Category: Authors

  • Don’t Let Turks Buy Land in Armenia; Impose Tariffs on Turkish Imports

    Don’t Let Turks Buy Land in Armenia; Impose Tariffs on Turkish Imports

    The Armenian government must take two important steps prior to opening the border with Turkey: 1) Forbid Turkish citizens from buying real estate in Armenia; and 2) Place tariffs on the import of products from Turkey.

    Obviously, Turkish citizens do not have to cross the Armenian border to be able to buy real estate in Armenia. But, with the opening of the mutual land border, more Turkish citizens will be able to come to Armenia, thus increasing the flow of people and products from Turkey.

    Allowing the citizens of a hostile country like Turkey to purchase real estate in Armenia is a serious national security threat, particularly if these properties are located near sensitive border areas.

    There is a big contradiction between what the Constitution and laws of Armenia stipulate regarding the purchase of real estate by foreigners and what is actually practiced. Now that a Constitutional Committee has been set up to reform the existing Constitution, last amended in 2015, this is the right time to reconsider the existing provisions as to who can buy real estate in Armenia. There should be a ban on foreigners’ purchase of properties near Armenia’s border. In addition, citizens of Azerbaijan and Turkey should not be allowed to purchase any kind of property anywhere in Armenia.

    This problem is particularly urgent because several years ago the Turkish government adopted a law that forbade the purchase of property in Turkey by citizens of four countries: Armenia, Cuba, North Korea and Syria. Citizens of another 35 countries are restricted to purchase property in Turkey based on the nature and location of the land. One would think that since the Turkish government has forbidden Armenian citizens from buying land in Turkey, Armenia should have reciprocated by banning the purchase of land in Armenia by Turkish citizens.

    I wrote an article in 2012, informing Armenian officials of the Turkish law that banned the citizens of Armenia from buying land in Turkey and urged “the Armenian Parliament to consider adopting retaliatory measures against citizens of Turkey interested in purchasing Armenian properties.” Regrettably, my suggestion was ignored.

    The 1995 Constitution prohibited foreigners from purchasing land in Armenia. However, this was contradicted by the Armenian government’s subsequent report to the World Trade Organization: “foreigners have the right to own real estate properties built on Armenian land.” The report also stated that “the [Armenian] legislation grants the Government the power to limit and prohibit foreign investment for national security concerns.”

    In line with the Constitution of 1995, the subsequent Armenian Constitutions of 2005 and 2015 also stated that “Foreign citizens and stateless persons shall not enjoy ownership right over land, except for cases provided for by law.”

    If foreigners are not allowed to purchase land or real estate in Armenia, then how were they able to buy them? In 2019 alone, foreigners, contrary to the Armenian Constitution, purchased 186 apartments, 72 houses, two factories, nine public properties and even 121 plots of land. How was this possible?

    Much more concerning is that citizens of the enemy states of Azerbaijan and Turkey have been buying properties in Armenia without any objection. According to the figures released last week by the Armenian government’s cadastre or official registry of real estate, from 2010 to 2021 citizens of Azerbaijan purchased six properties in Armenia, which included five apartments and one public property. During the same period, citizens of Turkey bought 71 pieces of real estate, including 55 apartments, five houses, one garage, seven public properties and three plots of land in Armenia.

    I assume that many of the Turkish citizens who purchased real estate in Armenia are of Armenian origin. I suggest that the Armenian government make an exception for those who are of Armenian origin, if and when the purchase of real estate by Turkish citizens is banned.

    Finally, turning to the import of products from Turkey and other countries, the Armenian government must impose tariffs to protect the viability of domestic production. Since Turkey has a very large population, it is able to produce items much cheaper due to mass scale. Armenian producers, unable to compete with them, will go out of business. Already the Armenian market is flooded with Turkish products. After opening the border, Turkish products will no longer have to go through the expense of importing them via Georgia, which means that they will be even cheaper creating a bigger problem for domestic producers. Making matters worse, the collapsing value of the Turkish Lira has made the prices of imported products from Turkey cheaper.

    Before several sectors of Armenia’s economy are completely devastated, the Armenian government must place tariffs on imported Turkish products to protect Armenia’s vulnerable producers.

  • Armenia Needs Better Counterintelligence To Deter Foreign and Domestic Spies

    Armenia Needs Better Counterintelligence To Deter Foreign and Domestic Spies

    Last week, we were all shocked by the news that Armenia’s National Security Service (NSS) arrested 19 members of the Armenian military on spying charges for Azerbaijan.

    The NSS accused the arrested 19 Armenian soldiers of having transferred classified military secrets to Azerbaijan in return for money. The NSS explained that Azerbaijani agents had contacted the Armenian soldiers by setting up fake Facebook pages with photos of attractive females who communicated in the Armenian language. There are plenty of Azeris who speak fluent Armenian since they were born in Armenia and attended Armenian schools before they fled to Azerbaijan after the civil unrest over Artsakh in the late 1980’s.

    There are several serious security issues that the Armenian government should pay immediate attention to and take special measures to minimize the repetition of such spying cases. But even with improved counterintelligence, such problems may not be eliminated, but simply minimized, since almost all countries fall victim to foreign and domestic spies.

    Here are my thoughts and suggestions:

    1) The Armenian government should take immediate steps to appoint competent experts who know how to run an intelligent service. This suggestion is made because Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has appointed to almost all positions inexperienced and incompetent officials purely based on their membership in his ruling party. The most recent example of incompetence was the surprising announcement by the NSS that they learned from reading a newspaper article that the President of Armenia is a dual citizen which is a violation of Armenian law. Imagine Armenia’s intelligence services learning about such a critical issue from a newspaper after the President was in office for four years, instead of being the first to uncover it.

    2) The National Security Service, besides needing expert personnel, must also have the most advanced counterintelligence technology.

    3) The Armenian government must consult with ally governments on how to improve the training, organization and activities of its intelligence services.

    4) The 19 Armenians who were arrested for spying are accused of transferring to Azerbaijan secret information about Armenia’s military personnel, weapons and military facilities. It remains to be seen if they will be found guilty in a court of law since there have been many Armenian officials arrested in the past four years for committing various offenses, but were not convicted.

    5) How can the Armenian military allow its soldiers to have Facebook pages since everyone knows that they are vulnerable to hackers and can be co-opted by outsiders?

    6) Where was the oversight by Armenia’s intelligent services as the compromised soldiers were transmitting national secrets to the enemy? It would have been best to prevent the transfer of such secrets before they happen, not after the damage is done.

    7) It is highly concerning that such a large number of soldiers of various ranks were arrested. The NSS announced that a total of 24 soldiers were involved in these spying activities which means that there are several other suspects who have not been arrested either due to a lack of evidence or because their identities and locations are unknown. We also do not know how long this spy network has been operating before their arrest.

    8) Even if the remaining members of this spy network are arrested and charged, it does not mean that the 24 suspects are the only ones involved in this spying Network. There may be dozens or hundreds of others whose identities and activities are unknown. As opposed to Armenia, Azerbaijan seems to have a highly competent and experienced cadre of agents who know what they are doing. They are most probably trained and aided by the highly skilled Turkish intelligence services, the MIT (National Intelligence Organization).

    9) One serious aspect of this spying scandal is that some of the arrestees reportedly sold national secrets for a few hundred dollars. There must be something seriously wrong in Armenia’s educational system if an Armenian, born, raised, educated, and serving in the military, is willing to betray his nation to the enemy for a handful of dollars. It is highly concerning that there seems to be a lack of national pride and patriotic sentiments among some Armenians, particularly soldiers.

    10) This is not the first time that spies have been arrested in Armenia. There have been several cases of Armenians spying for Turkey in the past 30 years. Some of them were Armenian government officials.

    11) Azerbaijan announced in the past the arrest of a number of Armenians and Azeris who had allegedly spied for Armenia. It is not known if they were really spies or not.

    12) I fear that the spying problems in Armenia will get much worse with the contemplated opening of the border with Turkey and Azerbaijan. This will allow many more Azeri and Turkish spies to enter Armenia via air and land as tourists or business people.

    13) In addition to actual spies, Azerbaijan and Turkey will collect valuable information about Armenia by debriefing their citizens after their return from Armenia. Of course, spying is not limited to these two countries, as other states are also engaged in gathering intelligence on Armenia.

    14) There have been several cases where Armenians, who have immigrated to Turkey in recent years due to lack of jobs at home, have been approached by Turkish intelligence to gather information on Armenia upon their return home for which they were handsomely compensated.

    In conclusion, antagonistic actions are carried out not only during the war, but also at peacetime by recruiting domestic and foreign agents. The Armenian government must approach this problem very seriously and allocate the necessary resources and personnel to counter such intelligence gathering activities.

  • 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

    [email protected][email protected]

    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

    [email protected][email protected]

    0090 312 4198777 – 0090 532 2180758