Category: Authors

On July 13, two days before the coup attempt in Turkey, Prof. Halil Berktay of Istanbul’s Sabanci University answered six written questions on the Armenian Genocide posed by El Pais, Spain’s largest newspaper. But when El Pais did not publish his answers, Dr. Berktay decided on August 15 to post his interview on a Turkish website, Serbestiyet, under the title: “With or without the coup, genocide was and is genocide.”

Prof. Berktay, a liberal Turkish scholar, told El Pais that he has repeatedly recognized the Armenian Genocide ever since 2002. He described the genocide as “the near-complete extermination and annihilation of Ottoman Armenians.” Dr. Bertktay acknowledged that for his honest views on the Armenian Genocide, “especially before 2002, and even afterwards (though no longer by the government), there has been a huge amount of informal, extra-legal pressure, blackmail, threats or other forms of psychological terror brought to bear on people like me, which I and others have all had to face.”

Answering a question from El Pais: “why does Turkey refuse to review the past?” Dr. Berktay responded: “Back in the 1980’s and 90’s… the denialism of the past was based on ancestor worship or ideological allegiance to Unionism and Ataturkism. What had happened to the Armenians in 1915 was seen as a black blot for Turkish nationalism. Also, while it was not committed by or under the Kemalist Republic, because the Republic had ended up inheriting the mantle of a territory ethnically cleansed of the Armenians, it was in the nature of an inadmissible impurity for the desired lily-white legitimacy of the Kemalist Revolution. So a taboo was placed on it; it became part of the unmentionable and undiscussable. Here and there a few academics, mostly living and working abroad, did speak up. They were lonely voices in the wilderness.” Prof. Berktay then added: beginning in 2000, “things began to change,” with an increasing number of Turkish scholars speaking out on the Armenian Genocide.

The most interesting part of Dr. Bertkay’s interview is his stated reason for the Turkish government’s reluctance to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide: “It may be that the Turkish government does not know what might happen if it were to go ahead and say yes, it was genocide. What would Armenia likely do or demand? Is it going to ask for material compensation, or even land? That is what the Dashnaks as radical Armenian nationalists have been saying all along: Three R’s, as they put it, Recognition, Reparation, Restitution (of land). Certainly the last is something that no Turkish government can possibly ever concede. It is very likely, therefore, that before they take any further step, they would like Armenia to show its hand. Conversely, as long as Armenia keeps its cards close to its chest, recognizing the genocide as genocide will have to wait.”

A careful reading of the Professor’s above statement indicates that he finds the return of lands to Armenia by Turkey not possible, but does not rule out reparations. In my view, while Armenians rightly claim their historic lands, they are willing to accept reparations as an initial step.

Perhaps the most controversial aspect of Prof. Berktay’s answers is his explanation of Turkey’s reasons for refusal to face its sordid past: “Faced with the peculiar challenge of recognizing the Armenian genocide, large sections of the Turkish public as well as the AKP keep asking, and will keep asking: Why us? And why only us? Are all nations being asked to atone for their past equally stringently? Or is it just Turkey? Meanwhile, what about what ‘they’ did to ‘us’ in the first place? If we recognize the Armenian genocide, will they, too, ever so slightly recognize the tragic plight of the Muslim Turks of Crete, mainland Greece, Bulgaria or Serbia? Who speaks for the Turk? Do we have any friends in the world?”

While I do not agree with some of Prof. Berktay’s explanations, I cannot expect him to have the same position on Armenian issues as I do. After all, he is a Turk, but a righteous Turk, which is not what one can say about Turkish leaders and large segments of Turkish society that still deny the historical facts of the Armenian Genocide!

Prof. Berktay has taken a great risk by posting his answers on the Armenian Genocide on the internet, particularly in the current brutal atmosphere since the July coup attempt when tens of thousands of innocent Turkish citizens have been summarily arrested and thrown into jail!

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments in Pasadena, California, on August 4, regarding two lawsuits on Armenian properties confiscated by Turkey in 1915-23: Bakalian and Davoyan vs. the Republic of Turkey and its Central and Ziraat Banks. A District Court had dismissed these lawsuits in 2013 on grounds that they dealt with a political issue which came under the purview of elected officials, not the courts.

The Armenian plaintiffs were represented by Kathryn Lee Boyd of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, and Mark Geragos of Geragos & Geragos. The Turkish side was represented by Neil Soltman of Mayer Brown. The panel of federal appeals court judges consisted of Alex Kozinski, Stephen Reinhardt, and Kim Wardlaw.

The three Judges stated that since a sovereign country has the right to appropriate the property of its citizens, a U.S. court would not have jurisdiction to intervene in such cases unless they were accompanied by violations of international law or genocide.

Judge Kozinski repeatedly questioned the appropriateness of the references to the Armenian Genocide as one of the two Armenian cases had mentioned it as one of the reasons for the lawsuit. “Our government has resisted calling this a genocide. Our government has been quite adamant, as far as I can tell, that this is not genocide,” Judge Kozinski contended. “Federal Courts have to take a position that is possibly contrary to the position that has been adhered to by our government, the Executive Branch of our government, for decades.”

When Geragos advised Judge Kozinski that the U.S. House of Representatives and Pres. Reagan had both acknowledged the Armenian Genocide, Judge Kozinski oddly responded: “Pres. Reagan hasn’t been President for … decades.”

The Judge’s comment made no sense. The facts of the genocide and its acknowledgment have not changed, just because those tragic events and their recognition occurred decades ago! In fact, the U.S. government acknowledged the Armenian Genocide in 1951 in an official document submitted to the World Court.

Throughout the hearing, Judge Kozinski persistently asked if the plaintiffs’ attorneys would agree to set aside the Armenian Genocide issue for purposes of this lawsuit. Attorney Geragos finally consented in order to pave the way for the lawsuit to proceed, particularly since there were a dozen other Turkish violations of international law that fulfilled the requirements of jurisdiction.

Attorney Boyd pointed out that it is not necessary to prove genocide in order to bring a lawsuit under the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act (FSIA) of 1976. Actually, “Crimes against Humanity” are also violations of international law. On May 29, 1915, France, Great Britain and Russia issued a Joint Declaration accusing Turkish government officials of committing “Crimes against Humanity and Civilization” and warned that they will be held responsible for these crimes.

Judge Kozinski also questioned the reason why these lawsuits were filed 100 years after the fact, prompting Geragos to assert that there was no statute of limitations under FSIA. He further stated that the elapsed time made no difference, since there was an “on-going violation” because Turkey kept these properties and did not turn over the accrued rents to the Armenian owners for decades.

Geragos also told Judge Kozinski that the concept of a sovereign nation appropriating the properties of its own citizens does not apply in this case, since Armenians were stripped of their citizenship by official Turkish decrees, and deported from the country.

Only after attorney Boyd explained to Judge Kozinski that the confiscation of Armenian properties by the Turkish government was “arbitrary and discriminatory,” the Judge seemed to understand the issue and proceeded to tell Neil Soltman, the attorney for the Turkish Government, that there was a difference between appropriating a house in Connecticut under eminent domain and the taking of all houses belonging to a particular race or religion which would be a violation of international law, and therefore legally actionable by a U.S. court.

Finally, a seemingly casual remark by Judge Wardlaw, referring to Turkish President Erdogan as “this crazy President,” may be an indication that U.S. government officials are getting fed up with Erdogan’s ‘crazy’ antics and would henceforth allow the justice system to proceed with cases dealing with gross Turkish violations of human rights and not hide behind politically motivated judicial cover up.

The Federal Court of Appeals is expected to issue its decision within the next 90 days.

Cem Ozdemir, co-chair of the Green Party, delivered a passionate speech in the German Parliament (Bundestag) on June 2, 2016, in support of the resolution recognizing the Armenian Genocide by Ottoman Turkey, while acknowledging Germany’s complicity in this mass crime.

Ozdemir, born in Germany, is son of Turkish-Circassian (Cherkess) migrant parents. He was the first person of Turkish descent elected to the Bundestag (1994-2002). He reentered the German Parliament in 2013, after serving in the European Parliament from 2004 to 2009.

With support from all political parties in the Bundestag, the Armenian Genocide resolution, which Ozdemir had long championed, was adopted by the German Parliament almost unanimously, with one no vote and one abstention.

Below are translated excerpts from the remarkable speech Ozdemir delivered in German in the Bundestag on June 2nd, while wearing on the lapel of his suit the ‘forget-me-not’ button symbolizing the Centennial of the Armenian Genocide:

“There can be no question about the appropriateness of time when talking about unimaginable savagery like genocide. We know that after lengthy and tiresome back and forth, Germany, as an accomplice to the crime, is openly calling the event by its proper name…. This constitutes a chapter of German history.” Ozdemir recalled the callous and cruel words of German Imperial Chancellor Bethmann Hollweg: “Our whole purpose was to keep Turkey on our side during the entire course of the war. Whether Armenians were to be destroyed or not, made no difference.”

In a powerful statement, Ozdemir directly addressed the Armenian guests attending the Bundestag’s session on June 2nd: “Just because we were complicit in this horrible crime in the past does not mean that today we are going to side with the deniers.”

Ozdemir went on to urge the millions of Turkish residents of Germany to be proud of the “heroic Turks” who rescued Armenians during the Genocide, and not “criminals like Talat and Enver.”

The Turkish-German Parliamentarian then declared that the ugliest expression which causes him great pain is that ‘Armenian’ is used as a ‘swear word’ in Turkey. “They ask me if I am Armenian. I don’t view someone being an Armenian as an insult. Being a descendant of a Sunni Muslim family, Eastern Christianity does not make me uncomfortable.”

Ozdemir quoted his Turkish Armenian friend Hrant Dink who was assassinated in Istanbul by an extremist Turk: “If Armenians lived in Van today, that city would be the Paris of the Orient.” During his visit to Armenia in March 2015, Ozdemir elaborated on Dink’s statement in an interview with Civilnet: “I went to the Genocide museum and read the names and professions of the people we have lost. They were the most forward looking and brightest intellectuals of Istanbul and they were killed starting with architects, intellectuals, journalists, writers…. The Ottoman Empire exterminated the most progressive citizens in its history. The Ottoman Empire lost immensely. I think one of the reasons why Turkey isn’t among the most developed countries today is because the Young Turks were not heroes, but traitors. They harmed Armenians, Assyrians and Turks as well.”

The Turkish German Parliament member ended his nine-minute speech, which was repeatedly interrupted by thunderous applause, by stating that “members of Bundestag should not be threatened for expressing their thoughts. I am sure that I will not be arrested on my way home from the Parliament or that my parliamentary immunity will not be lifted; I will not be beaten up or killed. I cannot say the same thing about my colleagues in Turkey!”

Nevertheless, Ozdemir did not anticipate that after Bundestag’s approval of the Armenian Genocide resolution, he and ten of his Turkish colleagues in the German Parliament would be placed under police protection after receiving numerous death threats from Turkish extremists.

In an announcement reminiscent of Hitler-era racial profiling, Pres. Erdogan advocated that the 11 Turkish members of the German Parliament who had supported the Armenian Genocide resolution undergo a blood test to prove their ‘Turkishness.’ Meanwhile, officials of Tokat, Turkey, Ozdemir’s father’s hometown, stripped his name from the list of honored sons of that city.

However, after making bombastic threats of retaliation against Germany, Pres. Erdogan was forced to restrain himself, realizing that such irresponsible steps would only lead to a devastating effect on the faltering Turkish economy!

While Armenians throughout the world were overjoyed with the landmark “pilgrimage” of His Holiness Pope Francis to the first Christian state, most people were unaware of the behind the scenes deliberations on the Armenian Genocide issue in the Vatican prior to his visit.

The Pope’s dual roles as Pontiff of the Catholic Church and head of the Vatican State occasionally create problems within and outside the walls of the Holy See, which is what happened during the Pope’s visit to Armenia last week.

After lengthy preparations and internal discussions, the Pope arrived in Armenia on June 24 ready to deliver a series of sermons and remarks over the course of his three-day visit. Surprisingly, none of his prepared speeches contained the words Armenian Genocide, but there were plenty of references to “tragedy, slaughter, terrible trial, and immense suffering.” His homilies repeatedly used the Armenian term “Meds Yeghern” (Great Crime) which was wrongly translated by the Vatican as “Great Evil.” The first indication of a change in terminology came prior to the Pope’s pastoral visit in a video address to the Armenian people, which did not mention the Armenian Genocide. Later on, during his visit to the Armenian Genocide Monument, the Pontiff did not write the words Armenian Genocide in the guest book, copying the text from a pre-prepared note card!

There may have been two reasons why the words Armenian Genocide had been avoided:

1) Since Pope Francis had already gone on record using the term “Armenian Genocide” during last April’s Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica, Vatican officials had decided to deliver a new message of “peace and reconciliation.”

2) The Pontiff’s foreign policy advisors may have been reluctant to raise the Armenian Genocide issue once again after the Turkish government’s harsh reaction last year and withdrawal of its ambassador from the Vatican for 10 months.

Pope Francis, however, surprised everyone, when he departed from the text of his prepared remarks that had been already distributed to the media, by adding the word genocide to his address at the Presidential Palace in Yerevan on June 24. Here is what Pope Francis actually said while recalling his earlier sermon of April 12, 2015: “The occasion was the commemoration of the centenary of the Metz Yeghern, the ‘Great Evil’ that struck your people and caused the death of a vast multitude of persons. Sadly, that tragedy, that genocide, was the first of the deplorable series of catastrophes of the past century, made possible by twisted racial, ideological or religious aims that darkened the minds of the tormentors even to the point of planning the annihilation of entire peoples.”

Later that day, Father Federico Lombardi, Director of the Holy See’s Press Office, explained why Pope Francis deviated from his prepared text: “The Pope says what he finds appropriate, and no one decides what the Pontiff should say. The Pope had no reason to avoid the word ‘genocide’ during his trip to Armenia. The reality is clear and we never denied what the reality is.”

The Pontiff’s use of that single word in one speech did not escape the attention of Turkish authorities. Deputy Prime Minister Nurettin Canikli responded by accusing the Pope of having a “Crusader mentality.” Canikli went on to repeat the usual Turkish lies about the Armenian Genocide. Lombardi, the Pontiff’s spokesman, dismissed the Deputy Prime Minister’s criticism, stating that “the Pope is not doing Crusades. He has said no words against the Turkish people.”

Refusing to buckle under Turkish pressure, Pope Francis went on to sign a “Joint Declaration” with Catholicos Karekin II on June 26, 2016, which referenced the Vatican’s earlier acknowledgments of the Armenian Genocide: Pope Francis’s April 12, 2015 sermon and the “Joint Declaration” signed on Sept. 27, 2001 by Pope John Paul II and Catholicos Karekin II. Another “Joint Communique” acknowledging the Armenian Genocide was signed on Nov. 29, 2000, by John Paul II and Karekin II.

During his return flight to Rome on June 26, an AFP journalist asked Pope Francis why he added the word genocide to his speech in Yerevan. The Pope explained in detail that genocide is the only word he has grown up with to describe the mass killings of Armenians. The Pope also mentioned his upcoming trip to Azerbaijan and Georgia from Sept. 30 to Oct. 2.

Pope Francis approached his “pilgrimage” to Armenia with utmost honesty and spoke from his heart about the Armenian Genocide, ignoring the political calculations of his advisers and speechwriters. He preferred to conduct himself as a true man of God rather than a crafty politician!