According to Genocide Convention adopted by the UN in 1948, a court ruling is required for a historical or current event to be recognized as genocide. Without a fair judicial trial, the coding of any historical event as genocide on the grounds of personal or legislative accounts is a highly politicized act. It has no value in terms of international law. Armenian genocide allegations have not been ratified by any international court or tribunal as defined in Article 6 of the Convention. On the contrary, it was confirmed in the Malta Tribunal that there had never been a Turkish policy to exterminate Armenians.

    By the end of World War I, when the victorious British army occupied Istanbul, 144 Ottoman officials and military officers were arrested and sent to Malta as prisoners of war.  The judicial investigation lasted for more than two years, while the Crown Prosecution Service gathered evidence to prosecute and “sentence the Turks” for perpetrating “mass killings against Armenians”. As well as transporting the relevant Ottoman archives to London from occupied Istanbul, every document believed to be in America, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, and Caucasia was called for examination. Eventually, on July 29, 1921, Britain’s highest legal prosecution authority, Her/His Majesty’s Attorney General for England, and Wales informed the British Government that without reasonable doubt, and with the “evidence in hand”, none of the Turks in Malta could be prosecuted for massacring Armenians.

    There is no doubt that the British Prosecutor General’s ruling to dismiss the Armenian massacre accusations for “lack of evidence” concludes the matter and refers to a legal prosecution process during which the “Armenian massacre”, or currently termed “genocide” allegations, were studiously investigated and found baseless. In modern law this ruling corresponds to a “judgement of non-prosecution” which amounts to saying, “If there is no legal evidence to support the Armenian massacre claims, there is no legal basis to file or bring a lawsuit”. 

    Britain has since then clearly and irrevocably stated that the events of 1915/1916 cannot be described as genocide.  However, some Western parliaments habitually take a prejudicial stance and pass a bill as if they have jurisdiction in the matter. Prejudices are symptoms of an ill-natured political culture which may threaten the very concept of politics and pose dangers to democracy. 

    The Malta Tribunal is the key to overcome prejudices and to face the historical and judicial facts. The British Foreign Office documents of the Malta Tribunal (1919/1921) which are available in the British National Achieves refute the Armenian genocide allegations. These documents confirm that the wartime tragedy in Eastern Anatolia do not meet the criteria  for the definition of genocide  by the UN Convention.

    On the basis of all these facts, I trust the Honourable Members of the House of Commons will reject the Bill (Vol. 703) brought by Mr. Tim Loughton MP on the second reading on the 18th March 2022. 

    Yours sincerely,

    Uluc Gurkan

    Lecturer in Politics

    www.ulucgurkan.net – www.twitter.com/Uluc_Gurkan

    ulucgurkan@ulucgurkan.net – ulucgurkan@gmail.com

    0090 312 4198777 – 0090 532 2180758

    • Deputy Speaker-Turkish Grand National Assembly/TGNA (1995-1999)
    • Vice President-Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe/PACE (2000-2002)
    • Vice PresidentParliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe/OSCE-PA(1992-1995) 
    • Head of the Turkish Delegation-Parliamentary Assembly of the Western European Union/WEU-PA (1999-2002)

              Member- Turkish Grand National Assembly/TGNA (1991-2002)

              Middle East Technical University and Ufuk University (2003-….)

  • Grief of all Anatolian people; Christian, Jewish, and Muslim

    Grief of all Anatolian people; Christian, Jewish, and Muslim

    Dear Honorable Members of the House of Commons,

    One-sided pro-Armenian narrative claims that one and a half million Armenians were deported, massacred, or marched to their deaths in the final years of the Ottoman Empire by Turks.

    Although the figures reporting the total pre-World War I Armenian population vary widely, demographic studies prove that prior to World War I, fewer than 1,5 million Armenians lived in the entire Ottoman Empire. British, French and Ottoman sources give figures of between 1,200000 to 1,5 million. Only certain American and dubious Armenian sources claim a pre-war population larger than 1.5 million. Thus, the allegations that 1,5 million Armenians from Eastern Anatolia died must be viewed as grossly exaggerated.

    Moreover, the post-war figures of Armenian population also clearly prove that a great portion of the Ottoman Armenians did not die as claimed. Boghos Nubar , the President of the Armenian National Assembly and the head of the Armenian delegation at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919-1920, declared that some 600.000 to 700.000 Armenians were relocated from Anatolia. And after the war 280,000 Armenians remained in the Anatolian portion of the occupied Ottoman Empire while 100,000 of Armenians had emigrated to other countries.  

    Besides war related causes and intercommunal conflict perpetrated by both Christian and Muslim irregular forces, the totality of documents of the time thus far uncovered by historians verify that during the relocation of Armenians to Syria [an Ottoman province at that time] hundreds of thousands of Armenians had died on account of disease, famine and many other consequences of the war. 

    With these in mind, even if the fabrications about the Armenian losses are corrected, the revised numbers will not tell us the exact manner of death of the citizens of Anatolia, regardless of ethnicity. They were caught up in both an international war and an intercommunal conflict and vengeful acts instigated by the Dashnaks – the irregular group from which today’s active Armenian Revolutionary Front (ARF) was born. This group aided and abetted the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA), killing more than 42 Turkish diplomats and their families as recent as the nineteen-eighties and promotes such dastardly acts against Turks and their families even today.

    Additionally, the corrected numbers will not be the complete story of the 1915 events. Truth demands every side of the story to be told. If only one side of the tragedy is to be accepted while the other side is regarded as perpetrators of the same tragedy, this leads us, without a doubt,  into the realms of racial and religious discrimination and of double standards.

    Each needless death, either Christian, Jewish or Muslim, is a tragedy. Equally tragic are the double standards designed to inflame discrimination and provoke hatred. 

    The statistical information tells us that nearly 1,1 million Anatolian Muslims (Turks, Kurds) and Jews also perished because of the same war related events, and this should equally be acknowledged as a tragedy and suffering for all the other peoples. Although the evidence for this is overwhelming and confirms the over a million of loss of life an suffering, the actions of several countries and their Parliaments remember only the Christian deaths and suffering! 

    What happened during this period cannot be considered solely the grief of the Armenians who were harmed and suffered. It is the grief and suffering of all Anatolian people, Christian, Jewish and Muslim. The politicians who ignore these facts sadly display their bias and discrimination against Turks and Turkish Nation.

    The events of  1914-1919 constitute a horrible “war time tragedy” for humanity. Therefore, the pain of Anatolia triggered by the World War I of that period should be shared and, when required, mourned together. 

    Yours sincerely,

    Uluc Gurkan

    Lecturer in Politics

    www.ulucgurkan.net – www.twitter.com/Uluc_Gurkan

    ulucgurkan@ulucgurkan.net – ulucgurkan@gmail.com

    0090 312 4198777 – 0090 532 2180758

    • Deputy Speaker-Turkish Grand National Assembly/TGNA (1995-1999)
    • Vice President-Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe/PACE (2000-2002)
    • Vice PresidentParliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe/OSCE-PA(1992-1995) 
    • Head of the Turkish Delegation-Parliamentary Assembly of the Western European Union/WEU-PA (1999-2002)

              Member- Turkish Grand National Assembly/TGNA (1991-2002)

              Middle East Technical University and Ufuk University (2003-….)

  • Armenian so-called genocide is not established by a final decision of an any international court

    Armenian so-called genocide is not established by a final decision of an any international court

    Dear Honorable Members of the House of Commons,

    Although Timothy Loughton MP claims that there is a general international consensus characterizing the sufferings of Armenians in Eastern Anatolia during World War I as “genocide”, he is completely mistaken. There is no such consensus which would mean “ultimate acceptance” of the Armenian allegations as ”genocide”.

    The Armenian case does not constitute genocide under international law.

    The decisions of international judicial authorities, such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ), European Court of Justice (ECJ), European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), and the French Constitutional Court suggest that historic and judicial realities do not confirm the Armenian allegations as ”genocide”.

    In its Perincek-Switzerland decision of December 17, 2013, the ECHR ruled that “the treatment of Armenians during WWI cannot be interpreted as genocide.”
    According to the ECHR, the 1915 events against Armenians are both historically and legally different from the Holocaust. No link can be established between the Ottoman Armenians and the German Jews.

    There is however, ample evidence recognized by competent international courts proving that genocide was committed in Nazi Germany against Jews. Therefore, the Jewish genocide is an indisputable historical fact.

    However, the “Armenian genocide” claims are open to debate and there is no court ruling on the issue. It cannot be considered in the same way as the Holocaust.

    Extending the scope of genocides which is a precisely defined legal concept, to include cases recognized only in political terms in some countries’ parliaments, in fact works against freedom of speech.

    On February 27, 2012, the French Constitutional Council rejected the shameful law approved by the French Senate and Chamber of Deputies that criminalized the denial of the “Armenian genocide.” In its decision, the Council also ruled that “ “No parliament can function as a court relating to a crime defined by itself.”

    It has simply ruled against the amendment No 173 to the existing law on “Equality and Citizenship” which was meant to extend the scope of genocides by adding parliamentary recognitions to the list.

    In 2003 and 2004, the ECJ characterized recognition of the “Armenian genocide” by the European Parliament as “a political measure with no judicial value.” It also ruled that both the “genocide” and “sustained loss” allegations were not proven.
    The ICJ in The Hague – the highest judicial body of the UN, competent to hear war crime cases, including genocide – ruled on January 3, 2012: “Proceedings initiated by local courts against other countries have no judicial value; on the contrary, they are in violation of international law.”

    I would hope that the members of the House of Commons bear these important facts and Court decisions in mind when considering Tim Loughton’s argument and decline to pass this meaningless bill.

    Yours sincerely,
    Uluc Gurkan
    Lecturer in Politics
    www.ulucgurkan.net – www.twitter.com/Uluc_Gurkan
    ulucgurkan@ulucgurkan.net – ulucgurkan@gmail.com
    0090 312 4198777 – 0090 532 2180758

    Deputy Speaker-Turkish Grand National Assembly/TGNA (1995-1999)
    Vice President-Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe/PACE (2000-2002)
    Vice President-Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe/OSCE-PA(1992-1995)
    Head of the Turkish Delegation-Parliamentary Assembly of the Western European Union/WEU-PA (1999-2002)
    Member- Turkish Grand National Assembly/TGNA (1991-2002)
    Middle East Technical University and Ufuk University (2003-….)

  • Genocide is a legal term, and it can only be established legally

    Genocide is a legal term, and it can only be established legally

    Genocide is a legal term, and it can only be established legally 

    Dear Honorable Member of the House of Commons,

    In relation to the debate (Vol. 703) brought to the session of the House on the 9th of November 2021, by Mr. Tim Loughton, it is important to remember that genocide is an internationally agreed legal term. It is not a loose and ambiguous political concept.  

    The United Nations 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines the crime of genocide and establishes the legal framework for genocide atrocities.  This Convention was unanimously adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948 and then ratified in 1951 when it went into effect as a judicial ruling. 

    Since then, the UN Genocide Convention signifies the international community’s commitment to “never again” after the atrocities committed during the Second World War. 

    Therefore the genocide accusations should neither be politicized nor popularized loosely and ambiguously. Categorizing a historical or a current event as genocide is not something to be arrived at through the personal or legislative decisions as some country’s Parliaments seem to have done. 

    UN Genocide Convention

    The act of genocide, to be a crime, has to be proven under defined circumstances outlined in articles 2-6 of the Convention.

    Article 2 and 3 of the Convention categorize the atrocities that ought to be punished under the Convention as genocide. These atrocities of genocide are those “acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” 

    Special Intent 

    The key element distinguishing the crime of genocide from other crimes is the “intent to destroy”. For genocide to have any legal validity, there must have been an “intent” on the part of perpetrators to wipe out an entire ethnic group. Therefore, without proven “intent to destroy”, no act can be legally valid as genocide. 

    In the literature of law, the special intent called “dolus specialis” is necessarily sought in all genocide accusations.

    Articles 187, 188 and 189 of the International Court of Justice’s Bosnia ruling explicitly state that “a separate notional element must be present” to define an act as genocide. This notional element is also present in the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia’s (ICTY) Kupreskic case as “the need for the presence of intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a group.”

    The “note verbale” released on March 1, 1920, by Sir Eric Drummond, Secretary General of the League of Nations, confirms that there is no evidence for that in the case of the Armenians.

    Individual Criminal Responsibility

    Article 4 of the Convention relates to the “punishable atrocities of genocides” to the individual criminal responsibility. According to this article, “genocide” is a crime that can only be committed by “real persons. Therefore, only real persons – not legal entities – can be charged with the crime of genocide. 

    Court Ruling

    Another important element distinguishing the crime of genocide from other crimes is that, for an event to be considered genocide, there should be a court ruling. This element – court ruling – is defined in Article 6. It reads, “trial of persons charged with genocide” as “by a competent / adequate-qualified tribunal of the state in the territory of which the act was committed” and “an international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction.”

    Without a fair judicial trial by a defined court or tribunal, characterizing a historical event as genocide through personal or legislative decisions is a highly political and politicized act. It has no value in terms of international law.  This has been confirmed by international jurisprudence.  The European Court of Justice, in Dec. 17, 2003, and April 17, 2004, ruled in that the recognition of the “Armenian genocide” by the European Parliament “is a political measure with no judicial value.”  On the contrary, H.M. Attorney General Sir Gordon Heward’s Malta Tribunal Judgement which acquitted the Ottoman Turks who were alleged to have been responsible for the misrule of the Armenian relocation policies have its judicial value as defined by the United Nations 1948 Genocide Convention. 

    Yours sincerely,

    Uluc Gurkan

    Lecturer in Politics

    www.ulucgurkan.net – www.twitter.com/Uluc_Gurkan

    ulucgurkan@ulucgurkan.net – ulucgurkan@gmail.com

    0090 312 4198777 – 0090 532 2180758

    • Deputy Speaker-Turkish Grand National Assembly/TGNA (1995-1999)
    • Vice President-Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe/PACE (2000-2002)
    • Vice PresidentParliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe/OSCE-PA(1992-1995) 
    • Head of the Turkish Delegation-Parliamentary Assembly of the Western European Union/WEU-PA (1999-2002)

              Member- Turkish Grand National Assembly/TGNA (1991-2002)

              Middle East Technical University and Ufuk University (2003-….)

  • The final “nulle prosequi’ of the ‘Malta Tribunals’ of 1919-1921

    The final “nulle prosequi’ of the ‘Malta Tribunals’ of 1919-1921

    “Fraud and falsehood only dread examination. Truth invites it.”
    Thomas Cooper (1759-1839)

    Malta Birgu mahkemeleri surgunleri

    Dear Honorable Member of the House of Commons,

    It is important to ask this question before considering Timothy Loughton MP’s private members bill which is scheduled to be heard on the 22nd of March 2022.

    How did Great Britain deal with Armenian Massacre claims at the time?

    The British archival records of the Malta Tribunal (1919-1921) are key to establishing that the alleged Armenian genocide is a farce as it has no historical and judicial basis. United Kingdom’s highest legal prosecution authority, Prosecutor General describes it as a war tragedy but offers no proof of Armenian massacres. 

    Malta Tribunal should not be overlooked, disregarded, and forgotten on the dusty shelves of history:

    Following World War I, in 1919-1920, the Ottoman government organized a series of court-martial to prosecute war criminals. However, these trials were a travesty of justice. They were not fair and free. There were false witnesses, exaggerated testimonies, and other irregularities. 

    Admiral Calthorpe, the British High Commissioner in İstanbul reported to London that the Ottoman trials were “proving to be a farce and injurious to our own prestige and to that of the Turkish government.” Admiral John de Robeck, Admiral Calthorpe’s successor, informed London of the futility of continuing the trials with the remark; “Its findings cannot be held of any account at all.” 

    Consequently, Ottoman justice was replaced with the Western justice by moving the trials to Malta as “international” prosecution based on Articles 230 and 231 of the Treaty of Sevres on “Armenian massacre” allegations.

    Then a total of 144 Ottoman officials and military personal were arrested and deported to Malta as prisoners of war. The aim of this act was “to trial and sentence the Turks” on the grounds that they had “perpetrated mass killings against Armenians”. 

    The judicial prosecution was conducted by United Kingdom’s highest legal prosecution authority, Prosecutor General’s office for England, and Wales in London. 

    Despite the British government’s every effort to hold s court trial and sentence the Turks detained in Malta, there was no evidence that a British court of law would consider sufficient proof against them was found. On July 29, 1921, the British prosecutor general announced to the British Government that with the “evidence in hand”, none of the Turks in Malta could be prosecuted on the grounds of the Armenian massacre:

    “… The charges made against the Turks named in the Foreign Office list are of quasi-political character”, and “no statements have been taken from witnesses who can depose to the truth of the charges made against the prisoners… Without… the production of evidence of a character which alone could be admissible before an English Court of Justice… it seems improbable that the charges made against … the accused will be capable of legal proof in a Court of Law.”

    Malta Tribunal was then closed in judgement of nulle prosequi, which amounts to a dismissal of charges by prosecution. In modern law this ruling corresponds to a “judgement of non-prosecution” which means, “if there is no legal evidence to support the Armenian massacre claims, there is no legal basis to file or bring a lawsuit”. 

     Malta Tribunal is of the end of the beginning for the genocide allegations. As the United Kingdom Prosecutor General’s hearing constitutes the first step to a court trial, the outcome of the Malta Tribunal is a final judicial decision consistent with the relevant description of 1948 United Nations Genocide Convention. Therefore, absolving  the Ottoman Turks that “the “Armenian massacre”, or currently termed “genocide” allegations do not exist. 

    Mr Tim Loughton’s Bill, besides ignoring all these officially archived historical and judicial facts is also undermining the United Kingdom’s highest legal prosecution authority at the time, H.M. Attorney General Sir Gordon Heawart.  Attorney General’s judicial decision cannot be replaced by political prejudices.  

    Yours sincerely,

    UluçGürkan

    Uluç Gürkan

    Lecturer in Politics

    • Deputy Speaker-Turkish Grand National Assembly/TGNA (1995-1999)
    • Vice President-Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe/PACE (2000-2002)
    • Vice PresidentParliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe/OSCE-PA(1992-1995) 
    • Head of the Turkish Delegation-Parliamentary Assembly of the Western European Union/WEU-PA (1999-2002)

    Member- Turkish Grand National Assembly/TGNA (1991-2002)

    Middle East Technical University and Ufuk University (2003-….)

    www.ulucgurkan.net – www.twitter.com/Uluc_Gurkan

    ulucgurkan@ulucgurkan.net – ulucgurkan@gmail.com

    0090 312 4198777 – 0090 532 2180758