Category: Main Issues

  • Azerbaijani view of Gul’s visit to Yerevan

    Azerbaijani view of Gul’s visit to Yerevan

    Turkish Journal California Representative Isil Oz talked to Azerbaijani-American Council (AAC) – Javid Huseynov to get some information about their feelings for Gul’s visit to Yerevan.

    September 6th 2008

    Isil Oz (Turkish Journal)

    Today a World Cup qualifying game between the Turkish and Armenian national football teams will take place in Yerevan. Armenian President Serge Sarkisian invited his Turkish counterpart to “watch the game together” in an article he wrote for the Wall Street Journal, July 9. After this article, President Abdullah Gul decided to go to Yerevan… Some have said Gul showed “the foresight and the courage” needed to act. Some have questioned why Gul should visit a country they refer to as Turkey’s enemy.

    What about Azerbaijani side?

    President Gul’s visit to Yerevan has come under a heavy criticism of Azerbaijani mainstream media, some officials and independent analysts. So I talked to Azerbaijani-American Council (AAC) – Javid Huseynov to get some information about their feelings for Gul’s visit to Yerevan.

    “President Gul’s landmark visit to Yerevan today may open a new chapter in Turkey’s relations with its troublesome neighbor. Media and analysts in Turkey, Armenia and other countries attempt to provide a variety of analyses citing primarily positive sides of this symbolic gesture.

    In Azerbaijan, Mr. Gul’s Yerevan visit has come under substantial criticism of the media, various officials and independent analysts. Certainly, the government of Azerbaijan has its own views in this regard, which may have been conveyed to Prime Minister Erdogan upon his recent visit to Baku. Azerbaijani position in this regard is naturally shaped by the unresolved Karabagh conflict. Speaking from a moral standpoint, Mr. Gul accepted this invitation from a man who participated in Karabagh war atrocities, namely, gave orders during the brutal Khojaly massacre against Azeri Turks in 1992. In fact, Mr. Sarkissian, now President of Armenia, is also the author of the following words:

    “before Khojali, the Azerbaijanis thought that they were joking with us, they thought that the Armenians were people who could not raise their hand against the civilian population. We were able to break that [stereotype].” (Thomas De Waal. “Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan through Peace and War”, NYU Press,2004

    From Azerbaijani perspective?

    A trip by President Gul would be seen similar to a hypothetical visit by a Turkish head of state to Bosnia upon an invitation from Radovan Karadzic or a hypothetical visit by Azerbaijani head of state to Turkey upon an invitation from Abdullah Ocalan. In legal terms, there is no difference between the actions of Karadzic in Bosnia, Ocalan in Turkey, and those of Sarkissian in Azerbaijan.

    However, let’s put aside Azerbaijani position as one-sided, and look at this visit from a position of an independent observer.

    First of all, Turkey severed its relations with Armenia in 1993, as a result of Armenian occupation of Karabagh and 7 surrounding districts, all internationally recognized parts of Azerbaijan. I shall remind that Karabagh war resulted in 30,000 civilian deaths, out of which 25,000 were Azeri Turks, an ethnic cleansing and exodus of close to 1 million Azeris from their homes. The Turkish condition for the restoration of those relations was simple – Armenia must respect international law, withdraw forces, allow refugees to return to their homes and start negotiations about the future of Karabagh region.

    There is nothing ambiguous in this Turkish condition, in fact, there are 4 UN Security Council resolutions from 1993, calling upon Armenian forces to withdraw from Azerbaijan proper and allow for the return of civilians. Yet Armenia up to date has not fulfilled this international demand. In fact, over the last 15 years, Armenia has actively dragged the peace process, while reinforcing and resettling the occupied territories, destroying any Azeri trace on them. Furthermore, Armenia established an unrecognized separatist regime of “Nagorno-Karabagh Republic”, and two recent Armenian presidents, Robert Kocharyan and Serge Sarkissian, are products of this regime. Armenian side claims the right of “self-determination of people Karabagh”, with a little deviation: this right is only for Armenian population. As a reminder, prior to Karabagh war, third of Karabagh’s population were Azeri Turks.

    The second condition of Turkey was for Armenia to cease its support for the international legal recognition of interethnic strife that took place in Eastern Anatolia in the course of World War I as Armenian genocide. As we know this effort is led by Armenian diaspora, which plays an important role in politics of Armenia. Yet in past decade, it became obvious that Armenian government would not be able to stop diaspora even if it officially refrained from supporting its efforts.

    The third and most important condition was for Armenia to recognize and respect the borders of neighboring countries, of course, primarily Turkey and Azerbaijan. Armenia is the only country in the world, which does not recognize the borders of Azerbaijan and occupies part of its territory. Being a signatory of 1921 Kars Treaty, Armenia also does not respect the borders of Turkey, in fact, in Armenian legislature, media and press, Eastern Anatolia is referred to as Western Armenia. Moreover, there are now occasional voices in Armenia wishing to raise the issue Armenian-settled Javakheti region of Georgia, opening a way for disrespecting the integrity of yet another neighboring country.

    Do you think that the recently elected president of Armenia will make changes in their policies?

    With the bloody and undemocratic election of Serge Sarkissian in March 2008, Armenia did not seem to change its decade-old position on any of the fundamental issues of concern for Turkey. Despite the fact that its confrontational policy against neighbors resulted in locked borders, isolation from important regional projects and slow economic development, Armenia has not stepped back from its position for an inch. Sarkissian insists on reopening relations without preconditions, i.e. Armenia and diaspora will continue doing what they were doing but Turkey should eventually open the border.

    What is the benefit for Turkey?

    Perhaps, Mr. Gul and Turkish diplomats can answer this question better. But even without their opinion, this visit by Abdullah Gul can be viewed as a reward for Armenia’s aggressive policy and essential failure of Turkish principles. It’s psychological victory for Armenia and a boost to Serge Sarkissian, with little or no return for Turkey.

    Recent war between Russia and Georgia, further limited Armenia’s choices, and perhaps, after some time with now three borders closed, Armenian government would be forced to rethink its unconstructive policy in the region. President Gul’s visit, however, offers a needless incentive rather than helping Armenia to come to terms with reality and obey international law.

    What’s your view of Turkey’s position regarding recent events in Caucasus?

    As we know, in the wake of Russia’s recent aggression against Georgia, Prime Minister Erdogan came up with the initiative of a new regional security arrangement, involving Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, Turkey and Russia. I can’t comment on this proposal in detail, as not much is known about it. But the timing of this proposal and parties involved in it do not offer a very bright perspective for this idea. First of all, Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity is violated by Armenia without any desire to revert its policy. Georgia’s integrity is violated even more boldly by Russia against all letters of international law. Turkey is perceived as an enemy by Armenia and Armenians for four generations now. So I am not sure what kind of cooperation Mr. Erdogan is envisioning.

    But I also would like to comment on Turkey’s stance vis-à-vis events in Georgia. Perhaps, due to similar conditions in Kosovo and Northern Cyprus, Turkey could not be more vocal on the issue of violation of Georgia’s integrity. However, in my view, Turkish government should have responded with humanitarian aid and support to Georgia. For many years now, Georgia has courageously stood against Russian provocations to provide a path for delivering Azerbaijani hydrocarbons to Turkey. In other words, Georgia took all risks in its Western orientation and to the benefit of Turkey and its position as a new energy hub. Turkey should not have left Georgia without support at such crucial moment.

    What about the position that was taken by Turkish government?

    The action of Turkish government in this regard may raise questions about the reliability of Turkey as a regional ally for both Azerbaijan and Georgia. In other words, Turkey has demonstrated that in matters pertaining to the region of Caucasus, it cannot be an independent player, but only act in tandem with Russia or the United States. Combined with Gul’s visit to Yerevan, in my mind, these indicate the weakening of Turkey’s position in the region.

    Of course, Turkey has to uphold its own interests above all, yet it’s not quite visible what benefits would Turkey gain from Armenia while losing Azerbaijan and Georgia. Aside from ethnic affinities between Azeri and Anatolian Turks, the Turkish energy interests shall be considered as well.

    Couldn’t we think Turkey is searching for new opportunities?

    What sort of opportunities? Armenia’s purpose is to open the border, reinforce its stance vis-à-vis Azerbaijan. Armenia does not plan to step back from any of its positions, and it’s naïve to imagine that Armenian troops will leave Karabagh region and allow refugees to return to their homes or will stop supporting the historical blackmail of Turkey after border is opened.

    The public in Turkey as well as Turkish diaspora is being constantly brainwashed via various media outlets that opening of borders will bring benefits to Turkey too. If so – what are they? Armenia is economically dependent on border opening, Turkey is not. But opening of borders without compromise is a meaningless retraction from Turkish position, which will only strengthen and embolden the non-constructive position of Sarkissian’s regime vis-à-vis both Azerbaijan and Turkey.

    Do you think this visit will affect the fraternal relations Azeri and Anatolian Turks in the U.S.?

    I want to reiterate that from the position of diaspora, a visit by President Gul won’t affect the fraternal relations of Azeri and Anatolian Turks in the U.S. Our brotherhood is shaped not by political establishment but by centuries of common Turkic ethnic roots, language, identity, and culture, and no one is in power to change these. 

    Javid Huseynov, PhD is the current president of Azerbaijani-American Council (AAC) established in 2006, and currently operating in California and Texas. AAC is a community organization of Azeri-Americans, working also closely with ATA-SC and its local chapters, American Jewish Committee (AJC) and other community grassroots organizations in California and nation-wide. AAC website is available at .

    In professional career, Dr. Huseynov is a senior software engineer and scientist, working in Orange County. Since 1995, he actively participated in grassroots activities of Azerbaijani and Turkish diaspora in the United States. 

  • Turkey and Armenia Friends and neighbours

    Turkey and Armenia Friends and neighbours

     

    Sep 25th 2008 | ANKARA AND YEREVAN
    From The Economist print edition
    Rising hopes of better relations between two historic enemies

     
    KEMAL ATATURK , father of modern Turkey, rescued hundreds of Armenian women and children from mass slaughter by Ottoman forces during and after the first world war. This untold story, which is sure to surprise many of today’s Turks, is one of many collected by the Armenian genocide museum in Yerevan that “will soon be brought to light on our website,” promises Hayk Demoyan, its director.
    His project is one more example of shifting relations between Turkey and Armenia. On September 6th President Abdullah Gul became the first Turkish leader to visit Armenia when he attended a football match. Mr Gul’s decision to accept an invitation from Armenia’s president, Serzh Sarkisian, has raised expectations that Turkey may establish diplomatic ties and open the border it closed during the 1990s fighting between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh. The two foreign ministers were planning to meet in New York this week. Armenia promises to recognise Turkey’s borders and to allow a commission of historians to investigate the fate of the Ottoman Armenians.
    Reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia could tilt the balance of power in the Caucasus. Russia is Armenia’s closest regional ally. It has two bases and around 2,000 troops there. The war in Georgia has forced Armenia to rethink its position. Some 70% of its supplies flow through Georgia, and these were disrupted by Russian bombing. Peace with Turkey would give Armenia a new outside link. Some think Russia would be happy too. “It would allow Russia to marginalise and lean harder on Georgia,” argues Alexander Iskandaryan, director of the Caucasus Media Institute.
    Mending fences with Armenia would bolster Turkey’s regional clout. And it might also help to kill a resolution proposed by the American Congress to call the slaughter of the Armenians in 1915 genocide. That makes the Armenian diaspora, which is campaigning for genocide recognition, unhappy. Some speak of a “Turkish trap” aimed at rewriting history to absolve Turkey of wrongdoing. Indeed, hawks in Turkey are pressing Armenia to drop all talk of genocide.
    Even more ambitiously, the hawks want better ties with Armenia to be tied anew to progress over Nagorno-Karabakh. But at least Mr Gul seems determined to press ahead. “If we allow the dynamics that were set in motion by the Yerevan match to slip away, we may have to wait another 15-20 years for a similar chance to arise,” he has said.

  • Rice Praises ‘Healing Reforms’ In Armenia

    Rice Praises ‘Healing Reforms’ In Armenia

     

     

     

     

     

    By Emil Danielyan

    U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice praised President Serzh Sarkisian for his efforts to end Armenia’s post-election political crisis and improve its relations with Turkey as they met in New York late Wednesday.

    In her opening remarks at the meeting released by the U.S. State Department, Rice spoke of “healing reforms” which she believes have been initiated by Sarkisian since the dramatic aftermath of the Armenian presidential election. “We believe that you have made some good steps to address this, and so I’m here to build on that and to move forward,” she said.

    Sarkisian, for his part, thanked the United States for its “financial assistance and non-financial help” to Armenia. “They are both important,” he said at the start of the talks held on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly.

    Ever since he took office on April 9, Sarkisian has been under pressure from the U.S. and other Western powers to end his predecessor Robert Kocharian’s harsh crackdown on the Armenian opposition. The crackdown has involved mass arrests and the use of lethal force against opposition demonstrators demanding a re-run of the February 19 presidential election which Washington has described as “significantly flawed.”

    U.S. officials have repeatedly urged the new Armenian administrations to release all political prisoners, abolish severe restrictions on freedom of assembly and engage in dialogue with the opposition led by former President Levon Ter-Petrosian. They have said that is essential for the provision of $235.6 million in additional U.S. assistance to Armenia, that was effectively frozen following the bloody suppression of the opposition protests in Yerevan.

    Earlier this month, the U.S. Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) again declined to disburse the first major installment of the five-year aid package earmarked for the reconstruction of Armenia’s rural roads. The $7.5 million tranche was due to be released in May. In a June statement, the MCC board said the Armenian government should do more to address U.S. concerns about the political situation in the country.

    In a statement, Sarkisian’s office quoted Rice as saying that the steps taken by the new Armenian president create a “good basis” for the continuation of U.S. aid. The statement said the two also spoke about U.S.-led international efforts to settle the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, with Sarkisian reaffirming his declared commitment to a “compromise solution.”

    Visiting Baku and Yerevan earlier this month, the U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Matthew Bryza indicated that the OSCE’s Minsk Group, which he co-heads together with senior Russian and French diplomats, will step up its efforts to broker a framework peace agreement on Karabakh before the end of this year. Bryza and the two other co-chairs met Sarkisian in New York earlier on Wednesday. Sarkisian’s office said they discussed the possibility of arranging another meeting of the Armenian and Azerbaijani presidents.

    Armenia’s unprecedented rapprochement with Turkey, long championed by the U.S., was also on the agenda of Rice talks Sarkisian. According to the latter’s press service, Rice welcomed Yerevan’s overtures to Ankara and expressed hope that Turkish President Abdullah Gul’s historic visit to Armenia will lead to the normalization of relations between the two neighboring states.

    Foreign Minister Eduard Nalbandian and his Turkish counterpart Ali Babacan were scheduled to meet in New York on Thursday in an effort to keep up momentum in the Turkish-Armenian dialogue. They were expected to discuss and possibly finalize a joint declaration that would call for the creation of Turkish-Armenian commissions dealing with economic and other issues of mutual interest. According to Turkish press reports, one of those commissions would be made up of historians tasked with studying the 1915 mass killings of Armenians in Ottoman Turkey.

    The idea of conducting such a study is unpopular in Armenia and especially its worldwide Diaspora. Many Armenian politicians and Diaspora leaders fear that the Turks would exploit it to keep more foreign nations from recognizing the massacres as genocide.

    Sarkisian sought to allay these fears as he spoke before hundreds of Americans of Armenian descent in New York on Wednesday. He described Turkey’s current leadership as “courageous” and said many Turks are now ready to face up to their troubled Ottoman past.

    “We must now think about how we can help Turkish society be more objective towards its own history,” said Sarkisian. “A society of which hundreds of thousands representatives took to the streets [of Istanbul] with banners saying ‘We are all Hrant Dink’ and ‘We are all Armenians.’

    “One thing is clear to me: we must talk about all topics. Only those people who have nothing to say and suffer from complexes avoid contacts, conversations. We have no complexes and our message is clear.”

    Sarkisian also assured Armenian-American activists that Gul is genuinely committed to Turkish-Armenian reconciliation. “I am convinced that now is really the time to solve the problems in Turkish-Armenian relations, and I saw a readiness to do in my Turkish counterpart,” he said. “I felt that he has sufficient courage to make difficult decisions.”

  • Turkey and Armenia – Friends and neighbours

    Turkey and Armenia – Friends and neighbours

    Sep 25th 2008 | ANKARA AND YEREVAN
    From The Economist print edition

    Rising hopes of better relations between two historic enemies

    KEMAL ATATURK, father of modern Turkey, rescued hundreds of Armenian women and children from mass slaughter by Ottoman forces during and after the first world war. This untold story, which is sure to surprise many of today’s Turks [sic], is one of many collected by the Armenian genocide museum in Yerevan that “will soon be brought to light on our website,” promises Hayk Demoyan, its director.

    His project is one more example of shifting relations between Turkey and Armenia. On September 6th President Abdullah Gul became the first Turkish leader to visit Armenia when he attended a football match. Mr Gul’s decision to accept an invitation from Armenia’s president, Serzh Sarkisian, has raised expectations that Turkey may establish diplomatic ties and open the border it closed during the 1990s fighting between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh. The two foreign ministers were planning to meet in New York this week. Armenia promises to recognise Turkey’s borders and to allow a commission of historians to investigate the fate of the Ottoman Armenians.

    Reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia could tilt the balance of power in the Caucasus. Russia is Armenia’s closest regional ally. It has two bases and around 2,000 troops there. The war in Georgia has forced Armenia to rethink its position. Some 70% of its supplies flow through Georgia, and these were disrupted by Russian bombing. Peace with Turkey would give Armenia a new outside link. Some think Russia would be happy too. “It would allow Russia to marginalise and lean harder on Georgia,” argues Alexander Iskandaryan, director of the Caucasus Media Institute.

    Mending fences with Armenia would bolster Turkey’s regional clout. And it might also help to kill a resolution proposed by the American Congress to call the slaughter of the Armenians in 1915 genocide. That makes the Armenian diaspora, which is campaigning for genocide recognition, unhappy. Some speak of a “Turkish trap” aimed at rewriting history to absolve Turkey of wrongdoing. Indeed, hawks in Turkey are pressing Armenia to drop all talk of genocide.

    Even more ambitiously, the hawks want better ties with Armenia to be tied anew to progress over Nagorno-Karabakh. But at least Mr Gul seems determined to press ahead. “If we allow the dynamics that were set in motion by the Yerevan match to slip away, we may have to wait another 15-20 years for a similar chance to arise,” he has said.

    Source: Economist, 25 September 2008

  • THE INTER-ALLIED CONDEMNATION OF GREECE

    THE INTER-ALLIED CONDEMNATION OF GREECE

    September 23, 2008

     

    Nurten Ural, President, ATAA
    Gunay Evinch, President-Elect, ATAA
    [email protected]

     

    GREEK VIOLATIONS DURING THE GREEK MILITARY INVASION
    IN 1919 AND THE GREEK RETREAT IN 1922

    THE INTER-ALLIED CONDEMNATION OF GREECE

     

    I. Introduction:

    The Greek military invasion and occupation of western Anatolia (1919-22) is a difficult memory for both Turks and Greeks, and a source of friction and, sometimes, animosity in the modern day.  This tragic event that changed the face of western Anatolia forever may better be understood in its proper political context as reported by the victorious World War I Allies in the Inter-Allied Commission’s Report of October 1919 and diplomatic dispatches during the period 1919-23.

    II. The Greek Invasion and Occupation of Western Turkey:

    On May 14, 1919, British, French, Italian and Greek Allied forces landed at the port of Izmir, in stated accordance with Article 7 of the Armistice of the Port of Mudros which provided, “The Allies have the right to occupy any strategic points in the event of a situation arising which threatens the security of the Allies.” Impatient with the formulation of a treaty and occupation strategy, on May 15, 1919, the Greek Orthodox Metropolite of Izmir conducted a large ceremony to bless the Greek troops, after which Greek forces commenced an inland invasion resulting in a two-year violent occupation of western Anatolia.

    The massacres were accompanied by widespread looting and raping.  More than 2,500 Turks, many children younger than 14, were detained under inhuman conditions.  Greeks also killed members of the Jewish population, and desecrated their cemeteries, homes and businesses.  Without seeking permission from the Allies, Greek troops continued their brutal occupation of Western Anatolia, occupying Urla on May 17; Cesme and the southeastern and northeastern parts of Aydin on May 20; Manisa on May 26; Turgutlu, Bayindir and Tire on May 29; and, Odemis, Bergama and Kusadasi by mid June 1919.

    The second phase – the retreat of Greek forces from Atatürk’s advancing Turkish forces — did not take place until the summer of 1922.  The Greek retreat included massacres as well as the burning of additional hundreds of Muslim and Jewish towns, villages and urban quarters in a scorched earth campaign.  Violence against Turkish women was a dominant theme in the Greek retreat.

    III. The Inter-Allied Condemnation of Greece:

    Reports of the atrocities and other inhumane acts committed against western Anatolian Muslim and Jewish populations led to the formation of a Special Commission of Judicial Inquiry on June 17, 1919.  The Commission collected extensive evidence and witnesses, meeting forty-six times between August 12 and October 15. The Commission detailed the atrocities committed by Greek troops and Greek civilians, and concluded that the Greeks were responsible for the massacres and ill treatment of Turkish Muslims and Jews in western Anatolia.

    Unwilling to replace Greek troops with Allied troops, the Commission issued no more than a stern condemnation to Greek Premier Venizelos. No criminal prosecutions occurred.  The victims were abandoned without redress. In essence, while Greece was condemned, no Allied force wanted to assume the responsibility of a proper occupation or make sure that Greece did.  Atrocities against Turks resumed and escalated as Greek forces invaded deeper into Anatolia.

    The Commission’s final report consisted of three sections: the established facts, an account of the responsibilities, and the findings and recommendations of the Commission.  These sections are summarized as follows:

    1. Account of Events Established during the Inter-Allied Inquiry of August 12-October 6, 1919 – Decided in Istanbul, October 7, 1919

    The fears of Christian massacres by the Turks – propounded by Greeks – proved unjustified, and the state of security worsened after the Greek occupation.  There was no organized Turkish resistance to the landing, and any shots fired by the Turks against Greek troops, were isolated.  As Greek soldiers marched through town, they, together with Greek civilians committed numerous acts of violence – including looting, robbing and raping – upon the Turkish civilians.  On the first day of the occupation alone, 300-400 Turks were killed or wounded.  Greek troops arbitrarily arrested 2500 people, some of them children under 14: these people were mistreated, robbed and detained under horrendous conditions.  Many were summarily executed.  Except for a few exceptions, Greek officers did nothing to stop the acts of violence of their troops.  News of unabated looting in Izmir led to extensive looting and violence against Turks in nearby towns by Greek inhabitants.  The Greek High Commissioner acted against the orders of the Entente by ordering the occupation of Aydin, Magnesios and Kassaba.

    On June 17, Greek troops killed and wounded 400 defenseless Turks in the village of Menemen.  Greek troops carried out armed reconnaissance patrols around Aydin.  During these maneuvers, several villages were burned down.  The burning of villages was a Greek military policy and systematically implemented.

    On June 29, a large number of Turkish women and children were massacred by Greek soldiers, while flee the burning Turkish quarter of Aydin.  Fires destroyed two thirds of Aydin.  Any houses that were not burned down were looted.  The losses caused by the fires have been valued at approximately eight million pounds sterling.  In the districts abandoned by Turks fleeing Greek occupation, crop losses were estimated at one million two hundred thousand pounds.  Turkish refugees had not returned to their homes at the date of this hearing.  In certain areas, such as the Meander valley, entire villages had been ethnically cleansed.

    2.  Establishment of Responsibilities – Decided in Istanbul, October 11, 1919

    The Commission held that responsibility for the atrocities in Izmir and the immediate vicinity on May 15-16 rested with the Greek High Command, although some responsibility was apportioned to the Turkish authorities for allowing prisoners to escape on the day of the landing.  “Far from being a civilizing mission, the Greeks’ occupation had assumed the appearance of a conquest and crusade.”

    3.  Conclusions Put Forth by the Commission – Decided in Istanbul, October 13, 1919

    The Commission proposed replacing some of the Greek troops with allied troops as soon as possible, and for the Turkish authority to restore civil administration and reorganize the constabulary.  Greek Commander, Colonel Mazarakis, sought to defend the atrocities committed by minimizing their extent, and arguing that the occupation was necessary to protect Greeks living in the area.  The Commission dismissed Mazarakis’ arguments on October 14, 1919, and let its findings of October 11 stand.

    To download the Inter-Allied Commission Report, please click here.

    IV. Greek Violations during the Greek Military Retreat

    “The Greek retreat, followed by the scenes at Smyrna, forms a sickening record of bestiality and barbarity.” – British Foreign Office, 1922 (Rumbold to Curzon no. 440, 19 September 1922: FO 371/7891: Gilbert, Rumbold: p. 263)

    The Greek occupation was momentarily checked in January and March 1921 following Greek defeat in the two battles of Inonu (January 1921; March 1921).  A more decisive Turkish victory during the summer of 1921, at the battle of Sakarya (August-September, 1921), forced the Greeks to retreat from their positions.  The Great Offensive of August 1922, however, was the final defeat that sent the Greek troops and civilians fleeing before Mustafa Kemal’s Nationalist armies. 

    Mustafa Kemal and the Turkish army entered Izmir on September 8, 1922 to the relief and jubilation of the oppressed population.  Although Greek troops were unable to burn Izmir before they left, the remaining Armenian population in the city set fires a few days later.  These fires, finally under control by September 15, ravaged three quarters of the beautiful “pearl of the Aegean”, including Mustafa Kemal’s headquarters.

    The following sections provide examples of the Greek killing wave throughout the already decimated regions of Western Anatolia and the Aegean, including the final desolation of Izmir.

    1. The Manisa Massacres:

    While fleeing the Nationalist armies, Greek troops took the time to arrange for the destruction of Manisa.  The Greek and Armenian populations were given three days to evacuate the city prior to the date of the fire – September 6, 1922.  The Jewish and Muslim residents were forced to remain.  On the night of September 6, Manisa was in flames – lit by specially designated Greek civilians.  The destruction by fire within the city limits was as follows: 2728 shops, nineteen hans, three factories, and five farms.  A further 1740 village houses were burned in surrounding areas.  Three thousand five hundred people perished in the fires and a further 855 were shot to death.  The number of wounded was 167.  Several young girls were taken by the retreating Greek troops (Turkiye’de Yunan Vahset ve Soykirim Girisimi (15 Mayis 1919 – 9 Eylul 1922), II nci Cilt, 13 Eylul 1921 – 9 Eylul 1922, Em.Kur.Alb.Talat Yalazan, Ankara 1994, pp. 152-153).  In addition, Greek brigands killed and robbed the survivors as they were fleeing to the hills. 

    Throughout the entire Greek occupation and retreat, 3716 people were killed, 77 were raped, 800 were taken by the troops, and 716 were tortured.  Over 10,000 buildings were burned down, including several farms and more than 9,000 houses.  Twenty-four villages were entirely destroyed by fire (Id. at p. 155)

    Franklin-Boullion, in Manisa at the time of the Greek destruction, reported as follows:

    “…Manisa used to be a town of 50,000 inhabitants and 11,000 houses. Today there are only one thousand houses left.  The Greek commander directed the fire from his balcony while smoking a cigarette.” (Vakit, 3 October 1922.)

    2. Kasaba (Turgutlu):

    Specially designated Greek and Armenian citizens set fire to Kasaba (Turgutlu) on September 6.  Those trying to flee their homes were summarily shot, regardless of sex or age.  The destruction of Kasaba was such that less than 200 houses out of 6,000 remained standing (Ibid).  Very few of the remaining houses were inhabitable.  Of the town’s 20,000 population, only one half remained after the Greek retreat.  Corpses were still being recovered nineteen days after the fire (Turkiye’de Yunan Vahset ve Soykirimi Girisimi, at p. 151).  The number of young girls and women raped was over 400.  The bodies of several young women were found tied together, floating in the waters of the nearby Nif Suyu (Turkiye’de Yunan Vahset ve Soykirimi Girisimi, at p. 151, 155) .  The American Consul at Izmir, Park, who toured the area reported as follows:

    “We were told that Kassaba was a city of 40,000 souls, 3,000 of whom were non-Moslems.  Of these 37,000 Turks only 6,000 could be accounted for among the living, while 1,000 Turks were known to have been shot or burned to death.  Of the 2,000 buildings that constituted the city, only 200 remained standing… [T]he city was systematically destroyed by Greek soldiers, assisted by a number of Greek and Armenian civilians.  Kerosene and gasoline were freely used to make the destruction more certain, rapid, and complete.” (Death and Exile, at p. 281)

    3. Eskisehir and Environs:

    Eskisehir was occupied on July 19, 1921.  Throughout their occupation, the Greek troops pillaged the city, sending the loot to Greece.  In addition to the rampant murder and mutilation, thousands of Turkish women and girls were raped, forced into prostitution, and some converted to Christianity (Turkiye’de Yunan Vahset at p. 48)

    Before they retreated, Greek arsonists set fire to the city, destroying 1,000 houses out of 6,000 (American Documents in Greek Occupation of Anatolia, Document 59), and took with them, 200 Turkish women and girls (Turkiye’de Yunan Vahset, p. 48).

    The villages around Eskisehir were likewise set on fire, the local population raped, tortured, robbed and murdered.  For instance, the village of Alpu was completely destroyed by fire, including all livestock.  The residents were robbed of everything they owned, including the clothes on their backs.  Two women and two twelve year-old girls were raped by Greek troops (Id. at p. 42).

    4. Izmir Burns:

    In their haste to flee Mustafa Kemal’s army, Greek troops and civilians did not have time to burn Izmir before they were evacuated en masse to Greece.  On September 12, however – a few days after the Turkish troops’ triumphant entry into the city – a fire broke out in the Armenian section of the city, destroying more than 25,000 buildings and three quarters of the city.  The extent of the damage was because the troops discovered that the city’s fire hoses had been cut and its cisterns emptied (History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, Volume II Reform, Revolution and Republic; The Rise of Modern Turkey 1808-1975, Stanford J. Shaw and Ezel Kural Shaw, ch.5 p.363, Cambridge, 1977).

    According to the report of the Chief of the Izmir Fire Department, Paul Grescovitch, Armenian residents of the city started the fire(Turkiye’de Yunan Vahset ver Soy Kirim Girisimi, pp. 178-181).  As proof, Mr. Grescovitch relates that prior to the arrival of the Nationalist troops, Greek troops within the city had vowed to burn Izmir if forced to cede her to the Turks.  Further, during September 10-12, numerous fires broke out in the Armenian section, and a Greek hospital.  Several people in the street complained that Armenians had set fire to their home.

    One of the local fire chiefs, Talat, reported that after setting the fires, Armenian residents prevented fire-extinguishing efforts by firing shots and throwing bombs to keep the firefighters away.  Talat also reports that the arsonists, still in the burning buildings, screamed that they were burning the city for their country and Venizelos, and would rather die in the flames (Id. at p.181-182).  A Greek refugee, Giorgios Bakaloglu, at the time of Nationalist entry into the city, related that the Armenians had set fire to a portion of the city (Izmir Savasi, Yunanlilarin ve Anadolu Rumlarinin Anlatimiyla, Bilge Umar, Anka Basim (Istanbul 2002), p. 133).

    III. Conclusion

    In the wake of the Great Offensive driving out the Greek troops, the people of Anatolia were left traumatized and destitute: their homes, crops and land had been burned, their belongings looted, their families raped, tortured and murdered.  They had no food, clothing or shelter and winter was fast approaching.  In the words of Lieutenant Perry with the U.S. Navy:

    “I found the people in the interior destitute of food, clothing and shelter… There was no begging, no cries for sympathy; they accepted their lot and only asked for a chance to start again… The rainy season is coming on and they are without shelter; they have no food; they have only the clothes they are wearing… The Turks of the interior are in far worse shape than the average Greek or Armenian refugee who left from Smyrna and as worthy of being helped.  We have contributed to the relief of the one, why withhold it from the other…” ( Report of Lieutenant Perry, U.S. Navy, of U.S.S. Edsall, who was commissioned by New York Herald with Navy approval to write article on Anatolia for that paper.  Enclosed in Intelligence report of Lt. A.S. Merrill, USN, to Admiral Bristol, 25 October 1922, which was enclosed in Bristol to Secretary of State no. 538, 8 November 1922: USDS Decimal File 867.00/1573)

    The same Greeks who had until three years previously lived in peace with their neighbors, the Turks and Jews, turned on them, robbed them and slaughtered them.  A Greek refugee, Myrsine Kapsale, said the Greek and Turkish families had lived in peace together, in Balikesir; the children had played together – until the day that the Greek armies invaded.  According to Kapsale, the Greek populace began to think differently: they became arrogant.  They thought that the Turks were an inferior race. Then it became all right to kill the Turk, and to rape the Turkish woman, and it was good to take the Turks’ land for it belonged to the Greeks, who were more civilized.  This led to slaughter of masses of people – Turkish, Greek, Armenian, Jewish – and the destruction of cities, towns, and villages. (Izmir Savasi, p. 151-152)

     

    Appendix 1 (Turkiye’de Yunan Vahset, p. 155)

    Town: Manisa and environs

    Dead: 3716
    Wounded: 200
    Raped: 77
    Villages destroyed by fire: 24
    Houses and other buildings destroyed by fire (includes houses, stores, official and religious buildings) : 10,645
    Monetary value of thefts: 130,047,000.00 lira

    Town: Turgutlu

    Dead: 151
    Wounded: 29
    Raped: 433
    Villages destroyed by fire: 10
    Houses and other buildings destroyed by fire (includes houses, stores, official and religious buildings) : 10,121
    Monetary value of thefts: 155,237,504.00 lira

     

  • Italy: Solve Cyprus before Turkey joins EU

    Italy: Solve Cyprus before Turkey joins EU

    ATHENS, Greece: Italy’s president says the island of Cyprus must be reunited before Turkey is allowed to join the European Union.

    President Giorgio Napolitano made the remarks while on a three-day official visit to Greece.

    Rival Cypriot leaders are currently holding reunification talks on the Mediterranean island which has been divided since a Turkish invasion in 1974.

    Napolitano holds a largely ceremonial post. He made the comments Tuesday after talks with Greek President Karolos Papoulias.

    » Save up to 72% on morning home

    Italy: Solve Cyprus before Turkey joins EU – International Herald Tribune.