NOTE ON ARMENIAN ALLEGATIONS

· Turkey has long been facing a systematic campaign of defamation carried out by Armenian lobbying groups living in various countries.

· Armenian circles exert every effort to get the publication of many books on their allegations concerning the events of 1915, as well as articles by authors supporting Armenian views in widely circulated magazines and newspapers.

· Armenian organizations also orchestrate many meetings, conferences and symposia in order to garner support and to get as much publicity as possible. They, similarly, sponsor the making of documentary films that advocate Armenian claims and also encourage the broadcasting of these films in as many television channels as possible.

· Public opinion, especially in Western countries, is affected by these films, books and articles, and their Parliaments are put under constant pressure to recognize Armenian allegations as an "undeniable historical truth".

· The activities of Armenian Diaspora organizations are also supported by the Armenian State. In fact, Armenian diplomatic missions abroad carry out activities to have these allegations recognized by national legislatures.

· Recently, the Armenian Diaspora has increased its organized activities in order to have their baseless genocide claims recognized as "genocide" by national and local parliaments.

· Parliaments and other political institutions are not the appropriate fora to debate and pass judgments on disputed periods of history.

· There are often discrepancies between history and memory. Indeed, memories rarely reflect the historical truth concerning a given historical period or event. Memories of different societies almost always differ. It is impossible for a society to adopt the memory of the other one. Furthermore, it is unfair to expect from a society to adopt the memory of the other.

· It is particularly for this reason that past events and controversial periods of history should be left to the historians for their dispassionate study and evaluation.

· Turkey has no fear in facing its history and, in fact, encourages members of the international academic community to analyze the events of 1915.

· In order to shed light on such a disputed historical issue, the Turkish Government has opened all its archives, including military records to all researchers. Access to the Ottoman Archives through the Internet is also possible.

· Furthermore, Turkey encourages historians, scholars and researchers to freely examine and discuss this historical issue in every platform, and all publications, including the ones defending Armenian views, are available at bookstores, libraries, etc.

· In order to have an objective and complete analysis of Turkish-Armenian relations, the Armenian archives should also be opened and made available to the public and researchers. The unedited and inaccessible records of the Armenian Republic in Yerevan, Armenian Revolutionary Federation in Boston, the Armenian Patriarchate in Jerusalem, and ASALA -a terrorist organization based in Yerevan- ought to be examined. Only those who fear the truth would limit the scope of such an investigation. For reaching the truth, historians must have access to all related archives.

· In this respect, in 2005, Turkey has officially proposed to the Government of Armenia the establishment of a joint commission of history composed of historians and other experts from both sides to study together the events of 1915, not only in the archives of Turkey and Armenia, but also in the archives of all relevant third countries, and to share their findings with the public. The experts and scholars of third countries can also participate in this Commission.

· The said-Commission, by helping Turkey and Armenia narrow down their diverging interpretations with regard to the events of 1915, will also qualitatively contribute to the normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations.

· Our proposal is on the table, but we have not yet received a positive response from the Armenian side.

HISTORICAL REALITIES:

· Turks and Armenians have lived in peace in Anatolia for over eight centuries. Dispersed throughout the Ottoman territories, Armenians lived as loyal, and in certain aspects, as privileged subjects of the Ottoman Empire.

· In the 19th century, a whole series of Ottoman Armenian families were to rise to prominence as wealthy bankers, merchants, and industrialists, but it was in the service of the government that this community was to make its real mark. The scope of Armenian contributions in this regard may be judged by the following breakdown of significant posts held by the Armenians in the19th century:

* Twenty-nine Armenians achieved the highest governmental rank of “pasha” (civilian generals);

* There were twenty-two Armenian governmental “nazirs” (ministers). Among the posts held were the Ministries of Foreign Affairs, Finance, Trade, and Postal Services;

* There are Armenian nazirs, (ministers), namely Gabriel Noradonkyan and Bedros Hallacyan at the Governments headed by Ittihat Terrakki.

* Numerous Armenians headed governmental departments concerned with a variety of functions, including agriculture, census, and economic development;

* In the post-1876 Ottoman Parliament (Meclis-i Mebusan), there were thirty-three elected Armenian representatives;

* In the provincial administrative apparatus, there were literally hundreds of Armenian officials at all levels;

* Seven Armenian ambassadors and eleven Consul-Generals and Consuls served in the Ottoman diplomatic service;

* Eleven university professors of Armenian origin brought their valuable contributions to the Ottoman academic life.

Far from being subjected to discrimination and relative to their numbers in the whole population, Armenians enjoyed a special status in the 19th century Ottoman government structure.

· Throughout the course of 19th century, the power of the Ottoman Empire steadily declined and long-held Ottoman provinces such as Serbia, Greece, and Bulgaria underwent separatist nationalist movements. The principal course of action of the separatist and nationalist elements during this period was to attract the attention of the Great Powers, gain their support and obtain new rights.

· Significantly, throughout this period of upheavals only one of the Christian ethnic groups in the empire remained largely unaffected by the rising tide of nationalism. This was the “loyal Armenians”, (millet-i sadýka), as usually named in the annals of Ottoman history.

Three factors seem to have contributed to this situation:

* The de facto geographically dispersed nature of the Armenian people, which caused the lack of a homogeneous population base in a specific region of the state;

* The relatively improved economic well-being of the Armenian population, which shared a common tradition with the Muslim Turks; and

* The integration into the Ottoman ruling class of large numbers of Armenians between 1850 and 1880.

· It was with the creation of two revolutionary Armenian committees, the Hinchag Committee formed in Geneva, Switzerland in 1887, and the Dashnag Committee, established in Tbilisi, Georgia in 1890, that Armenian national aspirations began to assume the more classical form which the Ottomans had come to know and worry in the previous half-century.

· From the outset, both the Hinchags and Dashnags adopted terror as a primary tactic in their struggle, the ultimate aim of which was the “liberation” of the Armenian “homeland” of eastern Anatolia from the Ottoman rule. They tried to alter the demographic structure of certain regions by massacring and harassing the Turks and other Muslims in these areas.

· The Great Powers of those days began to regard the Armenians as an important instrument that could be manipulated against the Ottoman Empire. These powers promised the Armenians a purely ethnic Armenian state in Eastern Anatolia where paradoxically they constituted only a minority.

· The start of World War I and the entry of the Ottoman State into the war against the Allied Powers were seen as a great opportunity by the extremist Armenians. They revolted against the Ottoman Government and collaborated with the invading Russian Armies and other foreign forces, launching attacks on the Ottoman army and Muslim civilians from behind the front and engaging in acts of sabotage.

· In March 1915, the Russian forces began to move toward Van. Immediately, on April 11, 1915, the Armenians of Van initiated a general revolt, massacring all the Turks in the vicinity to enable the city’s quick and easy conquest by the Russians.

· When there was no evident lessening of the Armenian attacks, the Ottoman Government finally acted. On April 24, 1915, the Armenian revolutionary committees were closed and 235 of their leaders were arrested for activities against the state. It is the date of these arrests that has been annually observed in recent years by Armenian nationalist groups throughout the world to commemorate the “massacre” which they claim took place at that time. No such massacre, however, occurred, at that or any other time during the war.

· The Ottoman Government, facing enormous internal and external threats caused by the Armenians, in May 1915, resorted to a defensive measure, which any country in a similar situation would not hesitate to take. It adopted the Relocation Law to transfer Armenians who lived in areas affected by war to southern provinces of the Ottoman State.

· The Ottoman Government instructed the local authorities to take the necessary security measures for the orderly relocation of the Armenians. The orders which were issued to this effect are available in the Ottoman archives. Despite these measures, war conditions, feelings of local hatred and revenge had prompted attacks towards the convoys during the transfer process. The Government tried to prevent them. Moreover, officials or civilians who disobeyed the instructions of the Government and committed offences against Armenian convoys were tried by the Military Courts (“Divan-i Harbi Örfi, 1915-1916).

· The Courts decided to take 1673 people into custody and passed death sentences for 67 individuals. The documents relating to the case are available in the Ottoman archives. The main objective of “Divan-i Harbi Örfi” Courts during the years of 1915-1916 was to protect the Armenian citizens of the Empire from all kinds of oppression and attacks. Is it possible for a Government aiming to commit the crime of genocide to take such kind of preventive and legal measures?

· It is worth mentioning that these hearings should be distinguished from those Court hearings of 1919, which were held under the pressure of the Allies to condemn Ottoman officials.

· Despite these measures, scarcity of food and other means in the days of war, severe weather conditions, and outbreak of epidemic diseases like typhus, affecting the population in general, had also led to the increase in loss of human lives.

· There is no question that the heavy toll in human lives during that period was a dark chapter in the common history of the Turks and the Armenians. In fact, it was an era in which all the people of Anatolia shared the same fate. It should be noted that 3 million people, mostly civilian Muslims, died in Anatolia during World War I. Those who perished in the hands of Armenian bands reached 524, 000, between the years 1914 through 1922. This is the actual reality behind the false claims distorting historical facts by ill-devised mottoes, such as the “first genocide of the Twentieth Century”.

· After World War I, the Armenian allegations were investigated between 1919 and 1922, as part of the legal process against the Ottoman officials. The Sevres Peace Treaty of 1920, which was imposed upon the defeated Ottoman Empire, required the Ottoman Government to hand over to the Allied Powers those persons who were accused of “massacres”.

· Subsequently, 144 Ottoman high officials were arrested and deported for trial by Great Britain to the island of Malta. The information that led to these arrests was mainly provided by local Armenians and the Armenian Patriarchate in Istanbul. So while the deportees were under detention on Malta, the British occupation forces in Istanbul, which had absolute power and authority in the Ottoman capital, looked frantically everywhere to find evidence in order to incriminate the deportees.

· An Armenian scholar, Haig Khazarian, appointed by the British, conducted thorough examination of documentary evidence in the Ottoman and British archives. However, Khazarian could not find any evidence demonstrating that the Ottoman Government and the Ottoman officials deported to Malta either sanctioned or encouraged the killings of the Armenians.

· Thereupon, the British Foreign Office thought that the American Government would doubtlessly be in possession of a large amount of documentary evidence compiled and submitted to the American archives in Washington. At the conclusion of the investigation, no evidence was found that could corroborate the Armenian claims. After two years and four months of detention in Malta, all the deportees were set free without trial. No compensation was ever paid to the detainees.

· Within the framework of the efforts to equate the events of 1915 with the Holocaust, various Armenian groups recently claim that the ruling Union and Progress Party during the period of World War I, with a Social Darwinist ideology, tried to apply a repressive Turkification policy and aimed to annihilate Armenians in the Ottoman Empire.

· Numerous historians who are experts of the Union and Progress Party disclosed that this argument was thoroughly baseless, since the Union and Progress Party did not have a monolithic ideology. It is not possible to compare the German National Socialist Party with the Union and Progress Party. The Holocaust was a horrific outcome of centuries-long racist ideology penetrated into the European society. In the Ottoman Empire, such a racist ideology against the Armenian subjects of the Empire never existed.

LEGAL REALITIES:

· The tragic events which occurred during World War I, do not constitute a crime of “genocide” as described in the United Nations Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948 UN Convention).

· According to Article 2 of the said-Convention, the fundamental element of the crime of “genocide” is the “intent” to destroy a group in part or as a whole.

· As it was clearly declared by the International Court of Justice in its verdict concerning the lawsuit by Bosnia-Herzegovina against the former Yugoslavia, the crime of genocide requires a specific intent, and this means that a perpetrator seeks to achieve the destruction, in whole or in part, of national, ethnic, racial or religious groups as such.

· However, the Armenian allegations of genocide fail to meet the minimum standards of proof required by the UN Convention of Genocide. The circles claiming genocide, despite their 90-year long persistent efforts, could not find a single shred of evidence suggesting the intent of the Ottomans to destroy the Armenians. What they call “documents” proved to be forged or fabricated.

· On the contrary, there are many Ottoman documents, which contain government orders to local officials, to protect the relocated Armenians. Militant Armenians took arms against their own government. Their misguided political aims and armed activities, not their race, ethnicity or religion, rendered them subject to relocation.

· Furthermore, according to international law, only a competent tribunal can determine whether genocide is committed or not. According to the 1948 UN Convention, the tribunal in charge is either the tribunal of the State in the territories of which the act was committed or an international penal tribunal that may have jurisdiction with respect to those Contracting Parties which have accepted its jurisdiction. Without the existence of such a decision of the tribunal in charge, the claim of genocide cannot be put forward or defended on legal grounds.

· In this context, it is also important to note that the so-called Armenian genocide has never been ascertained in any international court ruling. To date, the allegations by Armenian circles could not be substantiated, and since no clearly established facts are available on the matter, such claims could only be regarded as baseless and misleading.

· The decisions taken by non-competent institutions, including parliaments, about the existence of a crime of genocide against the Armenians can pave the way for futile controversies. Approaches as such also bear the risk of diluting the specific definition of the crime of genocide and, consequently, the exploitation of the concept of genocide. Arbitrary legislations in some countries, which prevent the questioning of the so-called Armenian genocide, constitute also a violation of the freedom of expression and of scientific research. Genocide is a crime, not a catchphrase.