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

  • Dadrian, Akcam Co-Author Book Setting Istanbul Trials in Legal Context

    Dadrian, Akcam Co-Author Book Setting Istanbul Trials in Legal Context

    Vahakn N. Dadrian and Taner Akcam

    Judgment at Istanbul: The Armenian Genocide Trials

    New York and Oxford: Berghahn Books, 2011. 363 pp.

    ISBN 978-0-85745-251-1 (hardback), ISBN 978-0-85745-286-3 (e-book)

    $110 ($75 to Zoryan Friends).

    akcam dadrian 196×300 Dadrian, Akcam Co Author Book Setting Istanbul Trials in Legal Context The cover of the book.

    In the aftermath of its disastrous defeat in World War I, Ottoman Turkey had to face the wartime crime of the destruction of its Armenian population. An inquiry commissioned by the Ottoman government in 1919 presented enough preliminary evidence to organize a series of trials involving the perpetrators of these crimes. It is the record of these trials, and the unparalleled details they provide on the planning and implementation of the crimes, that brought together the two most renowned scholars of the Armenian Genocide, Professors Vahakn Dadrian and Taner Akcam, in their first joint publication. After years of research and analysis, the authors have compiled the complete documentation of the trial proceedings and have set these findings in their historical and legal context.

    The book is entitled Judgment at Istanbul: The Armenian Genocide Trials and is published by Berghahn Books of New York and Oxford.

    In describing the book, Dadrian said, “This is a most important work, for two reasons. First, it is based on authentic Turkish documentation, which the Ottoman government was forced to release during the trials. Second, unlike most books on the Armenian Genocide, which are historical interpretations, this study, for the first time, is based also on the testimony of high-ranking Ottoman officials, given under oath, on the magnitude of the crimes against the Armenians, and in this sense, serves as a legal case study of the Armenian Genocide.”

    During his more than 50 years of research on the subject, Dadrian discovered that the Takvim-i Vekayi, the official Ottoman government’s gazette, was not the only major source of information on the military tribunals. In fact, Renaissance, a French-language Armenian newspaper in Istanbul at the time, reported summaries of many of the trial proceedings taken from the reports of the Ottoman-language newspapers of the day, which were otherwise not accounted for in official government records.

    Akcam, the book’s co-author, noted that “While the official government record lists only 12 trials, newspapers provide us details on 63. For the first time, information from the Ottoman newspapers of the era has been utilized to reconstruct the trials. A great deal of effort was required to track down all issues possible of 14 different Ottoman newspapers, which meant visiting many libraries in different cities. Often, the articles we were looking for had been cut out of the paper in one location, but we were able to find a copy in another location.”

    The Zoryan Institute sponsored the collection of these newspapers, their translation and transliteration, as part of the long-term project known as “Creating a Common Body of Knowledge,” and retains copies in its archives.

    According to the Institute’s president, K.M. Greg Sarkissian, “The objective is to provide knowledge that will be shared by Turkish and Armenian civil societies and western scholarship. The aim is to locate, collect, analyze, transliterate, translate, edit, and publish authoritative, universally recognized original archival documents on the history of the events surrounding 1915, in both Turkish and English. Elaborating on the importance not only of the primary source material in this book, but also the analysis provided by the book’s authors,” he continued, “the more such documents are made available to Turkish society, the more it will be empowered with knowledge to question narratives imposed by the state. Restoring accurate historical memory will benefit not only Turkish, but also Armenian society. Both will be emancipated from the straightjacket of the past. Such a common body of knowledge will hopefully lead to an understanding of each other, act as a catalyst for dialogue, and aid in the normalization of relations between the two societies. Judgment at Istanbul is the most recent example of the Zoryan Institute’s strong belief in the importance of a Common Body of Knowledge as a key factor in helping the future of any relationship between Turkey and Armenia.”

    The trials described in Judgment at Istanbul had a far-reaching bearing in the international community. As the first national tribunal to prosecute cases of mass atrocity, the principles of “crimes against humanity” that were introduced then had their echo subsequently in the Nuremberg Charter, the Tokyo Charter, and the UN Genocide Convention. This book is an essential source for historians, legal scholars, political scientists, sociologists, policy makers, and those interested in genocide studies, Turkish studies, and Armenian studies. It also holds great current relevance, with recent interest internationally regarding the Armenian Genocide and its denial.

    To order a copy for yourself or as a gift, or to help sponsor a book to be placed in university libraries, contact the Zoryan office by calling (416) 250-9807 or e-mailing zoryan@zoryaninstitute.org.

    via Dadrian, Akcam Co-Author Book Setting Istanbul Trials in Legal Context | Armenian Weekly.

  • France offers to host Turkish-Armenian history meeting

    France offers to host Turkish-Armenian history meeting

    ANKARA – Anatolia News Agency

    French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe speaks during a press conference in Ankara today. AFP photo
    French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe speaks during a press conference in Ankara today. AFP photo

    France’s foreign minister today said that his country could host a Turkish-Armenian joint history commission meeting.

    Alain Juppe defined the incidents of 1915 as a challenging issue, and all countries were making a memory homework about their history.

    Such a memory homework could be done in a history commission, Juppe told a joint press conference with Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu in Ankara.

    Juppe defined those days as a troublesome for both Turkey and Armenia, and said France may host a joint history meeting.

    The French foreign minister expressed thought that a significant progress could be made in such a meeting.

    Davutoğlu, in his part, said Turkey had accepted Juppe’s call for establishment of a joint history commission to investigate incidents of 1915.

    “We are ready to discuss our own history and other countries’ history in an atmosphere of mutual respect and freedom,” he said.

    Davutoğlu said however, Turkey was against laws and resolutions that would make its self-defense impossible, and noted that there was such a resolution at the French Senate today.

    “Implementation of this resolution is against French intellectual tradition and freedom of thought,” Davutoğlu said.

    Davutoğlu said Turkey would welcome any initiative from France regarding establishment of a joint history commission between Turkey and Armenia, and hoped that it would contribute to Turkish-Armenian rapprochement and normalize relations.

    In 2005, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan sent a letter to the then Armenian President Robert Kocharyan and proposed to establish a joint commission of historians to study the Ottoman-era incidents of 1915.

    via France offers to host Turkish-Armenian history meeting – Hurriyet Daily News.

  • Rep. Shelley Berkley opposes arms sale to Turkey

    Rep. Shelley Berkley opposes arms sale to Turkey

    Rep. Shelley Berkley opposes arms sale to Turkey

    By Karoun Demirjian (contact)

    1 t198She’s done it before, with Saudi Arabia. This time, Rep. Shelley Berkley doesn’t want another Israel-antagonist, Turkey, to be allowed to buy U.S. military materiel.

    Berkley is co-sponsoring a resolution to block the proposed sale of $111 million of U.S. attack helicopters to the NATO ally, and to require that the president consult Congress whenever the administration is planning to sell more than $50 million in military equipment to Turkey.

    In the “Dear Colleague” letter she and Rep. Eliot Engel have been circulating this week, Berkley lists several objections to Turkey’s political positions, including its “belligerence against Cyprus” that is “intensifying,” being “late to distance itself from the nightmare in Syria,” “undermin[ing] international efforts to impose strong sanctions on Iran,” and continued “refus[al] to apologize for the Armenian genocide.”

    But the key complaint Berkley has with Turkey is its increasingly icy relationship with Israel.

    Turkey’s humanitarian support for Palestinians in Gaza had already begun to vex Israel before May 2010, when things exploded into a full-fledged diplomatic crisis over an incident on the Turkish ship, the Mavi Marmara, which was part of an anti-occupation movement’s “Freedom Flotilla” to break Israel’s blockade of Gaza. Israeli commandos boarded the approaching ships at sea, and in the skirmishes that followed on board, killed nine Turkish nationals. Israel has not apologized for the incident, claiming it was self-defense.

    In the months since, Turkey recalled its ambassador to Israel, expelled the Israeli ambassador to Turkey, and refused Israel’s offer of aid after a devastating earthquake that hit Turkey’s eastern region around Lake Van.

    “This is the time for the United States to be raising our very serious concerns about Turkey, rather than selling arms to them,” Berkley and Engel wrote.

    (One point of dispute with Berkley’s complaints: while Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan was late to support NATO action on Libya, his harsh criticism of Bashar al-Assad’s crackdown against protesters in Syria began only shortly after Hillary Clinton’s and before Barack Obama joined the fray. Turkey is now harboring most of the Syrian refugees, including military defectors who are helping coordinate the uprisings. One thing noticeably missing from Berkley’s letter: any mention of the Kurdish population of Turkey, currently being subjected to the most humanitarian injustices at the hands of the Turkish government.)

    Berkley isn’t going so far, as she did with Saudi Arabia, as to claim Turkey would use these weapons against Israel — just arguing that Turkey should not be rewarded for its anti-Israel and anti-Cypriate behavior.

    But if Berkley is this upset about the sale of three attack helicopters, it’s only bound to get worse: Turkey has also requested to purchase Predator and Reaper drones from the United States, and according to reports, the Pentagon isn’t opposed to the idea.

    Turkey has lobbied the U.S. to become a base for a fleet of Predator drones, most of which are operated from the Creech Air Force Base in Nevada, once the United States leaves Iraq at the end of the year. Turkey wants to use the drones to fight the P.K.K., the Kurdish separatist group that is fighting for its own country on Turkish territory.

    The United States and Turkey have collaborated on the P.K.K. in the past, with the United States sharing drone footage from northern Iraq, where there is a strong Kurdish population and from where, Turkey says, most of the group’s attacks are coordinated.

    In the past, the U.S. has cited Turkey’s strategic military position as a reason not to antagonize the country over some of the political positions Berkley complains of in her letter, including its occupation of part of Cyprus and its disavowal of the Armenian genocide.

    via Rep. Shelley Berkley opposes arms sale to Turkey – Wednesday, Nov. 9, 2011 | 1:14 p.m. – Las Vegas Sun.

  • European Parliament demands letter from Turkey on anti-Armenian activist

    European Parliament demands letter from Turkey on anti-Armenian activist

    80353ISTANBUL. – The Turkish government sent a letter with regard to the lawsuit, which was filed against Switzerland with the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), by Dogu Perincek, a sworn anti-Armenian activist who is currently in prison in connection with Turkey’s Ergenekon affair.

    ECHR had demanded writing from Turkey, concerning the court proceedings launched against Switzerland by chairman Dogu Perincek of Turkey’s Workers’ Party. And it became apparent that Turkey has sent a letter to ECHR, and in Perincek’s favor, Hurriyet daily of Turkey informed.

    To note, the Swiss court had sentenced Perincek for denying the Armenian Genocide.

    Dogu Perincek is known for his extreme anti-Armenian activities. The Talat Pasha organization, which Perincek founded, fights against the Armenian Genocide’s recognition in Europe.

    Also, Turkish journalists had found out that Perincek has Armenian roots, as inhabitants of the village, where his mother and father had lived, were entirely Armenians.

    via European Parliament demands letter from Turkey on anti-Armenian activist | Armenia News – NEWS.am.

  • France’s scramble to grab a role for itself in Armenia

    France’s scramble to grab a role for itself in Armenia

     

    sarkozy sargsyanAn early October visit paid to the Armenian capital Yerevan by French President Nicolas Sarkozy has triggered not only a new predicament in terms of Turkey’s relations with Armenia, but also marked an important turning point regarding France’s regional influence. (more…)

  • Armenia Delegation Disappointed with Istanbul Symposium to Revitalize Armenia-Turkey Rapprochement: Giragosian

    Armenia Delegation Disappointed with Istanbul Symposium to Revitalize Armenia-Turkey Rapprochement: Giragosian

    kirakosyan1 1EpressAm — A two-day symposium entitled “The Normalization Process between Turkey and Armenia: Prospects for Revitalization” took place in Istanbul last week with the participation of about 30 well-known academics and experts from Turkey and Armenia, as well as from other countries.

    The symposium aimed to explore the dynamics of the Armenia-Turkey rapprochement process in 2008–2009, the factors that led to the current stalemate, as well as the prospects for the revitalization of the normalization process. Participants were expected to examine the evolution of the rapprochement by focusing on its intergovernmental as well as civil society dimensions, as well as to analyze the current state of the normalization process by not only exploring the positions of the parties, but also situating the process into the relevant regional and international context.

    The symposium also happened to coincide with the day in 1923 when Turkey declared itself a republic (Oct. 29).

    Participating in the symposium from Armenia were military and political analyst Richard Giragosian (pictured); Caucasus Institute Director Alexander Iskandaryan, Human Rights and Conflicts Research Institute NGO President Armen Melkonyan and head of the Political Studies Department at the Caucasus Institute Sergey Minasyan.

    Richard Giragosian shared his impressions of the symposium and his prospects for Armenian-Turkish relations with editor of the Istanbul-based IMC TV Aris Nalci, particularly noting that the delegation from Armenia was somewhat frustrated and disappointed after the symposium.

    Giragosian said though the conference was organized by two leading universities in Ankara with the support of Turkey’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and aimed to find new ways of revitalizing the normalization process, but it seems clear that this conference reaffirmed two realities: the first, Armenian-Turkish normalization is no longer a priority for Turkey, and second, Turkey is once again attempting to “repackage” a precondition over Nagorno-Karabakh with Armenian-Turkish diplomacy.

    “Despite the fact that both the US and Russia, as well as the EU have made it clear there is no reference to Karabakh within the Protocols. And to attempt at this late stage to re-link the issues is unhelpful at best and insincere at worst. So what we see is Turkey seems rather insincere and in danger of being perceived as an unreliable and unready interlocutor for Armenia,” he said, adding that it’s unfortunate because “we have a window of opportunity that is now closing.”

    The analyst pointed out that all expectations and the burden are on Turkey, as “Armenia has done everything it can and more.”

    On the matter of normalizing Armenia-Turkey relations, Giragosian highlighted Azerbaijan’s role, saying that though Azerbaijan has no place in the dialogue between the two states, it does, however, have great power over Turkey. In his opinion, this is a problem Turkey has to deal with, just as the Armenian Genocide is a problem Turkey has to deal with.

    “The Azerbaijan issue has become a domestic Turkish political issue,” he added.

    Speaking about the effectiveness of the discussions held in Istanbul, Giragosian said that such meetings are very important (“the dialogue of normalization needs to continue”) as they sustain the momentum of “Track 2 Diplomacy” between Armenia and Turkey, “to prepare the groundwork for when the states are ready to recommit.”

    “What we’re also doing is correcting a mistake from the Protocols. The mistake was neither Turkey nor Armenia did enough to prepare public opinion for normalization,” he said.

    Asked by Nalci what Armenia’s next steps might be, Giragosian said:

    “We can continue to pressure the Turkish side and to keep the Armenian side willing and ready to move forward. But at the same time what we can do is what we’re doing — Track 2 diplomacy in terms of civil society engagement, to actually sustain this momentum… Just the fact that we’re coming and going to each other’s countries, just the fact that the Genocide issue is no longer taboo means that we need to recognize and build on the progress we have made to date,” he explained.

    If Turkey doesn’t respond to Armenia’s move, if there is no rapprochement, what might Armenia’s policy be? asked Nalci.

    “Well, unfortunately, what concerns me from a civil society point of view is that Turkey seems to fail to recognize the fact that patience on the Armenian side is not without limit. And a policy of preconditions is bold by the Armenian side but without reciprocal measures from the Turkish side it’s a dangerous political policy that may change. And the real pressure Turkey faces is 2015, the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide… I’m just worried that if the stars don’t align again and normalization doesn’t return to Track 1 state level, there is a bigger danger that next time we try this it will be that much harder,” Giragosian concluded.

    Article source:

    via ArmeniaDiaspora.com – News from Armenia, Events in Armenia, Travel and Entertainment | Armenia Delegation Disappointed with Istanbul Symposium to Revitalize Armenia-Turkey Rapprochement: Giragosian.