Turkish Forum English

Category: Armenian Question

“The great Turk is governing in peace twenty nations from different religions. Turks have taught to Christians how to be moderate in peace and gentle in victory.”Voltaire’s Philosophical Dictionary

  • Open letter on Perinçek v. Switzerland case

    Open letter on Perinçek v. Switzerland case

    Open letter (slightly revised) rebutting Armenian claims submitted by Ferruh Demirmen to Swiss Interior Department on ECHR’s decision on Perinçek v. Switzerland.

    February 24, 2014

    An Open Letter to:
    Madame la Conseillère fédérale
    Simonetta Sommaruga
    Cheffe du Département fédéral de justice et police (DFJP)
    Palais fédéral ouest
    CH-3003 Berne, SWITZERLAND

    Dear Madame Sommaruga,

    This open letter is being submitted by a concerned citizen as a rebuttal of an open letter sent to you by a group called “concerned genocide scholars” regarding the December 17, 2013 judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on Perinçek v. Switzerland.

    In their February 16, 2014 letter, the “scholars” take issue with ECHR’s position that genocide is a precisely defined legal concept that is not easy to prove, and that the historical record on the 1915 events is a matter of debate. The “scholars” argue that the 1915 events constitute “genocide,” and request that you re-examine the Court’s judgment. This letter will endeavor to establish that the arguments advanced by the “scholars” are incomplete and specious.

    The “scholars” assert that Ottoman “mass killings” of Armenians conform to the definition of Article 2 of the 1948 U.N. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). But such assertion is based only on a partial reading of the Convention. That Convention, in fact, is the Achilles’ heel of the “Armenian genocide” thesis. For Article 2, while describing genocide as, in part, killing or causing serious harm to the members of a group, makes two additional provisos: (1) there must be intent, (2) the targeted victims should belong to a particular national, ethnical, racial or religious group. The “scholars” conveniently ignore these two provisos.

    Ottoman government archives contain incontestable evidence that the relocation of Armenians in 1915 was not related in any way to nationality, religion, etc., but to military exigency in time of war, which was being fought on multiple fronts. Rebellious armed Armenian groups were aiding and abetting the enemy and sabotaging the Ottoman army from behind, and the government had to intervene. In other words, Armenians were subjected to relocation not because of their religion or ethnicity, but because they posed grave security threat in time of war. Armenians in the western part of Anatolia were spared from relocation orders because they did not pose a security threat. The central government orders to local authorities made it clear that the security of Armenian convoys during relocation should be ensured, and that all necessary precautions should be taken to meet their needs during and after relocation.

    There was no intent to harm the Armenians; but war conditions including lawlessness, chaos, disease, and famine, gave rise to tragic events on both sides.

    The fact that Armenians in the western part of Anatolia were spared from relocation orders belies accusations that the 1915 events were religion or ethnicity-related.

    Russian archives also reveal that religion and ethnicity were not causal factors behind the relocation orders, that relocation was conceived as a measure of self-defense by the Ottoman government, and that the tragic events were inter-communal in nature.

    Considering the above facts, and viewed in its fuller context, Article 2 of the 1948 Convention negates the genocide argument advanced by the “scholars.” The “scholars” cannot pick and choose a portion of Article 2 and ignore the rest.

    Equally important, the 1948 Convention contains a stipulation, in Article 6, that those charged with the crime of genocide should be tried by a competent tribunal in the state where the act was committed, or by an international penal tribunal whose jurisdiction is recognized by the contracting parties. In other words, to establish the crime of genocide, a court verdict is a sine qua non. The judgments by the Nuremberg Tribunal post-World War II, and the International Criminal Court (ICC) more recently on the Rwanda and Srebrenica events are examples to such verdicts.

    There exists no court verdict, however, on alleged “Armenian genocide.” The Malta Tribunal, convened by the victorious British after World War I to prosecute 144 high-ranking Ottoman officials on charges of killing Armenians, yielded not a single conviction. Among those detained for trial were cabinet ministers, the Grand Vizier and Army Commanders. The Armenian Patriarchate at Istanbul was the principal source of information against the accused, but the evidence was too flimsy for formal prosecution. Even the search of the U.S. State Department files in Washington failed to produce incriminating evidence. After two years of investigation, all Malta detainees were released and returned to Turkish soil.

    It is interesting that in referring to the opinions of France, the United Kingdom and Russia in their 1915 joint declaration, the “scholars” do not mention the Malta Tribunal. The Malta Tribunal drew its jurisdictional authority from these three powers, and its findings were binding on the three powers.

    So, Article 6 of the 1948 Convention also negates the genocide assertions of the “scholars.” What Article 6 establishes, in principle, is that neither parliaments nor a group of academics can pass judgment on an alleged genocide crime. A verdict by a duly authorized court of law is a must. The “scholars” ignore this very fundamental precept contained in the 1948 Convention.

    In conclusion, the 1948 Convention, which is the fundamental international covenant bearing on genocide determination, completely vitiates the genocide thesis when viewed in its entirety. The “scholars do not have the luxury to use only a portion of the covenant to establish their case.

    The “scholars” note that in 1997 the “International Association of Genocide Scholars” passed a resolution recognizing the Ottoman massacres of Armenians as genocide. That may be so, but a large number of scholars hold the opposite view. In 1985, for example, 69 U.S. historians and researchers passed a unanimous resolution, addressed to members of the U.S. House of Representatives and published in New York Times and The Washington Post, refuting Armenian allegations. These were academicians specializing in Turkish, Ottoman and Middle Eastern studies. Many of these academicians were subsequently harassed or intimidated by the pro-genocide camp.

    The conclusion is inescapable, as ECHR observed, that there is no consensus among historians and scholars on the 1915 events. And that is not taking into account the views of Turkish researchers and historians.

    In their letter the “scholars” indirectly draw an analogy between Holocaust and the 1915 events. Such analogy is not only grotesque, but more bluntly, obscene. Jews of Nazi Germany did not rise in armed rebellion against the state, did not embark on a rampage of violence against the local population, did not join the ranks of an invading army, did not sabotage the German army behind the front lines, and in general did not engage in perfidious acts. Their only “crime” was not being of the “Aryan race.” Race was the motive behind the killings.

    The Nazis did not court-martial those implicated with wrongdoing against the Jews, as did the Ottomans prosecute those accused of mistreating Armenians during relocation. Nor did the Nazis deliberately spare Jews as “good citizens” in some parts of the Reich, or award meritorious awards to Jews, as did the Ottomans to Armenians. The Ottomans, having long embraced Armenians in high-ranking positions in the government, including generals and cabinet ministers, did not spread racist, scurrilous lies about the Armenian minority. And the Armenians certainly did not perish in gas chambers.

    To broaden their horizon on the 1915 events, the “scholars” should perhaps read, if they have not already, the admissions of Boghos Nubar Pasha at the Paris Peace Conference in January 1919, and the manifesto issued by Johannes Kachaznuni at the Dashnak convention in Bucharest in March 1923. It would be like hearing the truth from the horse’s mouth. More than half of a million Muslims lost their lives at the hands of Armenian guerillas who fought a losing battle relying on false promises of imperial Western powers and the Tsarist Russia. Even the Russian officers on the scene were troubled by the severity of violence inflicted by the Armenian guerillas on Muslims.

    And the terror inflicted was not confined to Muslims. As stated by Albert J. Amateau, a rabbi born in Turkey and later emigrated to America, in a testimony sworn before a notary public in California in 1989, Armenian atrocities also extended to Jews, and even to Armenian families who refused to cooperate with the armed guerillas.

    In their letter the “scholars” attempt to link the tragic murder of Hrant Dink to genocide controversy, and claim that Turkey has “one of the worst” records on human rights “over the past decades.” This is a slanderous attack aimed at Turkey, and it is deplorable. Dink was murdered by a deranged fanatic, and the facts behind the assassination are still unknown. More than 100,000 Turkish people took to the streets in Istanbul to protest Dink’s murder. Mention of human rights by the “scholars” is particularly ironic, considering that their list of signatories is headed by none other than Taner Akçam, an ex-convict and a prison escapee who advocated violence and was imprisoned for terrorist activities in Turkey. Akçam is now a protégée and beneficiary of the Armenian lobby.

    And speaking of human rights, it is curious that the “scholars” failed to mention the ASALA/JCAG terror that took more than 40 innocent lives, most of them Turkish diplomats, during 1973-1991. Not only did the committees funded by Armenian organizations pay for the legal defense of the majority of terrorists, but several prominent Armenians and pro-Armenian “scholars” testified in the trials of the terrorists. One terrorist, after his release from the French prison, was welcome as a hero in Armenia. So much about concern for “human rights”!

    Incidentally, how many Armenians took to the streets to protest the killing of Turkish diplomats and their families by the ASALA/JCAG terror?

    It is a known fact that Turkey and Armenia cannot agree on legal characterization of the 1915 events. That being the case, one wonders why the “scholars” have not urged Armenia to file a complaint with the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Established in 1945, ICJ is the primary judicial arm of the U.N. to settle legal disputes submitted by states. A court case undertaken by ICJ would require all historical archives to be open, due process to apply, and the evidentiary material scrutinized for probity. The only reasonable explanation for the stance of the Armenian side is that it finds a judicial process too risky for its taste.

    The Armenian side, instead, has over the years relied on propaganda in public arena, where bias and prejudice play a large role, and financial resources can be deployed aplenty.

    It is refreshing that the “scholars” make a concession in their letter: They agree with the notion of freedom of expression articulated by ECHR. It is impossible not to be sarcastic about their newly-found concern for this basic human right. Over the years these “scholars” attended conferences where presence of academics opposing their genocide thesis was not welcome. Did the “scholars” express any freedom of expression concern when, in 1995, a French court fined historian Prof. Bernard Lewis because he did not subscribe to the genocide thesis, or when, in 2007, Dr. Doğu Perinçek was convicted by a Swiss court for the same reason? And what was the reaction of the “scholars” when the French Senate passed a bill in 2011 (later overturned) that criminalizes denial of “Armenian genocide”?

    One additional comment in this context is noteworthy. The “scholars” use the word “denialist” to refer to those who reject their genocide assertions. “Denialist” is a pejorative term, and its use is a breach of academic decorum. It is also a sign of arrogance. How would the “scholars” like if their colleagues in the opposing camp call them “distortionists” or “fabricators”?

    To wrap up, characterization of the 1915 events as “genocide” is incompatible with the definition of this term as prescribed in the 1948 U.N. Convention. “Genocide” is a legal construct, and should not be used to further political aims. The suffering on the Armenian side in the 1915 events cannot be denied; but the suffering on the Turkish side also deserves recognition. After a century, it is time for the two sides to reconcile their differences without further recrimination, and move on. We don’t need new generations poisoned with “genocide” controversy.

    It is hoped that the Swiss government will accept the judgment of ECHR as final.

    Respectfully yours,

    (hard copy signed)

    Ferruh Demirmen, Ph.D.
    (address)

    Appendix
    SIGNATORIES TO MAY 19, 1985 STATEMENT ADDRESSED TO THE MEMBERS OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AS PUBLISHED IN NEW YORK TIMES AND WASHINGTON POST:

    RIFAAT ABOU-EL-HAJ
    Professor of History, California State University at Long Beach
    SARAH MOMENT ATIS
    Professor of Turkish Language & Literature, University of Wisconsin at Madison
    KARL BARBIR
    Associate Professor of History, Siena College, New York
    ILHAN BASGOZ
    Director of the Turkish Studies, Department of Uralic & Altaic Studies, Indiana University
    DANIEL G. BATES
    Professor of Anthropology, Hunter College, City University of New York
    ULKU BATES
    Professor of Art History, Hunter College, City University of New York
    GUSTAV BAYERLE
    Professor of Uralic & Altaic Studies, Indiana University
    ANDREAS G. E. BODROGLIGETTI
    Professor of Turkic & Iranian languages, University of California at Los Angeles
    KATHLEEN BURRILL
    Associate Professor of Turkish Studies, Columbia University
    RODERIC DAVISON
    Professor of History, George Washington University
    WALTER DENNY
    Associate Professor of Art History & Near Eastern Studies, University of Massachusetts
    DR. ALAN DUBEN
    Anthropologist & Researcher, New York City
    ELLEN ERVIN
    Assistant Professor of Turkish Researches, New York University
    CAESAR FARAH
    Professor of Islamic & Middle Eastern History, University of Minnesota
    CARTER FINDLEY
    Associate Professor of History, Ohio State University
    MICHAEL FINEFROCK
    Professor of History, College of Charleston, South Carolina
    ALAN FISHER
    Professor of History, Michigan State University
    CORNELL FLEISCHER
    Assistant Professor of History, Washington University (Missouri)
    TIMOTHY CHILDS
    Professorial Lecturer at SAIS, Johns Hopkins University
    SHAFIGA DAULET
    Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Connecticut
    JUSTIN MCCARTHY
    Associate Professor of History, University of Louisville, Kentucky
    JON MANDAVILLE
    Professor of the History of the Middle East, Portland State University, Oregon
    RHOADS MURPHEY
    Assistant Professor of Middle Eastern Languages & Cultures & History, Columbia University
    PIERRE OBERLING
    Professor of History, Hunter College, City University of New York
    ROBERT OLSON
    Associate Professor of History, University of Kentucky
    DONALD QUATAERT
    Associate Professor of History, University of Houston
    WILLIAM GRISWOLD
    Professor of History, Colorado State University
    WILLIAM HICKMAN
    Associate Professor of Turkish, University of California at Berkeley
    JOHN HYMES
    Professor of History, Glenville State College, West Virginia
    RALPH JAECKEL
    Visiting Assistant Professor of Turkish, University of California at Los Angeles
    JAMES KELLY
    Associate Professor of Turkish, University of Utah
    PETER GOLDEN
    Professor of History, Rutgers University, New Jersey
    TOM GOODRICH
    Professor of History, Indiana University of Pennsylvania
    ANDREW COULD
    Ph.D. in Ottoman History, Flagstaff, Arizona
    MICHAEL MEEKER
    Professor of Anthropology, University of California at San Diego
    THOMAS NAFF
    Professor of History & Director, Middle East Research Institute, University of Pennsylvania
    WILLIAM OCHSENWALD
    Associate Professor of History, Virginia Polytechnic Institute
    WILLIAM PEACHY
    Assistant Professor of the Judaic & Near Eastern Languages & Literatures, Ohio State University
    HOWARD REED
    Professor of History, University of Connecticut
    TIBOR HALASI-KUN
    Professor Emeritus of Turkish Studies, Columbia University
    J. C. HUREWITZ
    Professor of Government, Emeritus, Former Director, Middle East Institute (1971-1984) , Columbia University
    HALIL INALCIK
    Member of the of Arts & Sciences, Professor of Ottoman History, University of Chicago
    RONALD JENNINGS
    Associate Professor of History & Asian Studies, University of Illinois
    KERIM KEY
    Adjunct Professor, Southeastern University, Washington, D.C.
    DANKWART RUSTOW
    Distinguished University Professor of Political Science, Graduate Center, City University of New York
    STANFORD SHAW
    Professor of History, University of California at Los Angeles
    METIN KUNT
    Professor of Ottoman History, New York University
    AVIGDOR LEVY
    Professor of History, Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts
    DR. HEATH W. LOWRY
    Institute of Turkish Studies Inc. Washington, D.C.
    JOHN MASSON SMITH, JR.
    Professor of History, University of California at Berkeley
    ROBERT STAAB
    Assistant Director of the Middle East Center, University of Utah
    JAMES STEWART-ROBINSON
    Professor of Turkish Studies, University of Michigan
    FRANK TACHAU
    Professor of Political Science, University of Illinois at Chicago
    DAVID THOMAS
    Associate Professor of History, Rhode Island College
    WARREN S. WALKER
    Home Professor of English & Director of the Archive of Turkish Oral Narrative, Texas Tech University
    WALTER WEIKER
    Professor of Political Science, Rutgers University, New Jersey
    MADELINE ZILFI
    Associate Professor of History, University of Maryland
    ELAINE SMITH
    Ph.D. in Turkish History, Retired Foreign Service Officer, Washington, DC
    EZEL KURAL SHAW
    Associate Professor of History, California State University, Northridge
    FREDERICK LATIMER
    Associate Professor of History (Retired), University of Utah
    BERNARD LEWIS
    Cleveland E. Dodge Professor of Near Eastern History, Princeton University
    GRACE M. SMITH
    Visiting Lecturer in Turkish, University of California at Berkeley
    DR. SVAT SOUCEK
    Turcologist, Oriental Division, New York Public Library
    JUNE STARR
    Associate Professor of Anthropology, SUNY Stony Brook
    DR. PHILIP STODDARD
    Executive Director, Middle East Institute, Washington, D.C.
    METIN TAMKOC
    Professor of International Law and Regulations, Texas Tech University
    MARGARET L. VENZKE
    Assistant Professor of History, Dickinson College, Pennsylvania
    DONALD WEBSTER
    Professor of Turkish History, Retired, Beloit College, Wisconsin
    JOHN WOODS
    Associate Professor of Middle Eastern History, University of Chicago

  • Which Dictator Killed the Most People?

    Which Dictator Killed the Most People?

    eb16a1ffbb8908ae17276433d8862699

    Source :

  • NSW Parliament violates UN and Commonwealth laws

    NSW Parliament violates UN and Commonwealth laws

    NSW parliament
    New South Wales – Australian MPs at Nagorno Karabakh parliament

    In 2012, under the leadership of New South Wales (NSW) Premier, the Hon. Barry O’Farrell, the state parliament of NSW became the first legitimate parliament in the world to pass a motion (in violation of International and Commonwealth laws) granting the illegal occupiers of Nagorno Karabakh the right to self determination, and called upon the Australian government to follow suit.

    It also became the first legitimate parliament in the world to send an official delegation to Nagorno Karabakh, sanctioned by the NSW Premier the Hon. Barry O’Farrell.

  • Gulbenkian Foundation publishes Armenian communities plan

    Gulbenkian Foundation publishes Armenian communities plan

    Gulbenkian Foundation publishes Armenian communities plan

     

    View of the Gulbenkian museum in Lisbon. Via Wikipedia

    Related Articles

    Gulbenkian Foundation picks new Armenian communities director

    The Gulbenkian family: A legacy of philanthropy

    Lisbon, Portugal – The new Programming Plan of the Armenian Communities Department (ACD) of the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation lays out the key components of its funding priorities and activities for the next five years (2014-2018). Launching in December 2013, it is based on the Department’s mission “to create a viable future for the Armenian people in which its culture and language are preserved and valued.” The Plan is structured around the four priority areas which are crucial in fulfilling that mission: promoting the preservation of Armenian language and culture through education, supporting Armenia by investing in its youth and civil society, helping to improve Armenian-Turkish relations and preserving Armenian literary heritage.

    A consultative process was undertaken that affirmed these needs. The most important issue arising is the rapid loss of the language Calouste Gulbenkian spoke: Western Armenian. For this reason much of the funding will go towards safeguarding and developing the language and culture, particularly in the diaspora. A strategic approach is being adopted as the Department begins to provide larger sums to fewer initiatives, so that greater impact is assured.

    What follows is a presentation of the programmes, grouped around four priority areas. In addition to these, two further initiatives will be introduced: turning the Department into a hub of connections and strategic thinking for the Armenian world, and humanitarian support in unforeseen circumstances (e.g. the Armenian community in Syria). Programmes will be implemented throughout the world by trusted partners.

    1. Preservation of the Armenian language and culture, and the development of the diaspora by linking its different parts and investing in education

    i) Loss of the Western Armenian Language

    Western Armenian is an “Endangered Language” according to UNESCO, under the threat of disappearing if serious initiatives are not undertaken to reinforce it. This generation is probably the last generation that can halt or possibly reverse this process of not-so-gradual loss of a language that was a vibrant source of Armenian culture only half a century ago. The ACD will focus on the following four areas to reinforce and develop the language:

    A.  Support to Armenian Schools and Other Educational Initiatives in the Diaspora

    Armenian schools will continue to receive funding. There will be a focus on less developed countries where the Armenian community faces significant material limitations, and where there also is a critical mass of Armenian speakers (or the potential of having such a critical mass). Where there is demographic growth in a community, support for the set-up of new schools or the strengthening of existing ones will be considered.

    Student-related initiatives that preserve the language will also be financed. Innovative youth initiatives that encourage Armenians in the diaspora to speak the language and to produce culture in it will be backed, particularly in Western countries. Emphasis will be put on extra-curricular activities related to culture and initiatives that are led by young people speaking to their interests as defined by them rather than defined by traditional community leaders.

    B. Support the Creation of a Teacher Training Centre for Western Armenian

    The Department aims to foster an intellectual community that can teach the language in schools, edit the newspapers and websites of tomorrow, produce culture and manage community affairs in Armenian. To this end, it will provide a significant grant over the next two years to establish somewhere in the diaspora an Armenian Teacher Training Centre or Programme. It will also support the establishment of an International Western Armenian Teachers Association.

    C. Academic Centres and University-Based Initiatives that Teach Western Armenian and Culture, Research the Use of Western Armenian or Contribute to Armenian Studies

    Support will be available for academic centres and initiatives where Western Armenian is taught to students who specialise in Armenian studies or are learning the language for personal reasons, as well as innovative projects on the use and reinforcement of Western Armenian. Additionally, some support will be given to conferences and lectures focused on Armenian studies.

    D. Use of New Technologies

    Historically Armenians have been at the forefront of new technologies and have adapted these to the needs of Armenian culture. The ACD hopes to continue this tradition and encourage the use of modern technologies in teaching the language, producing culture and making Armenian part of the “technological world” of youth. As such, web courses and other electronic learning opportunities, innovative apps for culture and language, interactive electronic publications, online networks and other such initiatives will be considered for support. Emphasis will be put upon initiatives that reach out to Armenian youth around the world electronically, linking them, bringing Armenian culture to them and encouraging them to produce culture.

    ii) Scholarships

    Scholarships continue to be at the heart of the Department’s funding. It has developed five principal categories for university student support. In general, fewer, larger, merit-based scholarships will be awarded in order to ensure greater impact. Full information on each grant and applicant eligibility will be available on the Department’s website. The scholarship categories for the next five years are as follows: i) The Calouste Gulbenkian Global Excellence Scholarship for Armenian Students (four per year); ii) The Calouste Gulbenkian Armenian Studies Scholarship (six to ten); iii) Western Armenian Teacher Training Scholarships (six); iv) Short Term Conference and Travel Grants to Students in Armenia (approx. forty); v) The Calouste Gulbenkian Undergraduate Studies Scholarships (approx. forty). On an ad hoc basis, modest support to Armenian university students already studying in Portugal may be considered. Emergency scholarships will be provided to students caught up in conflict or other major crisis situations.

     

  • Between recognition and denial – the genocide question and Turkish-Armenian relations

    Between recognition and denial – the genocide question and Turkish-Armenian relations

    Ahmed Magdy Al-Soukkary

    The Turkish-Armenian reconciliation process is now almost completely stalled, with Turkey continuing to vehemently oppose the Armenian-inspired international campaign to secure recognition of the Armenian genocide.

    Suggested Reading

    Conflict Background

    GCCT

    By Dr. Ahmed Magdy Al-Soukkary

    At the general assembly of parliament in Baku on 15th December, Ahmet Davutoglu, Turkey’s foreign minister stated that meetings held with Armenia are not a crime, but necessary politics. These statements came a few days after his first high-level visit to Armenia in nearly five years. The Armenian question – or what is called the ‘Armenian Genocide’ (1) – has for decades strained relations between Turkey and Armenia. With the one-hundredth anniversary of the Armenian Genocide taking place in 2015, some observers think it could provide a major breakthrough in genocide recognition and Armenian-Turkish dialogue. Others, however, insist that Turkey won’t recognize genocide, arguing that the killings were in self-defence against people who were disloyal to the Ottoman Empire during World War One (2). Turkey’s continued denial has created conditions which, particularly in the view of many Armenians, necessitates the continuation of the search for international reaffirmation until acknowledgement is universal and irreversible. In the meantime, the genocide issue continues to impact the normalization of relations between Turkey and Armenia.

    The legacy of genocide

    Relations between Turkey and Armenia are burdened by a number of inter-connected problems. Turks and Armenians have, for instance, disagreed about how to describe the Ottoman-era massacres committed against Armenians in the First World War (1914-1918).(3) During and immediately after World War One, the atrocities committed against the Armenians of the Ottoman Empire were public knowledge. In their May 24th 1915 joint declaration, the Allied Powers – Great Britain, France and Russia – accused the Young Turk regime of crimes against humanity and civilization. In 1919, the post-war Ottoman government prosecuted a number of Young Turk conspirators of the crimes of massacre and plunder. By signing the Treaty of Sèvres on August 10th 1920, Turkey obligated itself to apprehend those “responsible for the massacres.” The international community did not question at the time the veracity of the reports on the extermination of the Armenians.

    The international community essentially abandoned the Armenians in 1923 when the European Powers agreed to the Treaty of Lausanne, in which Turkey was absolved of further responsibility. Turkey took license from this to embark upon a policy of denial, suppression of public discussion and prevention of any official mention of the treatment of Armenians. Europe’s determination to escape the horrors of World War One, isolationism in the US and revolutionary utopianism in Russia, further stigmatized the Armenian survivors as witnesses of a catastrophe politicians and the public wanted to quickly forget. World War Two, however, brought the problem of mass extermination into sharp relief, with the Holocaust reviving the sense of international obligation towards victimized peoples. As this sense of duty became embodied in a number of UN covenants, so Armenians began to find renewed hope that their case would receive attention. The 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide attached a label to mass slaughter and a new word entered the post-war political vocabulary – genocide. With it came the realization among Armenians that they had been victims of a crime which at the time still lacked a name.(4)

    To retrieve the memory of their forgotten genocide, Armenians initiated efforts for national and international recognition. These began with the introduction of commemorative resolutions in the United States Congress in 1975 and efforts to enter the subject on the record at the UN, which occurred with the 1985 adoption of a report on genocide by the UN Commission on Human Rights. Broader recognition was achieved in 1987 with the adoption of a resolution by the European Parliament, which stated that “the tragic events of 1915-1917…constitute genocide.” In the following years, the legislatures of countries such as Belgium, Canada, Cyprus, France, Greece and Russia adopted resolutions affirming the historical record on the Armenian Genocide. Acknowledgement also came through declarations by heads of states and pronouncements by legislators.(5)

    For Turkey, it has never faced-up to the atrocities committed during the “dying” days of the Ottoman Empire. Alarmed by territorial claims and demands for reparations by Armenians, Turkey resented that its casualties and war-time conditions in eastern Anatolia as the Ottomans fought invaders on three fronts were not taken into account. To question the official line became a criminal offence and a taboo issue.(6)

    Many who oppose official recognition of the genocide tend tacitly to admit that it did happen, but that it would be politically inconvenient to say so as this would anger Turkey – an increasingly powerful and influential country, an important NATO member and a strategic partner of the west (albeit one more than ever inclined to follow its own course). The implication is that it is still, ninety-five years later, too soon to face reality.(7)

    The AKP’s approach to dealing with the Genocide Question

    Since assuming power in November 2002, the Islamist Justice and Development Party (AKP) was preparing to start negotiations with the European Union. This path implied that Turkey should implement the EU’s conditionality principle to meet the criteria for starting accession talks; an important transformative force. The European course was instrumental in helping dispel fears of Turkey’s traditional elites for the country’s Westernization process and secular state identity under the AKP. The AKP government has realized that solely political and economic criteria are not enough to become a full member, consequently it began to invest in Turkey’s regional competencies. The South Caucasus was, for instance, one region in which Turkey could invest more, both politically and economically.

    Genocide allegations and closed borders have played a big role in directing the course of Turkey-EU relations, with the European Commission’s annual progress reports prioritising establishing good relations and opening the border. In 2005, the European Parliament passed a non-binding resolution establishing Turkey’s recognition of the Armenian genocide as a requirement for membership.  Another factor is the European Neighbourhood Policy, which includes Armenia, with the EU calling on candidates to resolve difficulties with their neighbours before accession. The AKP therefore launched the opening of relations with Armenia as a means of removing this obstacle to EU integration.(8)

    At this time, Turkey’s prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, was much more open in his treatment of the Armenian issue. Whereas the Turkish state had always dictated historical narratives down to every school book, and treated scholars and journalists who thought differently as threats to national security, Erdoğan left history to historians. Erdoğan made statements asserting that it should be up to historians to determine the exact nature of what happened to Armenians in the Ottoman Empire during the First World War. He made sure that the rules governing access to Ottoman archives were eased, even though by now these are most likely cleansed of the most obviously damning documents, and the military archives are still not fully open. Rules governing the terminology used to describe these events were eased or applied less stringently. While this was partially due to internal processes, much of this openness can be explained by European requirements during Turkey’s negotiations for entry into the European Union.(9)

    Negotiations between Turkey and Armenia – a win-lose situation?

    On August 31st 2009, Turkey and Armenia announced the beginning of formal negotiations with the end goal of normalizing ties, with the presentation of two protocols – one on developing bilateral ties, and the other on establishing diplomatic relations. Through Swiss mediation, the signature of an agreement on to establish diplomatic relations in Zurich on October 10th 2009 offered hope that some of the difficult problems in the southern Caucasus may soon be resolved. The two countries agreed in principle to open the border , closed since 1993 because of the war between Armenia and Azerbaijan, a Turkish ally, resulting from the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute. Turkey had conditioned its reopening on a settlement between Armenia and Azerbaijan.(10)

    Turkey placed special emphasis on two points:

    • The fact that the protocols, once signed, would require parliamentary approval;(11)
    • Erdoğan’s insistence on the connection between the ratification of the protocols and the normalization of Armenian relations with Azerbaijan received much criticism in Armenia.(12) This refers to the great influence of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Turkey – which has a close partnership with Azerbaijan based on linguistic ties, plus major oil and gas pipelines – has long linked any improvement in its relationship with Armenia to a negotiated settlement over Azerbaijan’s Armenian-majority enclave of Nagorno Karabakh. Not to mention that Turkey also closed the Armenia border in 1993 to put pressure on Armenian forces to withdraw from the 13.5% of Azerbaijan they currently occupy.(14)

    Despite these efforts, however, the Turkish-Armenian reconciliation process is now almost completely stalled (15). Officially, Turkey continues to vehemently oppose the Armenian-inspired international campaign to secure recognition of the genocide. Ambassadors, consuls and other officials – as well as historians who support the official Turkish position, whether of ethnic Turkish origin or not – propagate the official Turkish position in as many forums as possible. Armenians believe that the AKP government is ready to blackmail – when it can – any government that moves towards recognizing the genocide. For the Armenians, therefore, it appears that the issue has not been left to historians after all. However, Gerard Libaridian, the Armenian historian, thinks that the Armenian issue is the blind spot of the Turkish leaders’ vision.(16)

    On the level of Turkish elite and society, there is some sort of internal consensus that relations with Armenia should not be normalized at the expense of relations with Azerbaijan. Indeed, for the Turkish side, one of the most debated issues related to the protocols was the lack of any reference to Nagorno-Karabakh. Azerbaijan was determined not to support rapprochement between Turkey and Armenia as long as Nagorno-Karabakh remained unresolved.(17) It can be concluded that the protocols failed to achieve their objectives, even though the Armenian side did accept the constitution of a joint sub-commission of historians to discover the historical truth behind the genocide issue.(18)

    Between Armenian demands for recognition and Turkish denial of genocide as an official state policy, both need to adopt a new approach to dealing with this debatable historical issue with all its complexities. For Turkey, it should take concrete steps in normalizing its bilateral relations with Armenia, on the one hand, and trying to reach a political compromise to the intractable genocide issue, on the other. Armenia, meanwhile, needs to show a considerable amount of positive encouragement towards resolving the problem by separating the normalization of relations with Turkey from the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process. Only through these mutual steps can the process of reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia be revitalised.

    Dr. Ahmed Magdy Al-Soukkary is an Egyptian academic lecturer in International Negotiations at the Faculty of Economics and Political Science (FEPS), Cairo University. He has a very distinguished academic career in Turkish Studies, completing a PhD in political science and international relations on “The Process of International Negotiation –  a Theoretical Study with Application on the Turkish-European Negotiations”. His MSc in political science explored “The Impacts of the Iranian-Turkish Relations Towards the Arab Regional System in the Nineties”, whilst his graduation research paper in political science looked at “Turkey and The Arab – Israeli Conflict 1948 – 1989.”

     

  • ACT NOW: Don’t let California Education System Teach One Sided History

    ACT NOW: Don’t let California Education System Teach One Sided History

    California Residents Only

    43e78816 165f 4fe5 b62b f3fc6d137c4c

    SAY NO TO CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY BILL 659

    Give young people a choice not to be indoctrinated

    Click to send your letter in less than a minute

    Dear Friends,

    California Assembly Bill (AB) 659 seeks to amend Section 51226.3 of the state Education Code to include the alleged “Armenian genocide” in the history-social science educational curricula. Sponsored by Assemblyman Adrin Nazarian, AB 659 imposes the one-sided and legally unfounded allegation of a crime against humanity in our public education. Having passed through the Assembly committees on Education and Appropriations, under the influence of ethnic special interests, AB 659 is now up for a full Assembly vote on January 31st.As highlighted by the recent European Court of Human Rights decision in the Perinçek vs Switzerland case as well as by numerous American scholars of history, the Ottoman Armenian suffering cannot be described as ‘genocide’ – a well-defined legal term that applies only to the crimes against humanity tried in a court of law. Furthermore, the very term “Armenian genocide” excludes the massacres of over half a million Turks, Kurds, Azeris and other Muslims by the Armenian armed groups fighting alongside the Russian, Greek and French Armies in World War I.Join the Pax Turcica action campaign to urge your Assembly member to vote against AB 659 when it comes to the floor. The young generations should have a choice to not be subjected to educational malpractice based on the unfair and unethical legislation.

    Please, send your action letters NOW, make sure to select your California Assembly member as a target, spread to your friends in California, and forward all responses received to
    institute@paxturcica.org
    Click to send your letter in less than a minute

     

    ataa
    ataa
    ATAA, representing over 60 local chapters and 500,000 Turkish Americans throughout the United States, serves locally and in Washington DC to empower the Turkish American community through civic engagement, and to support strong US-Turkish relations through education and advocacy.  Established in 1979, ATAA is the largest, democratically elected Turkish American membership organization in the United States.  As a non-faith based organization, ATAA is open to people of diverse backgrounds.  The ATAA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization formed under the laws of the District of Columbia. To learn more about ATAA, please visit www.ataa.org.