There was no Armenian genocide
Contrary to the Armenian allegations, in fact, there is no consensus among
the historians and legal experts to qualify the events of 1915 as
"genocide".
There is a legitimate historical controversy concerning the
interpretation of the events in question and most of the scholars who
have propounded a contra genocide viewpoint are of the highest calibre
and repute, including Bernard Lewis, Stanford Shaw, David Fromkin,
Justin McCarthy, Guenther Lewy, Norman Stone, Kamuran Gürün, Michael
Gunter, Gilles Veinstein, Andrew Mango, Roderic Davidson, J.C. Hurwitz,
William Batkay, Edward J. Erickson and Steven Katz.
This is by no means an exhaustive list. A good number of well-respected
scholars recognize the deportation decision in 1915, taken under World
War I conditions, as a security measure to stop the Armenians from
co-operating with the foreign forces invading Anatolia.
On the legal aspect, the elements of the genocide crime are strictly
defined and codified by the UN Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Genocide, adopted by the General Assembly on 9
December 1948. However, Armenians, claiming that "the evidence is so
overwhelming", so far have failed to submit even one credible evidence
of genocide.
While the position of the British Government is clear on the issue -
that the evidence is not sufficiently unequivocal to persuade us that
these events should be categorised as genocide as defined by the 1948 UN
Convention on Genocide - the attempt to present some British documents,
particularly the infamous Blue Book, as they are confirming "genocide"
is a typical example of the Armenian way of misleading the international
community.
The following quotation from Arnold Toynbee, British historian and
co-author of the Blue Book, which is claimed to "leave no doubt about
what was taking place", clearly shows the extent of Armenian false
propaganda and how they come up with fabricated evidence:
".Yet at the very time when the agreement (Sykes-Picot Agreement) was
being made, I was being employed by His Majesty's Government in a 'Blue
Book', which was duly published and distributed as war propaganda. The
French Government made use of the Armenians in a different way. They
promised to erect an autonomous Armenian state, under their aegis, in
the Cilician part of their Anatolian Zone and the promise brought them
several thousand Armenian volunteers, most of whom were enrolled in the
Legion d'Orient and served for the rest of the War" (Toynbee, Arnold J.,
The Western Question in Greece and Turkey, Howard Fertig, Inc. Edition,
New York, 1970).
Hovhannes Katchaznouni's (The First Prime Minister of the independent
Armenian Republic) remarks in his report entitled "Dashnagtzoutiun Has
Nothing To Do Anymore" submitted to the 1923 Dashnagtzoutiun Party
Convention, gives an idea about the truth:
".Are we not capable of doing in the Soviet Armenia what we did in the
Turkish Armenia, for tens of years? We certainly are. We might establish
a base in the Iranian Qaradağ and send people and arms to the other
side of Araxe, (just as we did in Salmas once). We might establish the
necessary secret relations and armed "humbas" in the Sunik and
Dereleghez mountains just as we did in the Sasun mountains and the
Chataq stream (in eastern Turkey). We might provoke the peasants in some
far off regions to rise and then we might expel the communists there or
destroy them. Later we might create great commotion even in Yerevan and
occupy a state building at least for a few hours just as we occupied the
Ottoman Bank or we might explode any building. We could plan
assassinations and execute them just as we killed the officials of the
Tsar and the Sultan.; in the same way, just as we did to Sultan
Abdülhamid, we could plant a bomb under Myasnikov's or Lukashin's feet.
..when we created a great hubbub in Turkey, we thought we would attract
the attention of the great powers to the Armenian cause and would force
them to mediate for us, but now we know what such mediation is worth and
do not need to repeat such endeavours."
After the World War I, the Armenian allegations were investigated
between 1919-1922 as part of a legal process against the Ottoman
Officials. 144 high ranking officials were accused of "massacres" and
deported for trial by Britain to the island of Malta. The information
which led to the trial was mainly given by the local Armenians and the
Armenian Patriarchate. While the deportees were interned on Malta, the
British occupation forces in Istanbul, with absolute power and
authority, looked everywhere to find evidence in order to incriminate
the deportees. At the conclusion of the investigation, no evidence was
found that could corroborate the Armenian claims.
Turkey is of the view that parliaments and other political institutions
are not the appropriate forums to debate and pass judgments on disputed
periods of history. Taking one-sided and biased decisions on this
disputed period of the history can not be considered as a right and
ethical approach. Also, such kind of issues should not be abused for the
sake of the internal political concerns. Past events and controversial
periods of history should be left to the historians. 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.
On the other hand, Armenian state archives in Yerevan and archives in
some third countries including the Dashnak Party archive in Boston are
still being kept behind the closed doors.
In 2005, Turkey proposed to Armenia the establishment of a Joint History
Commission, which will be composed of historians and experts from both
sides and third parties in order to study the events of 1915 in their
historical context and share the findings with the international public.
The fact that this proposal is yet to receive a positive answer from the
Armenian authorities, when considered together with their rejection to
open all the relevant archives to the historians, gives a clear idea
about their confidence in what they claim. On the contrary, Turkey has
no reason to be afraid of its past and is ready to accept whatever the
findings of this proposed commission will be.
It should be emphasized that Turkey has always been keen to normalize
its relations with Armenia. In line with its vision towards Southern
Caucasus, Turkey, recognised Armenia on 16 December 1991 and has
produced a consistent policy of efforts to develop good-neighbourly
relations with this country. Due to the difficult economic conditions it
encountered after its independence, Turkey has extended humanitarian aid
to Armenia. Turkey has also facilitated the transit of humanitarian aid
to this country through its territory. Turkey supported Armenia's
integration with the regional organisations, international community and
the western institutions, and invited Armenia to the Black Sea Economic
Cooperation Organization as a founding state. Additionally, Turkey took
a series of unilateral steps that would help creating a favourable
climate in the region. In this regard, some of Turkey's recent
unilateral gestures towards Armenia are as follows:
Armenian citizens are welcome to visit Turkey through visas issued at
the entry points valid for 30 days. In stark contrast, this is not the
case for Turkish citizens who intend to visit Armenia. Thousands of
Armenian citizens reside primarily for employment in Turkey.
Turkey opened two air corridors for facilitating the international
flights, which amount in excess of hundred over-flights every month and
Turkish and Armenian air charter companies operate between Istanbul and
Yerevan on a regular basis, up to 4 times a week. Transit trade towards
Armenia or from Armenia towards abroad, via Turkey is not subjected to
any restriction or hindering. These unilateral steps clearly show
Turkey's will for the normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations.
However, these good-will gestures are not reciprocated by Armenia.
Instead, Armenia, passed a new bill on 4 October 2006, which makes it
impossible for any Armenian citizen, or third party in Armenia, to voice
dissent about the "genocide"; refused to issue visa for the Turkish
election observation team comprising eight academics, who were to be
deployed at the Election Observation Mission (EOM) set up by the OSCE
Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) prior to the
Armenian parliamentary elections scheduled for 12th May 2007; rejected
the inclusion of a Turkish officer to the NATO/PfP team that would
conduct a working visit on border security in Armenia in July 2007.
Finally, I want to draw your attention to the desperate plight of the
people of Armenia, suffering from the dire economic conditions in the
country which is self-isolated as a result of the intransigent attitude
of the wealthy diaspora. I believe that the Armenians have become
captive to their own lie of "genocide" and every single support to the
baseless Armenian allegations from the third parties will further cut
their connection with the truth and prevent their integration to the West.
Orhan Tung
Published 23 October 2007 in New Statesman
http://www.newstatesman.com/200710230001
..
|
