Category: Authors

  • Poll Finds More Armenians Feel Country Is Going in the Wrong Direction

    Poll Finds More Armenians Feel Country Is Going in the Wrong Direction

    The Washington-based International Republican Institute’s public opinion poll, conducted November 22-December 5, 2021, measured the Armenian population’s views on political, economic, and security issues. The survey was funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development.

    The poll revealed a key finding: 46% of the population thinks that “Armenia is headed in the wrong direction,” while only 34% thinks that the country is headed in “the right direction.” This indicates that Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s often-repeated boast that he enjoys “the people’s mandate” is not necessarily so. This is a significant shift from the 54% of the votes the Prime Minister’s political party received in the June 20, 2021 parliamentary elections. More importantly, the number of those who think that Armenia is headed in the wrong direction increased from 20% in May 21, 2021 to 34% in July 2021 and 46% in December 2021.

    However, on another important question, “Do you believe that you or people like you can influence decisions made in our country,” 66% said yes, while 33% said no. This is definitely a positive indication for the authorities.

    The next question: “Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way democracy is developing in our country?” the country was almost evenly split: 51% yes and 47% no.

    To the question: “Do you consider our country to be governed in the interest of the majority of people or in the interest of some groups?” 61% said it was governed in the interest of “some groups,” while only 31% said it was governed in the interest of “the majority.” This reflects negatively on the current government.

    On the positive side, 66% of the people surveyed said they are “not afraid of openly expressing their opinions,” while 31% said they were afraid to do so.

    To the question: “How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the work of the following state bodies?” the top approval was given to Pashinyan government’s frequent critic, Human Rights Defender’s (Ombudsman’s) office (68% satisfied vs. 25% dissatisfied); the police (68% vs. 29%); local governments (63% vs. 33%); armed forces (58% vs. 37%); Central Electoral Commission (57% vs. 33%); and National Security Service (50% vs. 41%). The Prime Minister’s office came in 7th place with 49% satisfied vs. 48% dissatisfied. The Armenian Parliament came in 16th place with 31% satisfied and a whopping 67% dissatisfied. This is not surprising as the parliament’s televised sessions frequently show scenes of shouting matches, insults, and physical altercations ending with abrupt orders by the parliament’s leadership representing the Prime Minister’s political party to turn off the TV cameras to hide the disorderly conduct of the rowdy parliamentarians.

    Turning to foreign policy issues, those surveyed ranked France on top with 92% as having the best relationship with Armenia. Then came Iran (80%); the United States (77%); China (75%); European Union (69%); Russia (64%); Georgia (58%); UK (47%); other (10%); Turkey (5%); and Azerbaijan at the very bottom with 3%.

    When asked “Which two countries were the most important political partners for Armenia?” Russia (57%); France (50%); the U.S. (38%); Iran (23%); European Union (5%); China (5%); Georgia (3%); and India (1%).

    In response to “Which two countries are the most important economic partners of Armenia?” Russia again came first with 61%; Iran (40%); (China (29%); the U.S. (16%); France (14%); Georgia (8%); European Union (7%); India (2%); and Turkey (2%).

    When asked “Which 2 countries are the most important security partners for Armenia?” the answers were: Russia (64%); France (32%); Iran (31%); the U.S. (26%); European Union (5%); China (4%); Georgia (2%); and India (1%).

    “Which 2 countries are the greatest political threat to Armenia?” The survey respondents said: Turkey (90%); Azerbaijan (77%); Russia (15%); UK (3%); Israel (2%); the U.S, (2%); and Georgia (1%).

    “Which 2 countries are the biggest economic threat to Armenia?” Survey respondents said: Turkey (68%); Azerbaijan (52%); Russia (17%); Georgia (10%); Iran (4%); the U.S. (1%); China (1%); and European Union (1%).

    “Which 2 countries are the greatest security threat to Armenia?” Survey respondents said: Turkey (88%); Azerbaijan (81%); Russia (11%); Iran (2%); the U.S. (2%); Israel (2%); Georgia (1%); France (1%); and UK (1%).

    “The relationship with which 2 countries needs to be improved for the development of Armenia?” The survey respondents said: Russia (53%); the U.S. (35%); Iran (29%); France (25%); China (15%); European Union (9%); Georgia (7%); Turkey (5%); Azerbaijan (4%); India (1%); and UK (1%).

    The survey then asked if the respondents agreed or disagreed with the following three questions:

    1) 73% agreed and 25% disagreed that “Armenia should start a dialog with Turkey and normalize bilateral relations, while pursuing the agenda of recognition of the Armenian Genocide by Turkey.”

    2) 70% agreed and 27% disagreed that “Armenia must establish bilateral relations with Turkey by putting forward its own preconditions such as Turkey’s non-hindrance of peace in Artsakh.”

    3) 44% agreed and 53% disagreed that “Under no circumstances Armenia should pursue normalization of relations with Turkey.”

    Most survey respondents disagreed with Pashinyan that opening roads with Azerbaijan is beneficial to Armenia. When asked: “How will the opening of transport routes with Azerbaijan impact Armenia’s economic development?” 27% gave a positive answer; 59% negative.

    The same is true for Turkey. When asked: “How will the opening of transport routes with Turkey impact Armenia’s economic development?” 35% gave a positive answer; 53% negative.

    When asked: “How important is the resolution to the Artsakh conflict for the future of Armenia in the next 10 years?” The overwhelming 96 % said “important”; 3% “unimportant.”

    The survey asked: “What would be an acceptable solution of the Artsakh conflict?”

    — 35% said: “Recognition of Artsakh as an independent state.”

    — 34% said: “The unification of Artsakh with Armenia as a region of the Republic of Armenia.”

    — 16% said: “Establishment of the status of the Artsakh Autonomous Region within Armenia.”

    — 11% said: “Establishment of the status of Artsakh within Russia.”

    — 1% said: “Maintaining the current status quo.”

    When asked: “Is Armenia able to independently defend its borders with Azerbaijan, without the help of any other country?” 46% said yes; 53% no.

    Finally, when asked: “Which country would you prefer to assist Armenia in defending its borders?” 47% said Russia; the U.S. (18%); France (14%); Iran (8%); China (2%); European Union (1%); all three Minsk Group countries of Russia, the U.S., France (1%); and NATO (1%).

    Whether we agree or disagree, these are the answers that the people of Armenia gave. It reflects their current mindset.

  • 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-….)

  • After Abandoning Artsakh, Pashinyan Now Gives Up the Armenian Cause

    After Abandoning Artsakh, Pashinyan Now Gives Up the Armenian Cause

    It is simply amazing that every time Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan opens his mouth, he makes a new and bigger blunder. To be convinced of this, all one has to do is follow his speeches, press conferences, contradictory statements in the Armenian Parliament, Facebook postings, flawed decisions and unqualified nominations. To make matters worse, he does not seem to learn from his errors. Pashinyan neither realizes nor admits his mistakes. He seems to be incorrigible.

    On January 24, 2022, the Prime Minister gave another one of his so-called press conferences. No reporters were present to ask questions and challenge his misstatements. It was a poorly-orchestrated show to mislead the public. A young lady read the questions supposedly sent by the media. When one of the journalists complained later that his question was presented in a garbled manner, the young lady honestly confessed that she had simply read the questions given to her by the Prime Minister’s aides.

    Among the Prime Minister’s biggest blunders was his reply to a question about Armenian historical demands from Turkey. Pashinyan stated that “the Republic of Armenia has never conducted a policy of the Armenian Cause. Never.” I seriously doubt that he knows the meaning of “the Armenian Cause.” His comment is no different than what a Turkish official would have said. It is shameful that after the horrendous genocide that was committed against Armenians in 1915-1923, killing 1.5 million innocent men, women and children, and dispossessing them of their historic homeland, the Prime Minister so casually dismisses Armenians’ just demands and acts as if nothing had happened. This is exactly what the Turkish leaders want — that Armenians forget about the past and drop their demands. Furthermore, the Prime Minister falsely stated that Pres. “Robert Kocharian in 2005 publicly announced that Armenia does not have territorial demands or territorial expectations from Turkey.” I recall reporting about Kocharian’s statement back in April 2005, when a Yerevan State University student asked him about Armenia’s demands for land from Turkey. Kocharian cautiously responded: “This issue would have to be taken up by a future President.” It is clear that at a time when Armenia had its hands full dealing with the conflict with Azerbaijan over Artsakh, it was not in Armenia’s best interest to open a second front with Turkey over Armenian territories. Kocharian did not say that Armenia had no territorial demands from Turkey. He simply said that the resolution of that issue has to be taken up at a later date. It is a shame that Prime Minister Pashinyan repeated what the Turkish media had falsely reported rather than what was actually said by the previous President of Armenia.

    Going from one distortion to the next, Pashinyan falsely added that Pres. “Serzh Sargsyan had made a reference to Kocharian’s statement.” I do not recall Sargsyan making such a reference. Pashinyan continued by stating that “Armenia never placed in doubt the Armenia-Turkey border. You will not find a single leader or government of the Armenian Republic who put in doubt the Armenia-Turkey border. We have not resigned from this policy.” In reality, until Pashinyan, no Armenian President or government had accepted the current Armenia-Turkey border nor stated that Armenia did not have territorial demands from Turkey.

    Coming to the issue of the Armenian Genocide, Prime Minister Pashinyan wrongly stated: “We must register that the locomotive behind the process of the recognition of the Genocide has always been the Diaspora and Diaspora organizations.” This is exactly what the Turkish government would want the Armenian leader to say. There are several things wrong with the Prime Minister’s statement.

    1) Pashinyan is once again splitting the Diaspora from Armenia.

    2) The Armenian Genocide is not exclusively a Diaspora issue. The descendants of Armenian Genocide survivors constitute today over one-third of Armenia’s population. That is why every year on April 24 over one million Armenians march to the Armenian Genocide Monument in Yerevan.

    3) All previous Armenian governments have pursued the international recognition of the Armenian Genocide. In fact, Armenia’s Declaration of Independence, issued on August 23, 1990, declared the following: “Aware of its historic responsibility for the destiny of the Armenian people engaged in the realization of the aspirations of all Armenians and the restoration of historical justice,” and “The Republic of Armenia stands in support of the task of achieving international recognition of the 1915 Genocide in Ottoman Turkey and Western Armenia.” Significantly, the Declaration used the words “Western Armenia,” which is now being abandoned by the Prime Minister. Later, Armenia’s Constitution included a link to the Declaration of Independence.

    4) The pursuit of the international recognition of the Armenian Genocide is a pan Armenian issue which concerns both the Diaspora and Armenia. Therefore, there must be a coordinated division of labor between the Diaspora and the Armenian government. What the Diaspora is able to do is different from what the Armenian government can do and vice versa.

    The Prime Minister also made many other misstatements in his over two-hour-long so-called press conference. However, an entire book has to be written, not just an article, to expose all of his misstatements.

  • 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

  • Armenian Issue – British Realism and Credibility

    Armenian Issue – British Realism and Credibility

    West Block house of commons londra ingiltere parlamento

    Dear Honorable Member of the House of Commons,

    In recent 30 years, the Armenian portrayal of the tragic war-time clashes in Eastern Anatolia from spring 1915 through autumn 1916 as the first genocide of 20th century, has been blindly accepted by some 30 western parliament. Although Armenian’s this version of history is one-sided and steeped in prejudice, certain western parliaments perceived it as a complete history and an undeniable reality, without fact checking. 

    British Parliament is a remarkable exception among western powers that have recognized the so-called Armenian Genocide. 

    During the World War I years and afterwards, the British tried to use every opportunity to try and sentence every Turk they arrested for the “killing of local Christian people”. Still, they were not biased. Lord Curzon, the then Foreign Minister, admitted in the House of Lords:

    “It must be owned the Armenians during the last weeks did not behave like innocent little lambs, as some people imagine. The fact is they have indulged in a series of attacks and proved blood-thirsty people.”

    The Times, on March 19, 1920, gave an account of these blood-thirsty atrocities…

    As the country that knows best what happened in Eastern Anatolia during World War I, Britain has undeniably declared till now with realism, and above all, with integrity and credibility that the events of 1915-1916 cannot be described as genocide 

    In late 1990s, when Western parliaments were recognizing Armenian genocide claims, the UK was also asked to do the same. British Spokesperson of Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale rejected such demand in a speech dated 14 April 1999 delivered on behalf of the British government: 

    “…in the absence of unequivocal evidence to show that the Ottoman administration took a specific decision to eliminate the Armenians under their control at the time, British governments have not recognised the events of 1915 and 1916 as ‘genocide. …we do not believe it is the business of governments today to review events of over 80 years ago with a view to pronouncing on them… These are matters of legal and historical debate.” 

    The Armenian genocide lobby maintained its pressure, ultimately resulting in the Armenian genocide allegations being addressed during a Holocaust commemoration ceremony held in London on 27 January 2001. 

    In a press conference held in Ankara on 22 January 2001, Britain’s Beverley Hughes, then parliamentary under-secretary of state in the department of the environment, transport, and the regions, stated that only the Holocaust would be addressed during the ceremony and made the following declaration in Istanbul: 

    A while ago, the British government reviewed evidence put forth on the Armenian allegations and examined documents on the events of 1915-1916. The decision is that these events do not correspond to what is defined as genocide by the UN. This is the attitude of the British government, and this will never change.”

    In a response to a question on this matter, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Baroness Scotland told the House of Lords on 7 February 2001: 

    “The Government, in line with previous British Governments, have judged the evidence relating to events in eastern Anatolia in 1915-1916 not to be sufficiently unequivocal to persuade us that these events should be categorized as genocide as defined by the 1948 UN Genocide Convention.” 

    Here the million-dollar question is to be answered; “What evidence was judged, and which documents were examined by the British governments?” 

    “Malta Tribunal” of 1919-1921, conducted by Britain’s highest legal prosecution authority, Attorney General for England, and Wales in London is the answer.

     It goes without question that the British Attorney General’s ruling of July 29, 1921 corresponds to a “judgement of non-prosecution” which means, “there is no legal evidence to support the Armenian massacre claims, so there is no legal basis to file or bring a lawsuit.”

    Malta Tribunal is the historical and judicial fact that about the Armenian allegations and this cannot be discredited by prejudiced political or legislative decisions.

    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

  • Prejudice should not lead the House of Common

    Prejudice should not lead the House of Common

    londra ingiltere Westminster

    Dear and Honorable Member of the House of Commons,

    It is now public knowledge that Mr Tim Loughton, MP (Conservative) put forward a Bill on 9 November 2021 for the recognition of hardships experienced by Armenians in Eastern Anatolia during World War I as “genocide”. In the light of this, I am writing to you, as well as to a number of other Labour MPs, to draw attention to some facts.

    The UK archival records, in particular the Malta Tribunal documents are the most credible reference source about what happened in Eastern Anatolia during World War I. 

    Officially held at the British Foreign Office National Archives, these records are free from biased and backed up with first-hand facts, data, and evidence. They depict war  tragedy but offer no proof of Armenian genocide.

    The British Foreign Office documents of the Malta Tribunal (1919-1921), conducted by Britain’s highest legal prosecution authority, Her/His Majesty’s Attorney (Prosecutor) General for England, and Wales in London, was closed in judgement of with the “evidence in hand” none of the Turks prisoned in Malta could be prosecuted on the grounds of the Armenian massacre.

    Although the UK archival records refute Armenian genocide claims judicially without any question, the House of Commons British Parliament is asked to accept a political genocide resolution that oft-cites  Armenian allegations derived from dubious and prejudicial sources.

    Armenian allegations are habitually led by religious, racial, and surely political prejudices. Particularly religious based prejudices have turned the Armenian allegations to some sort of a one-sided pro-Christian story. 

    Prejudices are symptoms of a diseased political culture – in fact, a political culture that threatens the very concept of politics itself. In addition, using prejudices as a mirror for political purposes pose a grave threat to democracy. 

    I believe, prejudices cannot lead the House of Commons. 

    Britain is widely considered as the leading democracy in Europe. No other country has such a unique history with democracy as that of your country. 

    Consequently, every dignified honourable member of the House of Commons, in her/his capacity as a leader and influencer, has the greatest historical and ethical responsibility, to call out racism, hate, and injustice from their decisions. This needs to cross-examine the proposed genocide resolution and dismiss the religious, racial, and political prejudices where found. 

    This attempt to search for the truth requests an educated way of thinking described by  the  futurist Alfred Toffler: 

    The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.”

    I’m sure, if the UK archival records are learned, unlearned, and relearned,  this will  be a crucial chance to find where the truth lies on the  tragic events that took place during World War I in Eastern Anatolia.  

    Yours sincerely,

    UluçGürkan

    Uluç Gürkan
    Lecturer in Politics
    Opportunity for all,
    Responsibility from all,
    Community of all

    • 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