Turkish Forum

Category: Authors

  • European Court of Human Rights Provides More Options to Sue Turkey

    European Court of Human Rights Provides More Options to Sue Turkey

     
     
    While there is frequent talk about the pursuit of Armenian claims against Turkey in the International Court of Justice (World Court), the possibility of taking legal action in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is rarely mentioned, despite its distinct advantages.

    The key difference between the two courts is that only governments can file lawsuits in the World Court, while any individual, group or state can take legal action in the ECHR, giving Armenians countless possibilities for lawsuits against the Turkish state. Litigants before ECHR must first exhaust all domestic remedies and be from one of the 47 member states of the Council of Europe, which includes Armenia and Turkey.

    It is not a coincidence that Turkey leads the list of countries being sued in ECHR, as in the last two and half years alone, over 20,000 cases have been filed against that country. Contrary to popular belief, Turkey has no choice but to comply with all ECHR judgments if it wants to maintain its membership in the Council of Europe. This explains why the Ankara government has diligently paid tens of millions of dollars to litigants after losing hundreds of ECHR judgments.

    A case in point is ECHR’s October 1, 2013 decision against Turkey, in which the court awarded over 5 million euros (close to $7 million) to two Greek brothers, Ioannis Fokas and Evangelos Fokas, who live in Katerini, Greece. The Turkish courts had barred them from inheriting their sister Polikseni Pistika’s buildings in Turkey because of their Greek nationality.
     
    In their lawsuit, the Fokas brothers claimed that “they had been deprived of the ownership and use of three immovable properties in the Beyoglu district of Istanbul, namely three buildings and land, which they were entitled to inherit from their sister.” The expropriated properties consisted of an eight-story building worth 3.3 million euros, a six-story building worth 1.4 million euros, and a four-story building worth 400,000 euros, based on the appraisal by an Istanbul real estate agency.

    The ECHR found that the Turkish courts’ “refusal to recognize the applicants’ status as heirs constituted an interference with their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions and that such interference was incompatible with the principle of lawfulness…. Accordingly, recognition of the applicants as the heirs of Polikseni Pistika…would place them in the position they would have been in, had the State [Turkey] not expropriated the deceased’s property.… In those circumstances, an award of compensation for the pecuniary loss seems to be the most appropriate just satisfaction (see Nacaryan and Deryan vs. Turkey, no. 19558/02 and 27904/02, <<<<16-17, January 8, 2008). The Court considers that such an award principally corresponds to the amount that the applicants could legitimately expect to have obtained as compensation for the loss of their property, had there been a mechanism to request such compensation.”
     
    Based on the above ruling, the European Court awarded the Greek brothers 5 million euros for their expropriated real estate, as well as compensating them for their “anguish and frustration which the applicants must have experienced over the years in not being able to use their properties.” The Court ordered the Turkish government to pay the amount of the award to the applicants within three months.
     
    In the referenced Nacaryan and Deryan vs. Turkey case, ECHR found that the Turkish courts had also violated the rights of Yeran-Janet Nacaryan and Armen Deryan by claiming that as Greek citizens, they could not inherit the property of their deceased relative in Turkey “on the ground that the condition of reciprocity between Greece and Turkey had not been met.” ECHR declared Turkey guilty and awarded the two Greek-Armenian applicants a total of 500,000 euros.
     
    At the international conference of Armenian lawyers held in Yerevan last July, Constitutional Court Chairman, Gagik Harutunyan, announced the formation of a committee of experts to study the legal merits of filing a lawsuit against Turkey to remedy the massive losses resulting from the Armenian Genocide.
     
    Given the fact that ECHR provides for European Council litigants many more opportunities than the World Court, the recently-formed Armenian committee of legal experts should cast a wider net in considering the possibilities of filing lawsuits against Turkey in the European Court of Human Rights, as well as in national and international courts.
  • Cathedral in Moscow and Conference in Yerevan

    Cathedral in Moscow and Conference in Yerevan

    https://www.turkishnews.com/en/content/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Sassunian-son-resim3.jpg

     

    I just returned from a three-day conference in Yerevan where  40 Armenian activists, journalists, and representatives of political, religious and cultural organizations from 18 countries (Argentina, Armenia, Artsakh, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Egypt, Ethiopia, France, Iran, Israel, Lebanon, Netherlands, Russia, Syria, United States, and Uruguay) attended closed-door briefings from senior government officials.

     

    The attendees met with the Vice Speaker and chairs of all parliamentary committees, President’s Chief of Staff Vigen Sargsyan, Foreign Minister Eduard Nalbandian, Defense Minister Seyran Ohanyan, Diaspora Minister Hranush Hakobyan, National Security Council Secretary Artur Baghdasaryan, Constitutional Court Chairman Gagik Harutunyan, and President of Artsakh Bako Sahakyan

     

    Since the briefings dealt with sensitive political and national security issues and were off-the-record, I can only disclose the general topics without attribution to a specific speaker or participant:

     

    — Armenia’s decision to join the CIS Customs Union instead of signing the European Association Agreement;

    — Threats to Armenia’s national security and efforts to neutralize them;

    — Preparations for possible international legal action against Turkey to secure restitution for the Armenian Genocide;

    — Plans for the Centennial of the Armenian Genocide;

    — Status of signed but not ratified Armenia-Turkey Protocols;

    — Superior morale of victorious Armenian soldiers — an advantage over Azeris in a renewed war with Azerbaijan;

    — Diaspora’s participation in the economic development of Armenia and Artsakh.

     

    The conference, organized by the Diaspora Ministry, provided the participants the rare opportunity to offer their critical assessment of the situation in the homeland and to openly question Armenia’s and Artsakh’s highest officials. The political leaders and their diasporan guests emphasized the urgent need for a framework or structure that would coordinate the efforts of Armenians in Armenia, Artsakh and Diaspora. During the conference and media interviews, I proposed the creation of a pan-Armenian committee which would include representatives from Armenia, Artsakh, and Diaspora, to deal expressly with the critical needs of Artsakh, similar to the Centennial Committee for the Armenian Genocide, except that the Artsakh committee would be of a permanent nature.

     

    On September 21, the conference participants were invited to attend the special presidential reception in celebration of Armenia’s Independence Day. The evening ended with an impressive concert and fireworks show in Republic Square.

     

    Prior to arriving in Yerevan, I attended the spiritually uplifting consecration of Moscow’s Armenian Cathedral, which reportedly cost tens of millions of dollars contributed by generous Russian-Armenian businessmen. The magnificent church structure and the nearby community center are expected to play a critical role in preserving the Armenian language and Christian faith for the two-million Armenians living in Russia. The September 17 consecration ceremony was attended by the Presidents of Armenia and Artsakh,Catholicos Karekin II, high-ranking Armenian clergymen from around the world, and Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill. Pres. Putin did not attend due to his absence from Moscow.

     

    On this august occasion, a series of concerts, receptions and banquets were held in Moscow hosted by the Armenian Diocese of Russia for the large number of guests from throughout the world. In appreciation, Catholicos Karekin II recognized the two dozen benefactors of the Cathedral by bestowing upon them the highest honorific medals of the Armenian Church.

     

    While in Moscow, I attended several jewelry-related events, organized by prominent Armenian jewelers in Russia. For the first time in a hundred years, an Armenian, Gagik Gevorkyan, President of Estet Jewelry House, was elected head of the prestigious Russian Jewelers Guild. Mr. Gevorkyan sponsored the lavish annual Jewelry Charity Ball at his company’s headquarters in Moscow, attended by over a thousand jewelers and their families, including well-known Armenian jewelers from France, Canada, and the United States.

     

    With a sense of great pride, I watched members of the Armenian Jewelers Association from Russia and North America address the distinguished guests at the International Jewelry Economic Forum and display their precious handiwork at JUNWEX, the XII International Jewelry and Watch Exhibition.

     

    Before departing Moscow, I gave several TV interviews and participated in a panel discussion on Hayk Demoyan’s new book, “Turkey’s Foreign Policy and the Karabagh Conflict.”

     

    Despite the hectic schedule, my journey to Moscow and Yerevan opened up important networking opportunities for closer collaboration between Armenia and the two largest diaspora communities of Russia and the United States.

     

  • Commentary on Recent Armenian, Azeri and Turkish Developments

    Commentary on Recent Armenian, Azeri and Turkish Developments

     

     

     

     

    Here are some thoughts regarding recent noteworthy news items:

     

    — Prominent Los Angeles attorney Mark Geragos, during his appearance on CNN last week, chided the United States for its double standard on the Armenian Genocide. When panelists Christiane Amanpour and Anderson Cooper were criticizing Iran’s denial of the Jewish Holocaust, Geragos reminded them about Pres. Obama’s unkept promise to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide. “Our greatest ally in that region is Turkey. Yet, Turkey denies the Armenian Genocide. Obama as a candidate would talk about it, ‘when I am in office, I will recognize the Armenian Genocide.’ He has been completely stultified when he is in. So there is a political dynamic here at play that is a little hypocritical,” Geragos asserted.

     

    — During the German elections on Sept. 22, eleven lawmakers of Turkish origin were elected to the German Bundestag, the country’s lower house of Parliament, more than doubling their number in the previous legislature. Armenians should not blindly criticize these 11 Parliamentarians because some — whether of Turkish or Kurdish origin — may be sympathetic to recognizing the Armenian Genocide.

     

    — The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) fined Turkey over $200,000 for expropriating a Turkish family’s house, without paying compensation. The Court found that Turkey had violated the family’s property rights. The family had exhausted all appeals to Turkish courts before turning to ECHR for justice. A reader posted the following ironic observation on the website of the Turkish Daily News: “It seems like the Court of Christian Europe treats Muslim Turkish people with more respect than the Muslim courts in Turkey.”

     

    — Turkish Minister of EU Affairs Egemen Bagish claimed last week that “Turkey will probably never become a member of the European Union because of stiff opposition and prejudiced attitudes from the bloc’s current members.” Bagish is wrong, as usual! Turkey will fail to become an EU member not because of Western prejudice, but due to its refusal to bring its laws up to European standards.

     

    — Thousands of Christians, including Armenians, have been kidnapped, killed or maimed by Al-Qaida terrorists in Syria and yet not a single word of condemnation has been issued by any European or American official. Even worse, Western leaders are supplying lethal weapons to the extremists so they can kill more innocent people. It is time for the public in the Western world to show its outrage by mass protests and harsh rebukes. The US Congress should ban the delivery of weapons to all foreign fighters in Syria. Last week, an Armenian Catholic Church and a Greek Orthodox Church were desecrated and robbed in Rakka, Syria. The Jihadists shamefully climbed over the dome of the Armenian Church and replaced the cross with their black flag!

     

    — The dictator of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev, regularly and unwittingly assists the Armenian Cause by making hateful announcements that create a negative impression about his country in the international community. Aliyev’s outrageous statement that “Yerevan and Zangezour are Azeri territories” and “the time will come and we will live there,” is the raving and ranting of a deranged man with a pathological personality. Aliyev is expected to be elected to an unprecedented third term on October 9, meaning that Armenians will continue benefiting from his ‘helpful’ statements for several more years!

     

    — The war of words escalated at the UN General Assembly last week as the Foreign Ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan made opposing statements. Below are excerpts from Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian’s remarks, accusing Azerbaijan for:

     

    a) “Increasing warmongering and anti-Armenian hate-speech on a daily basis”

    b) “Unprecedented accumulation of offensive weaponry in massive scale”

    c) “Using mercenaries closely linked to notorious terrorist organizations”

    d) “Glorification of an axe-murderer Safarov by Azerbaijani leadership”

     

    Armenia’s Foreign Minister further stated that “the recognition, condemnation and prevention of genocide remains a priority for Armenia and we will take necessary actions to prevent new occurrences of the crime of genocide, while keeping high on the agenda the issue of responsibility for the crime against humanity and its denial…. As a nation that has survived the first genocide of the 20th century, Armenia unequivocally welcomes the clear position adopted by the UN member states in precluding any possibility of immunity or pardon for perpetrators of crimes against humanity.”

     

  • FOR GOD’S SAKE STOP SAYING “INSHALLAH”

    FOR GOD’S SAKE STOP SAYING “INSHALLAH”

    eating heart
    SYRIA

    Haven’t you learned anything yet, you victims of Islamo-fascism? You victims of high treason. You victims of occupation by foreign powers. Haven’t you learned that you and your Inshallahs are condoning, allowing, and approving the crimes of the fascist Islamists that have ruled Turkey for over a decade. All their plans are prefaced with barrages of “Inshallah,” as if Allah is complicit with their criminal schemes. You surely remember well their schemes. You have nightmares about them. Allah and God and Yahweh are not plunderers, not murderers, not liars, not traitors, not rapists, not conniving ignoramuses. So stop saying “Inshallah.” Allah is disgusted with his/her name being linked with such criminal, sinful behavior. If there were a judiciary system in Turkey Allah would sue the government for defamation of character. For if you continue using this defamatory mantra, you will be spiritual collaborators with those international felons who are destroying your country in the name of—guess who?—Allah! And in your name and the name of your Inshallahs!

    You and your “Inshallahs.” Like a neurotic, nervous tic, you drone Inshallahs for every mundane event. You will go shopping and Inshallah there will be bread. You will drive to the city and Inshallah there will be a parking place. You will go on vacation and Inshallah there will be good weather. Inshallah, the fish will be delicious at the restaurant you recommended. Inshallah, the mechanic will have a carburetor for your automobile. Inshallah, tomorrow I will stop saying Inshallah, Inshallah, Inshallah, Inshallah………..…

    This so-called government of yours says “Inshallah” too. When it blinds your daughter, it says Inshallah. When it kills your sons, it says Inshallah. It gasses your children, destroys your mountains, your rivers, your farms, your security, all aspects of justice, and your human rights, then your government says Inshallah. It destroys the army and says Inshallah. It imprisons patriots and says Inshallah. It enslaves women in headscarves and says Inshallah. Your government perverts your educational system and says Inshallah. It finances genocide against the Syrian people and says Inshallah. Your government lies while addressing the United Nations and says Inshallah. It collaborates with America to betray your country in the name of Allah. It supports financially and morally the low-life scum that yells “Allahu ekber” while eating the hearts of still-living Syrian soldiers.  Indeed, how great is this God? How great is this Allah when your government’s police attack your children shouting “Allahu ekber?”  You say that these people are not your government, not your police. But your tax money finances them and your Inshallahs and their Inshallahs echo to the heavens all of them seeking Allah’s blessing. How sick is this? Just what is Allah to do, being bombarded with Inshallahs from all directions and for all purposes from trivial to bestial?

    For God’s sake stop saying “İnshallah!”
    And for Allah’s sake all you others stop saying “God bless America!” 

    James C. Ryan, Ph.D.
    Dublin, Ireland
    28 September 2013

     

  • Turkey’s International Recognition Marked by the Lausanne Treaty

    Turkey’s International Recognition Marked by the Lausanne Treaty

    Turkey’s International Recognition Marked by the Lausanne Treaty

    on July 24, 1923

     gul3

    Dr. Gul Celkan

    Associate Professor of English Language and Literature

    Gentlemen, I don’t think it is necessary any further to compare the principles underlying the LAUSANNE PEACE TREATY with other proposals for peace.  This treaty is a document declaring that all efforts, prepared over centuries, and thought to have been accomplished through the Sevres Treaty to crush the Turkish nation have been in vain.  It is a diplomatic victory unheard of in the Ottoman history!

    1927
    M Kemal Atatürk
    The Great Speech

    For wars to have long lasting effects and to ensure the safety and sustainability of the victory won on the battlefront, peace treaties are signed between the victorious side and the defeated party. The War of Independence launched by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk on May 19, 1919 ended in victory on August 30, 1922 following the expulsion of the Allied Forces and the Ottoman Sultan by the Turkish Army under the command of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. The Turkish National Movement rejected the Treaty of Sevres that had meant the “death decree” of the Ottoman Empire.

    Following the nationalist victory over the Greeks and the overthrow of the sultan, Mustafa Kemal’s government was in a position to request a new peace treaty. Accordingly, the signatories of the Treaty of Sèvres and delegates of the USSR (excluded from the previous treaty) met at Lausanne, Switzerland. After lengthy negotiations a peace treaty was signed in 1923. Turkey recovered Eastern Thrace, several Aegean islands, a strip along the Syrian border, Izmir, and the internationalized Zone of the Straits, which, however, was to remain demilitarized and remain subject to an international convention. Turkey recovered full sovereign rights over all its territory, and foreign zones of influence and capitulations were abolished. Outside the Zone of the Straits, no limitation was imposed on the Turkish military establishment. No reparations were exacted. In return, Turkey renounced all claims on former Turkish territories outside its new boundaries and undertook to guarantee the rights of its minorities. A separate agreement between Greece and Turkey provided for the compulsory exchange of minorities (The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th ed.).

    The Peace Conference of Lausanne was opened on November 20, 1922 and Ismet Inonu was the chief negotiator for Turkey. Lord Curzon, the British Foreign Secretary, was the chief negotiator for the Allies, while Eleftherios Venizelos negotiated on behalf of Greece. The negotiations continued many months. The Treaty was signed on July 24, 1923 following eight months of arduous negotiation.

    The Preamble reads as follows:

    The British Empire, France, Italy, Japan, Greece, Roumania and the Serb-Croat-Slovens State of the one part, and TURKEY, of the other part;

    Being united in the desire to bring to a final close the state of war which has existed in the East since 1914,

    Being anxious to re-establish the relations of friends and commerce which are essential to the mutual well-being of their respective peoples,

    And considering that these relations must be based on respect for the independence and sovereignty of States,

    Have decided to conclude a Treaty for this purpose, and have appointed as their Plenipotentiaries:

    His Majesty The King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the British Dominions Beyond The Seas, Emperor of India:

    The Right Honourable Sir Horace George Montagu Rumbold, Baronet, G.C.M.G., High Commissioner at Constantinople;

    The President of the French Republic:

    General Maurice Pellé, Ambassador of France, High Commissioner of the Republic in the East, Grand Officer of the National Order of the Legion of Honour;

    His Majesty The King of Italy:

    The Honourable Marquis Camillo Carroni, Senator of the Kingdom, Ambassador of Italy, High Commissioner at Constantinople, Grand Cross of the Orders of Saints Maurice and Lazarus, and of the Crown of Italy;

    M.Giulio Cesare Montagna, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at Athens, Commander of the Orders of Saints Maurice and Lazarus, Grand Officer of the Crown of Italy;

    His Majesty the Emperor of Japan:

    Mr. Kentaro Otchiai, Jusamini, First Class of the Order of the Rising Sun, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary at Rome;

    His Majesty the King of the Hellenes:

    M. Eleftherios K. Veniselos, formerly President of the Council of Ministers, Grand Cross of the Order of the Saviour;

    M. Demetrios Caclamanos, Minister Plenipotentiary at London, Commander of the Order of the Saviour;

    His Majesty the King of Roumania:

    M. Constantine I. Diamandy, Minister Plenipotentiary;

    M. Constantine Contzesco, Minister Plenipotentiary;

    His Majesty the King of the Serbs, the Croats and the Slovenes:

    Dr.Miloutine Yovanovitch, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at Berne;

    The Government of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey:

    Ismet Pasha Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy for Adrianople;

    Hassan Bey, formerly Minister, Deputy for Trebizond;

    Who, having produced their full power, found in good and due form, have agreed ….
    Treaty of Amity and Commerce was signed between the Ankara and Washington governments in Lausanne, Switzerland on August 6, 1923. Ismet Inonu, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Ankara government and Joseph Crew, the American representative at the Lausanne Conference signed this Treaty.  The “other” Treaty of Lausanne meant commercial and political ties were established between Turkey and America, and the new treaty meant the United States recognized the independence and sovereignty of the new Turkish State.  The new treaty was accepted in Turkey to be an extension of the original Treaty of Lausanne while in America it brought about a lot of controversy that delayed its ratification, and in 1927, it was rejected by the US Senate. However, after long debates, another treaty very identical to the Treaty of Lausanne was signed between the two countries in 1930.

     

    However, it should not be put into oblivion the reason why America was represented by Joseph Crew and not a higher ranking official. America was not at war against the Ottoman Empire during World War I. However, she had great interests in the Mesopotamia and the Middle East region.  An article published in New York Times dated November 21, 1922 explains this fact very openly.

     

    Wilson’s fourteen points dating from 1918 signaled the administration’s intention to pursue an activist foreign policy in Middle Eastern affairs.  During the Versailles Conference in 1919, Woodrow Wilson began to consider the possibility of extending American involvement in the Middle East as far as taking on as mandate for an independent Armenia. The largest Christian community in the Ottoman Empire, the Armenians had been the focus of the efforts of the American diplomatic and commercial activities in the Empire.

     

    John Vander Lippe in his article “The ‘Other’ Treaty of Lausanne”, explains the American involvement in the peace process:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    “When the European Powers invited the United States to participate in the negotiations, the Americans responded that “the United States was neither at war with Turkey nor a party to the armistice of 1918 and does not desire to participate in final peace negotiations or to assume responsibility for the political and territorial adjustments which may be effected.”  The United States wanted to limit its involvement, yet was concerned about the impact of negotiations at Lausanne on American interests in the Middle East. In early October 1922, Bristol wrote to Charles Evans Hughes, the Secretary of State: “As the United States is one of the capitulatory powers with extensive vested interests in Turkey, we cannot afford to remain inactive while the Allies give their consent to important changes in the capitulatory regime.” As a result of these concerns, the State Department took three steps to assure the protection of American interests. First, the United States sent observers to the conference to make certain American interests were not adversely affected by the negotiations. Second, it presented the European Allies with a list of American interests and concerns in the negotiations, and third, the United States announced its intention to negotiate a separate treaty with the new Turkish Government, at an appropriate time.”

     

     

    Inonü describes the American actions during the conference as friendly and helpful, yet guarded and concerned with protecting their interests. The American posture fit with the Turkish vision of the United States as a distant and amicable power. According to İn.nü,

    when Grew approached him to establish a relationship with Turkey, İn.nü felt he could extend the same terms to America as contained in the Lausanne Treaty with the Europeans, in order to normalize Turkish foreign relations. However, Joseph Grew was apprehensive about the treaty. In a letter to Secretary of States Charles Evans Hughes on the day of the signing, he wrote: “The Treaty…is far from what I should have wished to have it. It represents a considerably greater number of concessions on our part…than…on their part.”

     

    Edward Meade Earle of Columbia University pointed out that the treaty was not designed to remake history, but merely to establish normal relations between the United States and the Turkish Republic. Earle continued to argue that opponents of the treaty were hypocritical:

    “In every thousand persons, who assert that national

    minorities and foreigners will not obtain justice in Turkish courts,

    it would be difficult to find one who does not pass over in silence

    the fact that ‘Negroes’ enjoy little protection from court in the South,

    and that there is no such thing as judicial impartiality toward the

    Japanese on the Pacific coast…It is not necessary to multiply

    illustrations of our willingness -nay, our eagerness- to mete out one

    measure to the Turks, another to other peoples, and yet a third to

    ourselves.”

     

     

    Many arguments continued to surface throughout the period during and  after World War II,  at a time when America expanded its commitments in the Middle East. In the case of Turkey, two images contended in the minds of policy-makers: the land of the “Terrible Turk” dating from the Ottoman period,  versus the strategic ally and the “open door” in the Middle East. As a result, old feelings of mistrust and the new need to establish trust linked various strands in American foreign policy making, transforming Turkey’s image into one of an elusive ally.

     

     

    The Lausanne Peace Treaty contains 143 articles, and is divided into five parts —political, financial, economic, communications and general clauses. The most important points settled in these sections are: a general state of peace between Turkey and the Allied and Associated Powers;  regulation of the withdrawal of foreign troops from Turkish territories; fixing of Turkish frontiers ; exchange of Greek and Turkish populations to their national countries.

     

    An article entitled “The Grand Finale” that appeared in the  Time magazine (1923) claims that Ismet Pasha and Joseph G. Grew, U. S. Observer, who settled the Turco-American Agreement enabled  the U. S. A. to receive all the privileges of the Straits Convention (regulation of shipping on the Bosporus) without signing it. Mutually satisfactory set-were made of the questions of taxation on U. S. companies, protection of Christian minorities, damages to Americans during the War.

     

     

    An article that appeared in The Financial Times on March 17, 2007 reads, “Against all odds at the end of the First World War, Ataturk rallied his countrymen from the heart of the Turkish homeland and beat back the Western powers that had tried to divide the last remnant of the Ottoman Empire with the Treaty of Sevres-and defeated rebellious minority groups that tried to secede and carve out separate countries from the Anatolian heartland. Consequently, the modern Republic of Turkey was held together in the beginning by the will of Ataturk and a strong nationalism based upon pride in being a Turkish citizen.”

     

    Regardless how the US intake of the Lausanne Treaty is, Ataturk described the Lausanne Treaty as a turning point in history of Turkey. On the occasion of the 80th anniversary of Lausanne, the then  president of Turkey, Ahmet Necdet Sezer said, “The Treaty has opened gates of a free and modern life to Turkish nation on their territories. The Treaty was beyond a peace agreement following the war.  The Treaty has a character arranging political, legal, economic and social relations of our state in the  international platforms. The Lausanne Treaty confirmed military victory of  the Turkish people following the War of Independence in legal and political fields. Fundamental characteristics of the Republic of  Turkey were included in the treaty.”

    Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, who always reiterated the significance of the Treaty of Lausanne said it marked a turning point in Turkish history.  This was a political victory won by the Turkish people, and it has no equal in the history of the Ottomans.  This Treaty has great value for the Turkish nation, and our youth who knows the value of this treaty should compare it with treaties signed in the past.  Ataturk said in 1927 that it was his duty to remember and express his respects to Ismet Pasha who resisted all kinds of political manipulations in Lausanne, and reached victory at the end signing the Treaty with the gold pen sent to him from Ankara by Ataturk.

     

     

    References:

     

    Anatolia news agency, Ankara, in English 1439 24 Jul 03/BBCMonitoring/(c) BBC

    Ataturk, The Great Speech

    Grew, Joseph. Turbulent Era; A Diplomatic Record of Forty Years: 1904-1945. Boston, 1952. v.1

    Inonu, Ismet, Hatiralar (Memories) v. 2

    “Lausanne Peace Treaty”,  Rep. of Turkey Ministry of Foreign Affairs

    www.mfa.gov.tr

    Kocaturk, Utkan. Ataturk’s Ideas and Thoughts, Ataturk Research Center, 3rd ed. 2008.

    Lippe, John Vander,  “The “other” Treaty of Lausanne:  The American Public and Official Debate on Turkish-American Relations”  The Turkish Year Book, v. 23 dergiler.ankara.edu.tr/dergiler/44/683/8687.pdf‎

    The Financial Times,  London, March 7, 2007.

    “The Treaty of Lausanne” www.tc-america.org/issues-information

    “The Grand Finale.” Time, 8/6/1923, Vol. 1, Issue 23

    www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/332502/Treaty-of-Lausanne‎

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Dr. Gul Celkan

    Associate Professor of English Language and Literature

    Adjunct faculty at MGSC, GA

  • Leading Expert’s Final Words on Turkey’s Legal Responsibility for the Genocide

    Leading Expert’s Final Words on Turkey’s Legal Responsibility for the Genocide

     

     

    ,

     

    With the approaching Centennial of the Armenian Genocide, there has been growing public interest in taking legal action against Turkey in international courts.

     

    One of the leading experts in this field was Dr. Yuri Barseghov, Professor of International Law, who wrote scores of pioneering books and articles on Armenian claims. Shortly before his death in 2008, Prof. Barseghov of Moscow outlined the basis for legal action against Turkey in an article titled: “Ways and Means of Assigning Responsibility for the Armenian Genocide.”

     

    Dr. Barseghov maintained that in 1920, “the Ottoman Empire admitted its responsibility for committing this crime” by signing the Treaty of Sevres, which unfortunately was not ratified due to the reluctance of the Allied Powers to pressure Turkey. Since then, despite the recognition of the Armenian Genocide by dozens of countries and international organizations, Prof. Barseghov believed that such acknowledgments “will not solve the problem of [Turkish] responsibility.”

     

    Prof. Barseghov contended that “since Turkey stubbornly continues to refuse recognizing that it committed this crime, it is still necessary to solve the question of responsibility for the Armenian Genocide through competent international bodies by making such decisions mandatory for both parties [Armenia and Turkey].”

     

    Dr. Barseghov did not believe that the United Nations is a practical vehicle for the resolution of the Armenian Genocide issue, since it is a highly politicized body. “Decisions of the General Assembly are not mandatory,” while the major powers, such as the United States and Great Britain, enjoy the privilege of veto power in the Security Council blocking any action against Turkey.

     

    The problem of initiating litigation under the statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is that both Armenia and Turkey have to agree in advance to abide by the decisions of the Court. Neither country has so far “recognized the obligatory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.” Since Turkey most probably would not agree to submit itself to such jurisdiction, Dr. Barseghov suggested that the Republic of Armenia as a sovereign state take advantage of “the unique opportunity” of filing a unilateral case against Turkey on its responsibility for the Armenian Genocide, “under Article IX of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.”

     

    Dr. Barseghov expressed regret that no response was received from the Armenian government after the Armenian Institute of International Law and Political Science of the Union of Armenians of Russia — which he directed — several years ago submitted a study on this subject to Pres. Robert Kocharian and Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian.

     

    Dr. Barseghov explained that “in order to start a case by this judicial procedure [Article IX], the Government of Armenia has to formulate its position on the questions of interpretation, application or implementation of the Convention on this basis on the question of responsibility of the Turkish state for the committed crime.”

     

    Prof. Barseghov warned Armenian officials that “there exists a provision in International Law which is confirmed by the International Court of Justice in other cases: if a state has the opportunity to submit a dispute but does not take such action, it would mean that the state accepts the existing situation.”

    Dr. Barseghov allayed possible Armenian concerns that the ICJ may object to filing such a case due to questions regarding the retroactivity of the Genocide Convention. He expressed his firm belief that the Convention applies to the Armenian Genocide even though it preceded the Convention. He noted that the ICJ in its Advisory Opinion of 1951 stated: “the principles inherited by the Convention on Genocide, unlike the treaty obligations established in it, were already part of common international law by the time these awful crimes were committed.”

     

    Prof. Barseghov pointed out that arguments supporting the Convention’s retroactivity were put forward by the ICJ which has “twice given competent, exhaustive explanations on the fundamental basic questions of the applicability of the Convention including also its retroactivity.” Based on these rulings, Prof. Barseghov concluded: “the Convention applies also to crimes committed in the past whose consequences have not been eliminated.”

     

    As announced during a recent conference in Yerevan, the Armenian government has formed a task force to prepare the legal file for a case to be brought against Turkey in international courts. The expert advice of Prof. Barseghov and other specialists should ensure that the lawsuit is properly prepared and presented to obtain long overdue justice for Armenian Genocide victims.