III. Armenian Question in a Historical Context

7/30/2019 III. Armenian Question in a Historical Context

1/43

III. Armenian Question in a Historical Context

The Armenian Question from Lausanne until Today

mer Engin LTEM*------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In this article we will draw attention to the fact that the plan to give part of theOttoman lands to Armenia with the Svres Treaty did not materialize. We will pointout that from the legal point of view the Armenian territorial claims were resolved withthe 1921 Moscow and Kars Treaties and the 1923 Lausanne Treaty. Then we willdescribe the position of the Armenians and Armenia from the signing of the

Lausanne Treaty until the end of the Second World War. Also, we will recall that atthe end of the war the Soviets demanded land from Turkey in order to give it toArmenia, reviving the Armenian nationalism. The genocide allegations too fannedArmenian nationalism and led to the emergence of the Armenian terrorism thattargeted Turkish diplomats. When the Armenian terrorist attacks finally came to anend the Armenian question was shifted into the international arena. And theArmenians have focused on gaining official recognition for their genocide allegationsfrom various countries and international organizations to pave the way for demandsfor territory and compensation. These efforts have gained momentum during TurkeysEuropean Union (EU) membership process.

I. Armenias territorial claims in the wake of the First World War

In 1915, that is, the second year of the First World War, negotiations began amongthe Allied Powers (Britain, France, Russia) on how to split up the Ottoman Empire.They reached an agreement on this issue in 1916 and Italy joined them in 1917 (Map1). That partition plan did not envisage the giving of territory to the Armenians. EastAnatolia, which was sought by the Armenians, was assigned to Russia in that plan.And Russia had no intention of setting up an Armenian state there. What was beingenvisaged for the Armenians was autonomy at best.

After Russia withdrew from the war in 1917 the possibility of Armenia getting part ofEast Anatolia appeared on the agenda. However, what was now being contemplatedfor Armenia was foreign mandate rather than independence. It was assumed that theUSA would be willing to undertake that task.[1]

When a Peace Conference was convened in Paris at the end of the war, BoghosNubar Pasha, speaking on behalf of the Ottoman Armenians, called for unification ofArmenia (that is, the country situated in the Caucasus) with those parts of the

Ottoman Empire where the Armenian Ottomans were residing. He listed these partsin the following manner: Erzurum, Bitlis, Van, Diyarbekir, Harput and Sivas provinces(which the Ottomans used to call the Six Vilayat, that is, the Six Provinces), Cilicia,part of the Trabzon province and the sanjak (subdivision of a province) of Maras. Theterritory demanded by Boghos Nubar Pasha corresponds to 24 provinces of modern


2/43

Turkey, namely, Artvin, Kars, Rize, Trabzon, Giresun, Tokat, Sivas, Mersin, Adana,Kahramanmara, Adyaman, Malatya, Elaz, Tunceli, Gmhane, Erzincan,Bayburt, Erzurum, Ar, Van, Diyarbakr, Batman, Siirt and Mu. Attached to thisarticle is a map (Map 2) we have drawn to show the places demanded by BoghosNubar Pasha. That was an area amounting to some 390,000 square kilometers. That

is roughly half the territory of modern Turkey.Boghos Nubar Pashas proposal was not accepted since in no part of that vastterritory the Armenians were the majority. Millions of Muslims were living in theseplaces. For that reason, even if such an arrangement were to be imposed on Turkeythere would have been no way such an Armenian administration could last long. Inother words, the big powers would have to help the Armenians in those regionsforever. No one wanted to shoulder such a burden. Furthermore, there was a majorpoint that Boghos Nubar Pasha did not know or seemed to forget: A great part of theland he demanded was to be given to France under the aforementioned 1916

agreement.

British Prime Minister Lloyd George dismissed Boghos Nubar Pashas suggestionsas Boghoss fairy tales.[2] Meanwhile, the big powers still could not solve theproblem of which regions exactly would be given to the Armenians. In the end, theallied powers put into the Svres Treaty, signed on Aug. 10, 1920, the provision(Article 89) that the task of drawing the boundaries of Armenia would be left toPresident Wilson of the USA.[3] Attached to our article is a map that shows thefrontiers determined by President Wilson (Map 3).

The Turkish territory to be handed over to the Armenians under the Svres Treatyamounted to some 120,000 square kilometers. That was only 30 percent of the totalarea sought by Boghos Nubar Pasha. However, here too the Armenians were theminority both prior to and in the aftermath of the war. That area corresponds to theVan, Ar, Kars, Artvin, Erzurum, Bingl, Mu, Bitlis, Siirt, Erzincan, Gmhane,Bayburt, Trabzon, Rize and (part of) Sivas provinces of modern Turkey.

How would these provinces, a great part of which was in the hands of the Turkishforces, be handed over to the Armenians? Under normal conditions one would

expect France and Britain to help the Armenians occupy these areas since these twocountries had fought against the Ottoman Empire and were still present in the region.However, these two countries had discharged a great part of their troops immediatelyafter the war and they did not have adequate forces to assign to that task. Under thecircumstances, the Armenian forces would have to tackle on their own the task ofseizing the areas outlined by Wilson. However, the Armenian forces which weremostly armed gangs could hardly be expected to defeat the Turkish forces thatwere still a regular army though they had been decimated in the war. The clashesbegan in late September 1920 and lasted for nearly two months. The Armenianforces were defeated everywhere. With the Treaty signed in Gyumri, Armenia, onDec. 3, Armenia lost all the provinces it was supposed to get under the SvresTreaty. With the Treaty of Gyumri the two sides agreed on todays frontier betweenthe two countries and Armenia also admitted the invalidity of the Svres Treaty.


3/43

Since Armenia joined the Soviet Union, the Treaty of Gyumri could not be ratified andit could never take force. Four months later, with the Soviet Union that had by thenbecome the owner of the Armenian lands, Turkey signed a treaty in Moscow. Thetreaty acknowledged todays frontier. In other words, regarding the frontier, theTreaty of Moscow confirmed the relevant provisions of the Treaty of Gyumri.

Concerned about the possibility that due to the federal structure of the Soviet Unionthere might be different interpretations of this issue in the future, the Ankaragovernment demanded that the Soviet republics of Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijantoo acknowledge its eastern frontier. The Treaty of Kars signed on Oct. 13, 1921ensured that.[4]

The Treaty of Kars remains in force; therefore, legally Armenia does not have theright to demand territory from Turkey.

II. Armenians from the Lausanne Treaty to the End of the Second World War

During the negotiating process of the Lausanne Treaty the Turkish delegation nippedin the bud Britains attempts to raise the Armenian question. Since Turkeys borderwith Armenia had already been determined by the Treaties of Moscow and Kars, noborder problem existed anymore. Thus, from the legal standpoint, the Armenianquestion ceased to exist.[5]

We see that in the new era that began with the Lausanne Treaty the Armenianquestion ceased to exist from the political standpoint as well. Indeed, a great part ofthe Armenians had gone to Armenia, following the Russian armies. Meanwhile, aconsiderable part of those Armenians that had been subjected to mass relocationspread to various parts of the world from Syria and Lebanon. And the Armenia thathad made territorial claims on Turkey, ceased to exist as an independent country.Furthermore, the big powers that had been responsible for the emergence of theArmenian question, Russia, Britain, France and, especially, Germany, were no longerdisplaying an interest in the Armenians now that a new and strong Turkish state wasfounded in Lausanne.

During the next two decades there was very little talk about the Armenians and

almost none about Armenia on the international scene. Trying to get used to andbecome settled in the countries to which they had migrated the Diaspora Armenianswere, relatively speaking, politically inactive. However, from time to time, they didengage in anti-Turkey activities. For example, due to the influence exerted by theArmenians, the US Congress did not ratify the Friendship and Trade Agreement theUSA had signed with Turkey in Lausanne on Aug. 6, 1923. As a consequence theUSA was not able to establish diplomatic relations with Turkey. That issue was to beresolved in 1927, that is, five years after Lausanne.[6]

Meanwhile, after becoming a Soviet republic, Armenia disappeared altogether fromthe international political scene. The country was subjected to a vigorouscollectivization drive and with the exception of the Communists all political forces, theDashnaks especially, were eliminated. Shortly after becoming a Soviet republic thecountry lost contact with the outer world just as the other parts of the Soviet Union.


4/43

III. Soviet Union Demands Territory from Turkey on Behalf of Armenia (1945-1946)[7]

With the strength that came from having emerged from the Second World War as avictor, the Soviet Union embarked on an irredentist path, trying to expand to the

boundaries Russia once had during the Tsarist era. Meanwhile, with securityconsiderations, it had communist satellite regimes set up in Eastern Europe.

Furthermore, the Soviet Union abandoned its policy of friendship and cooperationwith Turkey. It did not renew the 1925 Friendship and Neutrality Treaty and it tried toput pressure on Turkey. Then it demanded those territories that had been transferredto Russia with the 1878 Berlin Treaty, territories which the Ottoman Empire had takenback with the 1918 Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. Also, it demanded to have the control ofthe Turkish Straits. The Soviet Foreign Minister explained the territorial demand bysaying that the 1921 Treaty of Moscow had been concluded at a time the Soviet

Union was still weak and that the time had come to correct that situation. Also, heclaimed that Armenia and Georgia needed land.

These demands were supported by Armenias newly elected Catholicos ofEchmiadzin. A press campaign was started to win support for these demands all overthe Soviet Union including Armenia and Georgia. Via the Diaspora, efforts weremade to carry out a similar campaign in America and the West European countries.The Diaspora Armenians presented a petition to the 1945 San Francisco meeting onthe establishment of the United Nations, demanding the restitution of the occupiedArmenian lands.[8]

In parallel with these initiatives a campaign was launched to encourage theArmenians living in various countries to settle in Soviet Armenia. The aim of thecampaign was to boost the population in Soviet Armenia since the size of the existingpopulation was too small to populate the regions being sought from Turkey.[9] As aresult of this campaign many Armenians migrated to Soviet Armenia from variouscountries, Turkey among them.

Turkey rejected the Soviet territorial claims on Eastern Anatolia as well as the

demand for Soviet control over the Turkish Straits. To ensure the countrys security inthe face of a Soviet Union that had gained strength in the post-war period, Turkishauthorities abandoned the policy they had been pursuing, a policy that can bedescribed as a kind of neutrality. They began to cooperate with the Westerncountries. Turkey benefited from the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan and, bytaking part in the Korean War, it sided up with the West, confronting the East Bloc. InFebruary 1952 Turkey became a NATO member.

For the Soviets that was a big failure. Their attempts to get territory from Turkey andto gain control of the Turkish Straits had failed. On top of all that Turkey had joinedthe ranks of the Western countries. The Soviet policy had backfired. Immediatelyafter Stalins death in 1953 the Soviets altered that policy. They presented amemorandum to Turkey to make it clear that they were abandoning their claimsregarding the Turkish Straits and the territorial claims they had made on behalf of


5/43

Armenia and Georgia. However, having ensured its security by taking its placeamong the Western nations, Turkey did not change its stance.

IV. Revival of Armenian Nationalism (1946-1973)

Although Turkey did not accept the Soviet demands the fact that such demands hadbeen made caused the nationalist movements to gain strength in Armenia -- to theextent that the Soviets permitted it. According to some sources Politburo memberAnastas Mikoyan, who rose all the way to the position of Soviet president, played anactive part in the revival of Armenian nationalism.[10] Meanwhile, in the late 1950sthe Soviets began to condone[11] to some extent the activities of the Dashnaks whose activities had been banned until thenprobably because of two developmentsinvolving Turkey: At that time Turkey had experienced a crisis with Syria. Also, sometime after that, it had permitted the flights of the American U2 spy planes. Thetolerance the Soviets showed the Dashnaks caused the nationalist movements to

gain ground.

Since the First World War the Dashnaks have maintained their superiority over theother Armenian political parties in the Diaspora as well. As the main representative ofArmenian nationalism they have been the focal point of anti-Turkey activities.

With the onset of the Cold War, it was thought that the Catholicos[12] based inEchmiadzin in Soviet Armenia would be exposed to Soviet suggestions andpressure. There were those who argued that a religious authority other than theCatholicos of Echmiadzin should be created for the Diaspora Armenians. Thanks tothe efforts made by the Dashnaks and the encouragement given by the USA and theleading European countries, the Catholicate of Cilicia was founded in Antilias nearthe Lebanese capital of Beirut and part of the Diaspora Armenians became affiliatedwith it. Although the Diaspora Armenians should have been affiliated with theCatholicate of Echmiadzin after Armenia gained independence in 1991, theCatholicate of Cilicia did not halt its activities. Although it recognizes the Catholicateof Echmiadzins superiority on spiritual matters it has, in reality, been its rival.

The rapid rise of Armenian nationalism after the Second World War can be explained

by the exclusively ethnic nature of the Armenian churches, political parties andassociations in the Diaspora. The existence of the Armenian churches in foreigncountries depended on the presence of an Armenian community in these countries.The Armenian political parties and associations needed Armenian members to beable to keep up their activities. However, as in the case of all migrating peoples, as ofthe second generation, the Armenians began to be assimilated in countries they hadsettled. That reduced the size of the Armenian churches congregations abroad aswell as the number of members the Armenian political parties and associations had.These organizations were worried about their future. They focused on keeping theDiaspora Armenians together, trying to find a way of keeping the awareness of beingArmenian alive in them. The solution they found to this problem was inspired by theHolocaust. Seeing that the Jews had gained enormous prestige due to the Holocaustand that this tragedy had played an important role towards establishment of theIsraeli state, they tried to fabricate an Armenian genocide by claiming that the mass


6/43

relocation of 1915 had the same characteristics as the Holocaust. After the SecondWorld War Armenian youths gradually came to be systematically brainwashed at theArmenian churches, schools, political parties and associations in the followingmanner: Turks committed genocide against Armenians. When these youngsterswere convinced that their fathers or grandfathers had been subjected to a genocide

they wanted to take revenge on the Turks. This brainwashing also revived theirdreams of founding the Greater Armenia.

The allegation that Turks had subjected the Armenians to genocide thus helpedrebuild the Armenian consciousness. The Diaspora Armenians were unified but noton the basis of their common cultural values. They were unified against an artificiallycreated enemy, that is, modern Turkey.

The aforementioned brainwashing has caused differences between generations ofArmenians regarding their feelings about the Turks.

Logically, having been subjected to a mass relocation, the first generation Armeniansshould be the group with the biggest grievances against the Turks. However, exceptthe fanatics, the first generation Armenians obviously had not made accusationsabout all Turks though they did harbor negative feelings about those persons theyheld responsible for the mass location. Furthermore, in general they felt a certaincloseness to the Turks. The best proof of that was witnessed in 1954 when, duringan official visit to the USA, Turkish President Celal Bayar went to California. InCalifornia, Armenians who had migrated there from Turkey displayed enormousinterest in him, saying, Our president has come. They even undertook the task ofpromoting the California leg of Bayars visit.[13]

The second generation Diaspora Armenians were born as the immigrants children.Their connection to the 1915 incidents should have been limited to what they hadheard from their parents. Therefore, normally, one would expect them to be moremoderate in their feelings and attitude towards the Turks. However, theaforementioned brainwashing has caused the second generation to harbor morenegative feelings than their parents had done,

The third generation Armenians have been fully adapted to the conditions in thesenew countries. Most of them do not even know the Armenian language. For thisreason it would only be normal for them to have some sort of neutral attitude towardsthe Turks. Yet, thanks to the brainwashing that the Armenian churches, politicalparties and associations now effectively provide, the actual situation is exactly theopposite of that. Those who hate the Turks most are the members of the thirdgeneration most of whom have never met a Turk in their lives. In fact, the murderersof the Turkish diplomats came from the ranks of that generation.

In short, the feelings and attitudes of the generations of Armenian Diaspora are inreverse proportion to their connection with the 1915 events. The more distancedthey are from these events their feelings of hate and revengefulness intensify whenthese should be subsiding. Psychologically this situation is not natural.[14] And thisconstitutes the biggest obstacle to a potential reconciliation between the Turks and


7/43

the Armenians.

The first outcome of the revival of nationalism in Armenia was the large-scalecommemoration ceremonies held in Yerevan on the 50th anniversary of thegenocide with the participation of hundreds of thousands of people. Also, in 1967 a

genocide monument was opened in Yerevan with a ceremony. These developmentshave reinforced the anti-Turkey and anti-Turkish feelings in the Armenian Diaspora,feelings rarely observed in the past. This, in turn, brought about a big increase in theefforts aimed at persuading the world that the mass relocation of 1915 was agenocide.

The re-intensified Armenian nationalism created the Armenian terror that took thelives of 70 people, 32 of them Turkish diplomats, in the 1970s and 1980s.

One observes that the genocide allegations have been put forth not only to preserve

the Armenians national awareness but also towards certain political goals. Thesegoals can be summed up in the following manner: obtaining compensation fromTurkey and ensuring that some parts of eastern Anatolia would be handed over toArmenia.

In this context the Diaspora Armenians, the Dashnaks especially, are obviously tryingto pursue a four-stage strategy against Turkey.[15]

1.The First Stage entails making the world public opinion listen to the allegation thatthe mass relocation of 1915 had, in reality, been a genocide. Due to the pressure theworld public would exert, various countries and international organizations wouldofficially recognize the Armenian genocide.

Under the influence of the relentless Armenian propaganda drive and the Armenianterror that aimed to make the Armenian allegations heard in the world, the public,especially in the Western countries, has started to think that Turks had committedgenocide against the Armenians in the First World War.

Coming to the recognition of the genocide allegations by various countries and

international organizations, the parliaments of a total 17 countries as well as aninternational organization have recognized the genocide until now as explainedbelow.

Obviously the Armenians are now in the First Stage of the Four-Stage strategy. Theyconcentrate all their efforts on increasing the number of countries and internationalorganizations that recognize the genocide.

2.The Second Stage involves making Turkey acknowledge that the mass relocationof 1915 was a genocide and apologize to the Armenians.

Armenians believe that Turkey would be obliged to officially recognize the genocideif more countries especially the USA and other big countries- recognized thegenocide. This is not a realistic expectation. The Turkish public opinion has a strong


8/43

reaction to those countries that recognize the genocide. The Turkish GrandNational Assembly has taken a definite stance against the Armenian allegations. Anda succession of Turkish governments have rejected these allegations.

Currently there is no politician in Turkey who sees the mass relocation of 1915 as

genocide. On the other hand, in recent years certain Turkish writers and academicshave embraced and defended the Armenian allegations on the genocide issue.However, the views expressed by these persons draw adverse reactions from thepublic, and they fail to sway the public opinion.[16]

3.The Third Stage involves making Turkey pay compensation to the victims of thegenocide or their heirs.

There is a highly important point one should bear in mind on this issue. Recognitionof genocide may have a direct consequence: payment of compensation. This is

because it is a rule of law embodied in the legal systems of all countries that thosewho cause loss and damage (for example by committing the crime of genocideagainst a nation) must redress the situation. In other words, in principle it may not bepossible to recognize genocide and yet refrain from paying compensation for it.That may be possible only if the other party forfeits its right to compensation.

Here is yet another point that should be known regarding the compensation issue.Since todays Armenian State had not existed in 1915 there is no way it can demandcompensation in its own name. President Kocharyan himself said that to a Turkishjournalist.[17] And, under the Lausanne Treaty there would be no requirement to paycompensation to persons. However, if Turkey recognized the genocide Turkeywould be faced with demands that it should pay ex gratia compensation.

4.The Fourth and Final Stage entails Armenia obtaining Eastern Anatolian territory.

As explained above, there is a fact that must be taken into consideration beforeeverything else: Armenia does not have any legal grounds to demand territory fromTurkey. President Kocharyan has confirmed this point.[18] Not only such a claimwould lack legal grounds but also Armenia does not have the ability to back such a

demand from the military aspect. And it is not expected to gain such military capacityin the visible future. And, finally, since Armenias population is continually shrinkingand the Diaspora Armenians are not migrating to Armenia there are hardly anyArmenians to be settled in the Turkish lands coveted by Armenia.

We think that none of the Armenian demands on Turkey is realistic. The demand forterritory, especially, could only be called a pipe dream. Obviously the DiasporaArmenians too know that. They have been speaking less and less about gettingterritory from Turkey.

V. The period of Armenian terrorism (1973-1986)

Although a significant revival of the Armenian nationalism had begun in 1965 and ithad become the Armenians main goal to persuade the international public opinion


9/43

that the mass relocation of 1915 was, in reality, a genocide, at that time they couldnot proceed much towards that goal. At that time the international public reactedgenerally with indifference to their claims about events that had taken place abouthalf a century ago. In 1973, a semi-deranged elderly Armenian killed Turkish ConsulGeneral Mehmet Baydar and his aide Bahadr Demir in Los Angeles. The case drew

public interest since the murderer had no problem at all with his victims and wassaying that he killed them only because they were the representatives of a stateresponsible for the Armenian genocide. The American press dwelt extensively onthe genocide allegations when providing background information about the case.That incident gave the Armenian militants the idea that they could get a lot ofattention by assassinating Turkish diplomats.

The 1974 Cyprus Peace Operation created a suitable climate for the Armenianmilitants to put that idea into practice.

The Cyprus Peace Operation greatly undermined the morale both in Greece and inSouthern Cyprus. It was perceived as a case of Turkey defeating Greece, creatingthe fear that Turkey could get Southern Cyprus, the Aegean islands and WesternThrace too if required. Greece and Southern Cyprus were worried since they did nothave the power to counter any such move on the part of Turkey. This psychologicalmood caused these two countries to embark on a kind of undeclared war againstTurkey. That war was not to be fought on the battlefields. Instead, these twocountries have tried to harm Turkish interests in every field without actually having ahot clash. Turkey had come under intense criticism due to the Cyprus PeaceOperation. Ignoring the fact that legally Turkey did have the right to stage such anintervention in Cyprus, the critics were saying that Turkey had attacked anindependent state. In fact, the USA imposed an arms embargo on Turkey. All thesedevelopments made it easier for Greece to implement this new policy.

In the campaign it thus began to wage against Turkey, Greece found three allies foritself: Syria, the Kurds and the Armenians.

ASALA and the PKK were founded in 1975, that is, one year after the Cyprus PeaceOperation, and they obtained the support of Greece and Syria.

The Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA) was the firstArmenian terrorist organization created for the task of fighting against Turkey. Itsmembers were trained in Lebanon by the George Habas group. The organizationwas supported by the Abu Nidal Group and the PLO as well. The Abu Nidal Groupfocused on terrorist actions rather than political activities. The PLO, on the otherhand, was stronger in the political aspect. In the 1980s the PLO focused entirely onthe political front and it withdrew its support from ASALA.

It must be noted that the situation that existed in Lebanon in the 1970s was highlysuitable for the terrorist organizations to settle there and to develop. The Palestinianshad settled in Lebanon when, due to the pressure exerted by Israel, they had toleave Jordan. The Lebanese State had been founded not by a nation but by variousreligious groups. It could not deal effectively with the pressure put by Israel on one


10/43

hand and with the problems created by the Palestinians that had settled in thecountry. Before long law and order was disrupted. Liberated zones emerged invarious parts of the country and fighting broke out between various religious groups.

Due to the authority vacuum in Lebanon terrorist organizations were able to easily

operate there. There was yet another factor that worked in favor of the Armenianterrorist organizations such as ASALA: Lebanon had an Armenian population ofsome 20,000. ASALA had a leftist extremist tendency. In this aspect it was closer tothe Huntchaks which is one of the traditional Armenian parties.

The second Armenian terrorist organization to be founded was the JusticeCommandos for Armenian Genocide (JCAG). It was founded in Beirut in 1975 by theDashnaks. However, unlike the Marxist ASALA, the JCAG is a nationalistorganization. It has claimed that it receives support not from any foreign country butonly from the Armenian Diaspora, boasting about limiting its attacks to Turkey and

the Turks.

ASALAs name has been heard more frequently than the JCAG. However, the JCAGwas no less harmful, accounting for 52 percent of the attacks on Turkish diplomatsand 45 percent of the bombing incidents. The JCAG halted its activities in 1983 dueto the fact that the Dashnaks had come under great pressure both in the USA andEurope.

These are not the only Armenian terrorist organizations. Although the JCAG hashalted its activities another organization was founded around that time: the ArmenianRevolutionary Army (ARA) which has come to be seen as an extension of the JCAG.There have also been some other, less effective organizations such as the October 3Organization, the Orly Group, the September-France Organization and the NewArmenian Resistance Organization. Some of these may have been set up by ASALAand the JCAG to confuse the security forces. One of these organizations, ASALA-RM, is important because it was founded after ASALA was split up.

In the course of the terror campaign that began in 1975 and was brought to a halt in1986 the Armenian terrorist organizations killed a total 70 people (including 32

Turkish diplomats, other Turkish officials and their relatives), wounded 524 people,took 105 people hostage and staged 208 bombings.[19]

Certain countries have viewed the Armenian terrorism with a certain sympathythough they have not supported these acts.

After the Socialists came to power in France in 1981, France obviously adopted amore understanding attitude vis--vis the Armenian demands and actions.However, when Armenian terrorism began to spread on the French territory theFrench began to counter that. However, they still did not block the Armenian politicalactivities that encouraged terrorism. On the contrary, during those years the Frenchmedia brought the Armenian genocide claims to the foreground.

With the conviction that it would weaken NATOs southern flank, the Soviet Union


11/43

viewed the Armenian terrorism with sympathy. This sympathy grew when the USarms embargo on Turkey was lifted and Turkey supported the American thesis infavor of deployment if short-range nuclear missiles in Central Europe.

Although Iran did not openly support the Armenian demands and actions the

Khomeiny regime missed no opportunity to push secular Turkey into a difficultsituation. That could be seen from its unwillingness to prevent the Armenians in Iranfrom attacking the Turkish Embassy in Tehran.

Curiously, during the period in question the Armenian terrorist attacks were notactually denounced in the Western world though everybody in the Western worldseemed to be opposing terrorism in principle and not approving the Armenianattacks. That was because, during the Ottoman era, great powers such as the USA,France and Britain had been in the position of the protector of the Armenians. As aresult the public in these countries had become sympathetic towards the Armenians.

Armenians were Christian and that acted as a factor reinforcing that sympathy.Furthermore, due to the Armenian propaganda, there was a growing belief to theeffect that the Armenians had been subjected to genocide. Due to these reasonsthey were viewed with a certain sympathy and the killing of innocent people was metwith indifference merely because the victims were Turks. This self-contradictionindicates that a serious ethical question of assessment exists in the Western world.

Armenian terrorist attacks were brought to a halt at the end of 1986 mainly becauseof the negative reactions the Armenians triggered when they attempted to harm non-Turks as well. The biggest one of the attacks of this kind took place at the OrlyAirport, Paris, on July 15, 1983. Eight people died and some 60 were injured when asuitcase left in front of the Turkish Airlines (THY) office at the airport exploded. Onlytwo of the dead were Turks. That incident altered the pro-Armenian atmosphere. Ittriggered serious debates in the Armenian circles, causing rifts especially in ASALA,initiating the process of the Armenian terrorisms demise. Following some otherattacks of this kind the security forces of many countries, France among them, putthe Armenian militants under closer scrutiny, and the tenet, justice and justicealone, came to be more strictly observed during the trials of the Armenianterrorists.[20]

The second reason for the end of the Armenian terrorism was that in a number ofcountries, France included, the authorities had clearly stated that they would notaccept utilization of terrorist methods.[21] That made a deterrent effect especially onthe financers of these terrorist acts.

The third reason was that by then the Turkish state had started to better protect itsofficials serving abroad.

The fourth and final reason was that the Armenian terrorism had already attained itsgoal of making the world public opinion hear about the genocide the Turkscommitted against the Armenians in 1915.

VI. Politization of the Armenian question (1987 )


12/43

After the terrorist attacks were brought to a halt the Diaspora Armenians becamepolitically active. Their goal was to elicit from the parliaments of certain countriesresolutions recognizing the genocide. For that purpose they have tried to promotetheir genocide allegations as extensively as possible in the world.

After Armenia became independent in 1991 the Armenian Diaspora has triedvigorously to protect the interests of this new state and to obtain financial aid for it.

The Diaspora has made two kinds of efforts to have the 1915 incidents recognized asa genocide: activities aimed at influencing the public opinion, and political activities.

A. Activities aimed at influencing the public opinion

Thanks to the Armenian terrorist attacks the public in western countries began to

think that Turks must have committed genocide. However, not trusting the collectivememory of the international public the Armenians have repeated their allegationsover and over for emphasis.

Over the past 25 years especially many books have been written to prove that theArmenians had been subjected to a genocide. In general these are in the form ofscientific books. In the past, with a few exceptions, only Armenians used to write onthis subject. In recent years non-Armenian writers too started to tackle this subject.Furthermore, some Turkish writers too have published books in which they supportedthe Armenian views. Some Turkish academics have embraced the Armenian viewswithout even writing any book or long article on the Armenian question themselves.

In addition to books numerous articles have been published in scientific magazineson this subject. Also, special importance is being attached to the publishing of itemson the genocide issue in newspapers and certain magazines.

Meanwhile, conferences, panels and other meetings are being organized on thegenocide issue in those countries that the Armenians have chosen as their target fortheir campaigns.

Lately the genocide issue has formed the subject matter of a number of literary worksas well. Almost all of the people who write these novels, books of poems and playsare of Armenian origin.

Coming to the films on this subject, documentaries abound. These are shown bythe TV channels in many countries, starting with the USA, France and Lebanon,during the month of April every year. Very little authentic visual material dating fromthe year 1915 exists. Some of the footage used in these films is fabricated and theauthenticity of some others is questionable. The same misgivings can be expressedalso about the genocide exhibitions staged in April every year.

Among the feature films two have been more prominent than the others: Mayrig(Mother) and Ararat (Mount Ar). Mayrig is by a French director of Armenian origin,


13/43

Henri Verneuil (Ashot Malakian), and was made in 1991. Ararat, directed by AtomEgoyan, a Canadian Armenian, was first shown in 2002. Both of these are high-budget films. Although it does refer to the alleged genocide Mayrig mainly tells thestory of a family that migrated to France in the wake of the mass relocation of 1915and its struggle to earn a living there. Ararat deals only with the alleged genocide. It

has an utterly disarrayed scenario dotted with scenes of brutality. Mayrig provedrelatively successful whereas non-Armenians have not displayed interest inArarat.[22]

Armenians finance these activities with donations. The Armenians have a tradition ofmaking donations and the wave of nationalism triggered by the genocide allegationshas bolstered that tradition. Today, donating money for such purposes is beingconsidered a national duty for well-to-do Armenians.

How much money is being spent for the activities aimed at influencing the

international public opinion and for the political activities we will be discussing in thefollowing section? Armenian sources do not provide information on this issue.However, one could make a rough estimate. One author[23] has written that theArmenians spend $14 million every year to influence the US Congress. Anothersource has pointed out that the film, Ararat, had cost more than $15 million.[24] Addto these the cost of the aforementioned scientific books, articles, novels, poems,plays, films, exhibitions and various kinds of meetings. The overall sum must be noless than a hundred million dollars since activities of this kind are not limited to theUSA and are being carried in many other countries (France, Canada, Australia andLebanon especially) as well.

There is great demand from the Armenian circles for such activities. Since theseactivities entail big sums of money and large amounts of people earn an income fromthem, it would not be an exaggeration to say that an Armenian genocide industryhas been born. The fact that this industry is enabling so many people to earn anincome has become one of the factors albeit a secondary rather than a primaryonecausing the genocide allegations to be put forth so persistently.

B. Political activities

The political activities of the Diaspora Armenians mainly consist of the efforts beingmade to elicit from a number of national parliaments and international organizationsresolutions recognizing the genocide.

a. Resolutions passed by the parliaments of a number of countries

Significantly, the Diaspora Armenians are asking the parliaments rather than thegovernments of the individual countries to recognize the genocide. This is becausethese governments are in charge of carrying out their countries foreign relations.They have a responsibility to this effect. If any of these governments were to take adecision on the genocide issue that would almost certainly cause problems in thatcountrys relations with Turkey. Since these governments do not want any suchdevelopment they try to stay out of the Armenian allegations as much as possible.


14/43

Parliaments, on the other hand, are not the direct interlocutors of foreign countries.So they feel free to express an opinion about a foreign country or an internationalissue or to take recommendatory decisions. If those that demand such decisionshappen to have the kind of voting potential that could affect the election results in acountry, that acts as an incentive, making it easier for them to get what they want

from a parliament.Here is the list of the 18 countries who, via the decisions taken by their parliaments,have recognized the Armenian genocide:

1. Uruguay 1965, 2004, 20052. Greek Cypriot Administration 19823. Argentina 1993, 2003, 2004, 20054. Russia 1995, 20055. Canada 1996, 2000, 2004

6. Greece 19967. Lebanon 1997, 20008. Belgium 19989. Italy 200010. Vatican - 200011. France - 200112. Switzerland 200313. Slovakia - 200414. The Netherlands 200415. Poland - 200516. Germany - 200517. Venezuela 200518. Lithuania - 2005

As can be seen from the list most of these decisions were taken in the 1990s andonwards. This is because, after the period of Armenian terrorism, the Diasporafocused on gaining official recognition of the genocide and, after Armenia gainedindependence, this country threw its support behind the Diaspora efforts to thiseffect.

The genocide resolutions gained momentum since 2000 mainly because of Turkeyhas become a candidate for EU membership. Those European countries that hadhesitated to take a decision on the genocide issue in the past, took that step in theend, thinking that, as a candidate country, Turkey would not be in a position to objectvigorously.

The highlights of the resolutions passed by the parliaments of individual countriescan be summed up in the following manner[25]:

Uruguay (1965, 2004, 2005)

Uruguay was the first country to acknowledge the Armenian genocide allegations.The Parliament of Uruguay (the Senate and the House of Representatives) passed


15/43


16/43

In 1996 Canadas House of Commons had passed a resolution that made referencesto the Armenian tragedy and other crimes against humanity, and declared the weekof April 20 to 27of each year as the week of remembrance of the inhumanity of thepeople toward one another. Armenian militants were not satisfied with the resolutionsince it did mention Turkey or the Turks at all and referred to the 1915 incidents only

together with many other cases. They waged a relentless campaign to elicit a newresolution exclusively on the Armenians. That campaign proved effective and in 2002the Senate passed a new resolution, this one recognizing the genocide of theArmenians, condemning any attempt to deny a historical truth as being anythingless than genocide, and designating April 24th every year as a day of remembranceof the 1.5 million Armenians who fell victim to genocide.[26] Furthermore, in 2004the House of Commons adopted a resolution that said the House was officiallyacknowledging the Armenian genocide of 1915 and condemning it as a crimeagainst humanity.

Canadas Minister of Foreign Affairs Bill Graham issued a statement after thatresolution was adopted, stressing that the Canadian governments June 10, 1999stance had not changed, and that the resolution passed by the House did not committhe government.[27] The Canadian governments June 10, 1999 stance was that the1915 incidents were a tragedy but did not constitute a genocide.[28]

In a statement issued on April 22, 2004,the Turkish Foreign Ministry denounced theway Canadas Federal Parliament had passed such a resolution by pursuingmarginal views. It pointed out that it is not a duty for the parliaments to passjudgment on the controversial periods of history, that decisions of this kind couldinspire feelings of hatred among people of different origins and thus disrupt socialharmony, that neither the Canadian Armenians nor Armenia would benefit from thedecision, and that the responsibility for any negative consequences would lie with theCanadian politicians.

The main reason for the Canadian assemblies to adopt resolutions that reflect theArmenian views is the presence of an Armenian minority in Canada. Turks too live inCanada in notable numbers but they are not effectively organized.

Greece (1996)

With a bill passed on April 25, 1996, the Greek Parliament declared April 24 as theday of commemoration of the genocide of the Armenians by Turkey. Greece hadgiven all kinds of assistance to the Armenians in the wake if the 1973 Cyprus PeaceOperation. However, it had obviously not been in a hurry to recognize the genocide.This is mainly because Greece had not wanted to reveal its position though it wassecretly helping the Armenians in various ways. Obviously what caused Greece toabandon that cautious stance was the Kardak (Imia Rocks) crisis that broke out inJanuary 1996, bringing Turkey and Greece to the brink of a war. After that crisis theGreek Parliament took the genocide decision.

Lebanon (1997, 2000)


17/43

In a resolution it passed in 1997 the Lebanese Parliament called on the people ofLebanon to declare their solidarity with the Armenian people on April 24. Theresolution referred to the organized extermination acts of the colonizer (theOttoman Empire) against our peoples in the beginning of the century. In anotherresolution it passed in 2000 the Lebanese Parliament recognized and condemned

the genocide perpetrated against the Armenian people, referring to massacresperpetrated by the Ottoman authorities as a result of which 1.5 million Armenians fellvictim. Furthermore, it said that international recognition of this genocide was anecessary condition for the prevention of similar crimes that may occur in the future.

Thus, with these two resolutions, the Lebanese Parliament has embraced all of theArmenian views. This is due to the fact that the Lebanese system is based onreligious communities and, in this framework, the roughly 200,000-strong LebaneseArmenian community holds certain positions in the parliament and the government. Itcan be remembered that this position of the Armenians had enabled them to turn

Lebanon into a kind of main center for Armenian terrorism.

Belgium (1998)

The Belgian Senate acknowledged in 1998 the alleged Armenian genocide byreferring to the European Parliament resolution on this issue. After reiterating thewell-known Armenian theses (saying there was historical evidence attesting togenocide without the slightest doubt and that the crimes of the past must berecognized so that reconciliation could take place between peoples), it urged theTurkish government to admit the historical reality of the genocide perpetrated by thelast government of the Ottoman Empire in 1915.

After that development the Armenians and Armenian sympathizers in Belgium tried toelicit a similar decision from Belgiums National Assembly as well. Later they madean effort to insert a clause into the law that makes negation of Holocaust a crime inBelgium so that the law in question would cover negation of the Armenian genocideas well. Until now they have not been successful in these efforts. The way the Turksin Belgium have worked to counter these attempts, has obviously played a part inthat.

Italy (2000)

After much hesitation and waiting (since Italy has close relations with Turkey) theItalian Parliament finally passed a resolution on the genocide issue in 2000 as aresult of the insistent efforts of a number of pro-Armenian deputies. Referring to twoparagraphs of the European Parliament decision on the European Commissions1999 Progress Report on Turkey (the paragraphs on the alleged Armenian genocideand the Turkey-Armenia relations), it asked the Italian government to pursueenergetically the easing of all tensions between peoples and minorities in theCaucasus region in order to create, with due observance of the territorial integrity ofthe two states (Turkey and Armenia), pacific coexistence and respect for humanrights. It is obvious that by acknowledging the Armenian genocide only indirectly,that is, only by referring to the relevant European Parliament decision, the Italian


18/43

Chamber of Deputies has prevented this move from adversely affecting Turkey-Italyrelations.

Vatican (2000)

At the end of Catholicos of Echmiadzin Karekin IIs visit to Vatican in November 2000the Catholicos and Pope Jean-Paul II issued a joint communiqu that contained theremark, The Armenian genocide, which began the century, was a prologue to thehorrors that would follow. Thus Vatican acknowledged the alleged Armeniangenocide. The Pope visited Armenia in October 2001 and prayed at the genocidemonument. Both in that prayer and in the communiqu issued after his meeting withKarekin II, references were made to the Armenian genocide. Vatican has beenstriving to have Vaticans primacy acknowledged by all Christians. Seeing theimpossibility of persuading the big churches to do that, it is conducting a policy ofseeking closer relations with the Armenian, Assyrian, Caldean and Maronite

Churches and the other smaller eastern churches. For this reason his acknowledgingthe genocide should be seen as a gesture made with the intention of winning favorwith the Armenian Church. That gesture was made in the year 2000 because theEuropean Parliaments Progress Report on Turkey contained statements thatacknowledged the alleged genocide. In other words, just as Italy, Vatican has chosento hide behind the European Parliament on this issue.

France (2001)

The Armenians in France have political influence that is not proportionate to theirnumbers: 350,000-400,000. They have been campaigning for a long time to have theArmenian genocide acknowledged in that country. This issue was put on the FrenchNational Assemblys agenda in 1998 but it was only after Turkey was grantedcandidate country status by the EU that the authorities in France had to make thatconcession to the Armenians. At that time the March 2001 local and municipalelections were looming on the horizon and the ruling and opposition parties wererunning neck-and-neck. On Jan. 29, 2001 the French Parliament passed a lawconsisting of a single sentence: France publicly recognizes the Armenian genocideof 1915.[29]

In Turkey adverse reactions began even before that law was actually passed. OnJan. 9, 2001 the Turkish Grand National Assembly adopted a resolution, which saidthat the controversial bill had been put on the French Parliaments agenda due toconcerns about vote-getting and that it was based on prejudices and a distortion ofhistory. It pointed out that if the bill were to be passed that would destroy the freedomof thought and expression and the freedom of scientific research and publication inFrance on that particular subject. Turkey wanted to develop its relations with Francebut progress in that regard would depend on mutual goodwill, it stressed. It pointedout that if the bill were to be passed France would not be able to stick to the principleof neutrality and that, for that reason, Turkey would react with suspicion to every stepFrance would take. Recalling that the French Parliament had refused to assess thetragic events that had taken place in Algeria in the past, leaving to history the task ofmaking such an assessment, it said that Turkey now expected France to act in the


19/43

same manner. History should not be exploited to inspire hatred between nations, theTurkish Grand National Assembly said, remembering yet another time in this respectthe murderous campaign waged against Turkish diplomats and some Frenchnationals.

After the controversial bill was enacted in France, the Turkish government issued astatement to condemn the law, reject it together with all its consequences, and warnthat the law in question would cause a serious crisis in the relations with France.

In a press release on the same day the Turkish Foreign Ministry referred to theenactment of the law in question as an irresponsible move that would reactivateArmenian terrorism. It demanded that the French government take the measuresrequired to ensure the safety of the Turkish nationals in France, Turkish diplomatsamong them, in that climate.

After the enactment of the said bill Turkish-French relations saw a serious decline.The Foreign Minister of the time, smail Cem, told the French Ambassador that thelaw in question could reactivate xenophobia and Armenian terrorism in France. ThePrime Minister of the time, Blent Ecevit, said that the law would harm Turkish-French relations. President Sezer referred to the French Parliaments decision aslacking in common sense. The Cabinet discussed the potential sanctions to beimposed on France. Military purchases from France were curtailed. Meanwhile, duepartly to the effects of the media coverage, the Turkish public opinion embracednegative views about France. That caused astonishment in France. However, sincethey could not back off from the controversial law, bilateral relations remained tensefor some time. Later, thanks to the positive stance and efforts of the Frenchgovernment on the issue of Turkish membership in the EU, bilateral relationsgradually returned to normal.

Here, it must be pointed out that the French Armenians were not fully satisfied withthe law in question. They criticized it because it did not envisage any sanctions forthose negating the Armenian genocide. They called for a new law on the Armeniangenocide issue that would be similar to the Gayssot Act under which those negatingthe Holocaust get punished.

Nearly three years later, that is, in 2004, in the course of the debates taking place inFrance on the proposed European Constitution it was observed that a great majorityof the French people opposed Turkish membership in the EU. The French politicalparties too were affected by that mood. While the right wing and centrist partiesopposed Turkish membership in the EU the Socialist Party continued to be in favor ofTurkish membership in principle but it tied Turkish membership to progress in thefield of human rights and democratization and on the Armenian genocide issue.[30]Since Turkey is rejecting the genocide allegations in reality the Socialists too haveopposed Turkish membership in the EU.

This phenomenon has affected the French governments stance as well. At the EUsDec. 17, 2004 summit meeting France made efforts to ensure that Turkey would begiven special status rather than full membership. When these efforts failed it


20/43

reluctantly agreed to the initiation of the accession talks with Turkey on the conditionthat the negotiations would be open-ended, that is, on the condition that thenegotiations would not necessarily culminate in full membership and that, forexample, the possibility of giving Turkey only special status would not be ruled out.

As of that date a change took place in the French governments stance on theArmenian question. Until then they had not said Turkey should acknowledge thealleged genocide. Now, various French politicians, President Chirac among them,started talking about the need for Turkey to engage in an exercise in memoryregarding the Armenians. The Armenian genocide issue is not one of theCopenhagen Criteria and it has not been mentioned in the EU documents regulatingthe negotiations to be held with Turkey. Therefore, this issue is not expected to beput forth as EU stance during the negotiations. However, France may unilaterallyask Turkey to acknowledge the genocide. If Turkey refuses to do that, France mayhave to resort to a path that would entail a great responsibility, that is, the path of

vetoing Turkish membership.

On this occasion let us stress a number of points: So as not to jeopardize theoutcome of the referendum that was to be held on the proposed EuropeanConstitution, the French government had the French Constitution amended prior tothe referendum. In its amended form the French Constitution permits referendums tobe held on the candidacy of those countries that would join the EU after 2007. Inother words, the French people have been granted the right to veto Turkish fullmembership in the future if they wanted to. However, despite this change, the Frenchpeople rejected the proposed European Constitution with 55 percent of theparticipants saying No to it in the referendum. In the list of the factors that causedthe French people to say No to the European Constitution the issue of Turkish entryinto the EU was ranked fifth. In other words, anti-Turkish feelings have made only arelatively small effect on the referendum results.

Switzerland (2003)

On Dec. 16, 2003 the Swiss Parliament (National Council) passed a resolutionrecognizing the Armenian genocide.[31]

The Armenian minority in Switzerland enjoys influence that is not proportionate to itssize. For years the Armenian minority made persistent efforts to elicit from the SwissParliament a resolution supporting the Armenian allegations. They got support from anumber of Swiss politicians as well as from Kurdish separatist elements. Asuccession of Swiss governments resisted these efforts, taking into consideration thecountrys relations with Turkey. The attempts made by the Armenians in 1995, 2000and 2001 did not yield results. In the March 13, 2001 vote the Swiss Parliamentrejected a draft resolution to this effect with a three-vote margin. Later, a motionsigned by 115 of the members in the 201-member Swiss Parliament was presentedto the Parliament. The sponsors wanted the Parliament to acknowledge thegenocide and to inform Turkey of this. It was going to be put to a vote on March 20,2002. Voting did not take place because the Swiss government announced it wasagainst such a move.[32] However, since roughly half of the parliamentarians were in


21/43

favor of such a move it became obvious that a resolution is this kind was going to bepassed sooner or later.

In fact, the Canton of Geneva had already (on Dec. 10, 2001) passed a resolutionembracing the Armenian allegations. The Canton of Vaux where the historic

Lausanne Treaty had been signed adopted a similar document on Sept. 23, 2003.This triggered comments in the Armenian press about the symbolic meaning of thedocument in question, Lausanne being the city where the treaty wiping Armenia offthe face of the maps had been signed.

Swiss Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey was to pay an official visit to Turkey onOct. 6. According to Swiss press reports she was planning to visit the Kurdishregions as well as Ankara and Istanbul. However, citing as grounds the resolutionpassed by the Canton of Vaux, Ankara cancelled the visit.

On Dec. 16, 2003 the Swiss Parliament adopted a resolution along the followinglines: The National Council (Parliament) recognizes the Armenian genocide of 1915.It asks the Federal Council (the government) to take note of this decision and to relayit through the usual diplomatic channels. The Turkish Foreign Ministry issued astatement, vigorously condemning and rejecting the Swiss Parliaments decision. Itstressed that the events were being distorted and portrayed as genocide in a one-sided manner. That was unacceptable, it pointed out. It expressed astonishment overthis attempt to mislead the public opinion. It pointed out that the Swiss Parliamentwould be responsible for any potential negative consequences of the decision it hadtaken with domestic political considerations in disregard for the Turkey-Switzerlandrelations and for the sentiments and opinions of the Turks living in Switzerland.

On Dec. 22, 2003 the Turkish Grand National Assembly adopted unanimously thefollowing communiqu that denounced the Swiss Parliaments decision. Earlier thetext had been jointly approved by the AKP and the CHP groups in the Parliament:

Parliaments should refrain from being reduced to a position where they would beserving the aspirations of those circles that want a clash of civilizations. According toour assessment the erroneous decisions taken during this sensitive period when

there should be solidarity and cooperation against international terrorism, amount torewarding the racist Armenian terror that has taken the lives of great numbers ofinnocent people, targeting the interests of many countries, Switzerland among them.With its decision that has profoundly hurt the feelings of the Turkish nation, theNational Assembly [Swiss Parliament] has also undertaken the responsibility for thenegative developments that may take place in the Turkey-Switzerland relations thathad progressed favorably in many fields in recent years. The Assembly [TurkishGrand National Assembly] denounces and considers unacceptable the one-sided,erroneous decision of the Swiss National Assembly that deliberately distorts historicalfacts.[33]

At first glance it seems hard to understand that Switzerland has tried to satisfy 5,000Armenians while ignoring the presence in the country of some 100,000 Turks ofwhom 20,000 are Swiss nationals. The Swiss Parliament must be taking into


22/43

consideration not the size of a community but the influence it wields.

Turkey-Switzerland relations remained stagnant for about two years. Then,responding to the insistent demands of the Swiss side, the Turkish authorities agreedto have Ms. Calmy-Rey visit Turkey in March.

Shortly after that visit a new crisis broke out between the two countries when judicialinvestigations were initiated against the Chairman of the Turkish Historical SocietyYusuf Halaolu and Turkish Workers Party Chairman Dou Perinek for speechesthey had made in Switzerland at different times, speeches in which they had declaredthat the Armenians had not been subjected to a genocide. That development affectedtrade relations as well. Krat Tzmen, the state minister responsible for foreigntrade, demanded cancellation of the Turkish-Swiss Business Councils June 22-24meeting. Furthermore, the visit Swiss Economy Minister Joseph Deiss was planningto make to Turkey in September was cancelled.

Halaolu and Perinek were being investigated in Switzerland merely because theyhad expressed their thought on a certain subject. The investigation triggered debateson the extent of the freedom of expression in Switzerland, causing an unfortunatesituation for a country that boasts about being the cradle of democracy.

Slovakia (2004)

The Parliament of Slovakia adopted on Nov. 30, 2004 the following resolution: TheSlovak Parliament recognizes the genocide of Armenians in 1915 during whichhundreds of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire were killed, and considers this act acrime against humanity.[34]

The Slovak Parliaments decision came as a complete surprise and, initially, thereasons for it could not be understood since there is no sizable Armenian communityin Slovakia and the country does not have a close relationship with Armenia. Later,the reasons for that move could be explained by looking into certain events inSlovakias history.

At the end of the First World War the Czechs and the Slovaks were brought togetherin a single state: Czechoslovakia. Later, when the Czechs, who were more populousand more affluent, gained an influential position in the state mechanism, certainextreme right, racist movements emerged in Slovakia. After the Nazis occupiedCzechoslovakia on March 15, 1939, the part of the country where the Czechs livedwas attached to Germany as the Protectorate of Bohemia. On the same day, anostensibly independent Slovak Republic was founded. The Slovak Republic followedthe same policies as the Nazi Germany. In this context, the over 80,000 Jews inSlovakia were deprived of all their rights and, after some time, most of them weresent to the Auschwitz concentration camp --which was on the other side of theborderwhere they were killed. Towards the end of 1944 Slovakia was occupied bythe Soviet armies and Czechoslovakia was re-established by reunifying that regionwith the Czech zone. The Soviets asked their new allies, Poland andCzechoslovakia, to drive out the Germans that had been living in these countries for


23/43

centuries. Thus, millions of Germans were exiled to Germany under extremely hardconditions. Meanwhile, the Slovaks drove out the Germans living in the CarpathianMountains region. Forcing them to go to Germany.

During the disintegration of the Soviet Union, with the help of Germany the Slovaks

founded an independent state once again. Knowing well that because of the waythey had treated Jews and the Carpathian Germans, they would not be accepted asa respectable nation by the European countries, the Slovak Parliament passed aresolution that extended an apology to the Jews in December 1990. About twomonths later it apologized to the Carpathian Germans in the same manner.[35]

Since then Slovakia has displayed sensitivity to human rights issues and made apoint of showing the world that it does respect human rights. In this framework theSlovak Parliament did not find it difficult to recognize the alleged Armenian genocideprobably with the conviction that this would not draw a strong reaction from Turkey, a

country waiting at the gates of the EU to be admitted.

The Netherlands (2004)

On Dec. 21, 2004 the Dutch Parliament asked the government to continually raisethe recognition of the Armenian genocide in an emphatic fashion within theframework of its dialogue with Turkey.[36]

The reasons for the Dutch Parliaments decision are not clear. The Netherlands hasa highly active and affluent Armenian minority. However, since their numbers are toofew, the Dutch Armenians are not in a position to elicit resolutions from theParliament and they can hardly exert an influence on all members of the DutchParliament from the financial aspect. One might think that members of the DutchParliament must have acted in this manner because, due to the Armenianpropaganda, they sincerely believed that the Armenians had been subjected to agenocide. If that is the case it would not be easy to see why they are not interested inwhat the neighboring Belgium had done in Congo or the massacres of France inAlgeria or why they are failing to look at their own colonialist past in this light. Insteadof all that why are they insisting on describing as genocide without doing any

research at all-- a mass relocation that had been performed in a country far from theNetherlands nearly a century ago? Obviously, there must be a different motivebehind the Dutch Parliaments decision.

It is no secret that unlike the peoples of Southern Europe, the peoples of Central andNorthern Europe are generally insensitive and intolerant towards the foreigners ingeneral. This is especially through when these foreigners have different customsand traditions. Those with a colonialist past the Dutch, for example tend toconsider themselves superior to the Orientals. However, despite their greataccumulation of capital the Dutch do not have a big enough population. As the otherdeveloped economies of Europe, they needed and obtained foreign workers. Almostall of these happen to be Oriental. The presence of foreign workers and theirfamilies in the country has created an integration problem. It is not possible to saythat this problem has been solved by now. The Dutch people feel uncomfortable


24/43

about the presence in the country of the foreign workers and their families. Yet, thereis the possibility that Turkey will be an EU member -- albeit in no earlier than adecadeand that would increase the number of Turks in the EU. Conservativesegments of the Dutch society are trying to prevent that. On the other hand, it is afact that without Turkey it would not be possible for the EU to carry out its Middle

Eastern and Caucasian policies successfully. Under the circumstances, the Dutch donot want to have Turks in their country but, at the same time, they need Turkey. Thisconflict has driven the Dutch to act in self-contradictory ways. While the Dutchgovernment made efforts in favor of starting the EU-Turkey talks, most of the Dutchparliamentarians sought schemes that would render the talks more difficult. Thedemand that Turkey acknowledge the Armenian genocide was obviously seen as asolution to this dilemma by the Dutch in this context.

Poland (2005)

The Polish Parliament passed the following resolution unanimously on April 19, 2005:The Sejm (Parliament) of Republic of Poland pays homage to the victims ofgenocide committed on Armenian population in Turkey during the 1st World War.Remembrance of the victims of this crime and condemning it is a duty of all humanity,all countries and peoples of good will.[37]

The Polish Parliaments decision triggered strong adverse reactions in Turkey bothfrom the people and the government. This is because the Turkish public had a highlyfavorable image of Poland. That image stemmed from the developments of the past.Throughout their history the two countries had a common enemy, that is, Russia, andthe Ottoman Empire had refused to agree to the splitting of Poland between Russiaand Prussia. The Turkish public perceived it as a kind of betrayal when theparliament of a country about whom Turks harbor such good sentiments unanimouslyadopted a resolution that mirrored the Armenian views on an issue on which Turkeyis highly sensitive.

On April 20, that is, one day after the Polish Parliament adopted that resolution theTurkish Foreign Ministry issued the following statement:

The Polish Parliament adopted on April 19, 2005 a resolution that acknowledges asgenocide the events of 1915. We condemn and reject that resolution.

It is irresponsible to distort and, in a one-sided fashion, define as genocide theincidents that took place under the First World War conditions and caused the Turksand the Armenians to suffer greatly.

Turkey has maintained that national parliaments are not the places where judgmentswould be delivered on the controversial periods of history, and that parliamentsshould avoid initiatives that would fan feelings of hatred and vengefulness betweenpeoples.

With the conviction that it is the historians who could reach the soundest conclusionson the historical events, Turkey has suggested to Armenia formation of a group of


25/43

Turkish and Armenian historians that would research the 1915 developments andincidents by looking into the archives of not only Turkey and Armenia but of all thecountries concerned, and report their findings to the international public.

It has deeply grieved the Turkish people that, rather than advising the Armenian

government to accept our proposal, the Polish Parliament has taken a decisionbased on distorted information about the events of 1915. The way the PolishParliament has acted is not compatible with the feelings of friendship that haveflourished for nearly eight centuries.

The Polish Parliament took that decision due to a variety of reasons.

Firstly, we must point out that the Turkish peoples warm feelings towards the Polishpeople are not reciprocated. The people in Poland do not feel a special sympathy forthe Turks. For them the Russo-Ottoman wars and the plans to divide Poland are

ancient history. If, because of these, they had once felt an affinity towards Turkey,that must have disappeared during the Soviet era. Turkey has been a staunchmember of NATO. Under the circumstances, the Soviets definitely did not allowdisplays of sympathy in Poland for Turkey in remembrance of the way the twocountries had had Tsarist Russia as their common enemy.

Since Poland does not have a big Armenian community and has not formed a specialrelationship with Armenia there must be some other reasons behind the PolishParliaments decision. As is the case with all former Soviet republics that arenewcomers to the EU, Poland is making an extreme effort in defense of human rights probably to compensate for its own shortcomings. Also, certain suggestions comingfrom Germany, the old foe that has become Polands new friend and protector, mayhave played a role in the adoption of the resolution. Obviously, Poland has taken thisdecision due to two reasons. Firstly, as all the other EU member countries, Polandhas the right to veto Turkish membership in the EU on various occasions in thecourse of the accession process. So, Poland may have assumed that in the course ofthat process Turkey would be forced to maintain good relations with the EU countriesand thus would not be able to react strongly to the genocide resolution. Secondly,Polish authorities seem to think that whenever a negative development takes place

Turkey vigorously protests it but it forgets all about it quickly afterwards. In fact,Speaker of the Polish Parliament Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz has said that theproblem between the two countries would disappear in a few days.[38]

Germany (2005)

On June 16, 2005 the Bundestag (German Federal Parliament) passed a resolutionentitled, Remembrance and Commemoration of the 1915 Armenian Expulsion andMassacre: Germany Should Contribute to the Reconciliation of Turks andArmenians. That was longer than any other resolution adopted on this issue to date.Taking into consideration the importance Turkey attaches to its relations withGermany, and, also, the presence of the some three million Turks in Germany, wewill examine this resolution in detail.


26/43

In the second half of the XIXth Century, racist movements emerged in Germany and,due partly to the disappointment caused by the German defeat in the First WorldWar, these movements led to the birth of the Nazi regime. It is no secret that the Naziregime reached the apex of racism, killing six million people merely because theywere Jews. Later, the big defeat Germany suffered in the Second World War, the

partition of the country, and the foreign victors occupation of the German territory foryears, have significantly lessened racism in Germany, the cause of these tragicevents, although it has not been eliminated altogether.

In the face of the threat the Soviet Union posed to the West European countries, thelatter felt the need for Germanys help. Leaving aside that countrys past, theyadmitted Germany into the ranks of the free nations of Europe. The Germaneconomic development began in a short time. Although it had capital it did not haveenough manpower. That gap was bridged with the guest workers brought in fromother countries and Germany became Europes strongest economy in a time span

that can be considered short.

The guest workers, mostly Turks, had a different culture, different traditions. Thiscaused a problem for the Germans that, due to their racist background, were notbasically tolerant. To solve this problem the integration concept was put forth. Thatmeant assimilation of the foreign workers. However, that drive has not yielded thedesired results. Only a limited number of the guest workers have been assimilated.The great majority retains the national customs and traditions although threegenerations of them have lived in Germany by now. After the reunification ofGermany, East Germans that had not embraced democratic values and human rightsjoined the West German society, increasing racist behavior and xenophobia.

The political formation that consists of the German Christian Democratic Union(CDU) and the Christian Social Union (CSU), and is called the Christian Democratsfor short, played a major role in the establishment of the Federal Germany in theaftermath of the Second World War. The Christian Democrats were also the architectof the close and friendly relations between Turkey and Germany in all fields in thepost-war era. The Christian Democratic governments provided financial and militaryassistance to Turkey. It was the Christian Democratic governments that opted for

bringing in from Turkey most of the foreign workers the German economy needed.

This favorable picture was altered after the disintegration of the Soviet Union andreunification of Germany, that is, after Europes need for Turkey from the strategicstandpoint lessened and unemployment began to rise in Germany due to recession.The Christian Democrats started to put on the agenda the Turkish workersintegration problems in Germany and they opposed the Turkish bid for fullmembership in the EU. However, they considered a potential weakening of Turkeysrelations with the EU hazardous as well. So, they put forth the idea that Turkeyshould be offered privileged partnership as opposed to full membership. When thatdid not materialize they tried to find another formula. Meanwhile, they started harpingon the Armenian genocide theme obviously with the conviction that if they accusedTurkey of having committed genocide that could cause the Social Democrats to losevotes in the next parliamentary election.


27/43

Meanwhile, it must be noted that in Germany accusations related to the Holocausttend to seriously upset the rightwing circles in general. However, it is not possible toreject these accusations. They seem to believe that if it turned out that the crime ofgenocide had been committed by others as well at an earlier date-- that would

somehow lessen the severity of the Germans crime. This is the way they perceivethis issue. For this reason in the German right there is the tendency to blame othersfor genocide. When directing accusations at Turkey the Christian Democrats aimedto get support from those circles.

Considering all these issues the Christian Democrats presented a draft resolution onthe Armenian question to the Bundestag on Feb. 23, 2004. The Greens, a partner inthe ruling coalition, supported the draft while the Social Democrats initially opposedit. When the Social Democrats lost the regional election in the North Rhine-Westphalia state the decision was taken to stage a fresh general election. As a

result, the Social Democrats stopped opposing the Christian Democrats draft,thinking that if they continued to oppose it they could lose votes in the generalelection.

After being slightly amended the draft was adopted unanimously that is, byconsensus without holding a voteby the Bundestag on June 16, 2005.

The text did not include the word genocide. However, it did contain some otherphrases that might convey the same meaning. It referred to, for example, almosttotal annihilation of the Armenians and expulsion and annihilation of theArmenians. There has been speculation to the effect that the word genocide wasnot put into the draft so as not to trigger strong adverse reactions from the Turksliving in Germany.

The resolution underlined the need for addressing history in an honest manner,expressing the conviction that this would be the most important basis forreconciliation. It stressed that this point is valid especially in the framework of theEuropean remembrance culture, saying that this would entail, among other things,facing up clearly to the dark pages of ones national history.

Germany triggered two big wars on the European continent in a quarter of a century(1914-1939), caused the deaths of millions of civilians and soldiers, and committedthe crime of genocide against the Jews. The defeat it suffered in the end was sogreat that, to be able to be accepted as an independent state once again, it had togive up a great part of its territory, remain under the occupation of foreign forces,and, before everything else, acknowledge all the crimes it had committed and paycompensation.

However, Germany constitutes a special case which is obviously not being taken asan example by other countries. Those countries that were not defeated in the war,especially, are not inclined to face up to their own colonialist past or other dark pagesof their history. France constitutes the most striking example of that, refusing toacknowledge the massacres and other atrocities committed in Algeria.


28/43


29/43

accessible to the public.

The resolution said that, considering the presence in Germany of large numbers ofMuslims that had come from Turkey, there was an important task to recall the pastand thus make a contribution to reconciliation. These words meant indirectly that it

was a duty for the Turkish migrants workers in Germany to admit that Turks hadcommitted genocide against the Armenians. The Turks in Germany have no suchduty. Obviously, under the influence of the growing xenophobia in Germany, anattempt is being made to put pressure on the Turks in Germany, using the Armenianquestion as a pretext.

The resolution said that normalization of the relations between Turkey and Armeniawas highly important for the future of the region, and that, in this context, the twosides should urgently take confidence-building measures on the basis of theOrganization for Security and Cooperation in Europe principles. It said, for example,

that Turkey reopening the border could end Armenias isolation and encourage thestart of diplomatic relations. Furthermore, it maintained that within the framework ofthe EU Neighborhood Initiative, Germany had a special commitment to help bringabout normalization and improvement of relations between Turkey and Armenia andthus contribute to stability in the Caucasus region. Significantly, without making anyreference to why stability in the Caucasus region had been disrupted in the firstplace, the resolution asks Turkey to open its border with Armenia and to establishdiplomatic relations with it to rebuild stability in the region. Yet, it was Armenia whodisrupted stability in the Caucasus by occupying Karabakh and some other parts ofAzerbaijani territory. Armenia refuses to officially recognize Turkeys borders andputs forth genocide allegations against Turkey in order to gain political advantages.The Bundestag resolution makes no reference at all to these facts about Armeniaand this undermines the credibility of the resolution.

The resolution said that the German federal states should, by way of education,contribute to the tackling in Germany as well the issue of the expulsion andannihilation of the Armenians. This means that the Armenian genocide allegationsshould be taught in German schools. That would inspire hostility in the Germanstudents against the Turks while the students of Turkish origin would start having

feelings of guilt. They must have thought that due to such feelings some of thestudents of Turkish origin would in the end cast aside their national identity.

With the resolution in question the Bundestag has made certain demands on thefederal government. Here is a summary of these demands with explanations of ourown given in parentheses:

The federal government should help bring about an agreement between Turks andArmenians by way of apology/forgiveness for the historical crime, and reconciliation.(Turks do not believe that they have committed a crime against the Armenians.Therefore, it is out of the question for them to apologize. Furthermore, the Armenianquestion is mainly a political issue that is based on certain calculations of self-interestrather than a psychological issue. So, it could not be resolved by way of making oneside extend an apology.)


30/43

An initiative should be made to ensure that Turkeys Parliament, Government andsociety would question unconditionally the role they have played against theArmenian people in the past and in the present. (This is an indirect way of saying thatTurkey should, with its parliament, government and people, acknowledge the alleged

Armenian genocide.)Efforts should be made towards creation of a commission of historians with theparticipation of international experts along with Turkish and Armenian academics.(Thus the Bundestag accepted Prime Minister Erdoans proposal for a commissionof historians. However, it argued that international experts too should take part in thecommission. Thus it wants to internationalize the issue rather than letting the Turksand Armenians solve their problems between them.)

An effort should be made to release to the public not only the relevant documents of

the Ottoman Empire but also the Federal Foreign Ministry archival documents thatGermany has relayed to Turkey as well as some other countries. (Since the GermanArchives are already open the demand that these should be opened to the publicdoes not make sense. Furthermore, these words create the impression that in Turkeyonly the Ottoman documents have been published. This is not true. In Turkey, therelevant British and French documents too have been published. Furthermore, theTurkish Historical Society is planning to publish the Russian documents as well.Meanwhile, the relevant German documents too can be published. However, sincethese have already been examined the publication of the German documents on thisissue can hardly be expected to make a significant contribution to the research beingdone on the Armenian question.)

Efforts should be made to ensure that the planned conference in Istanbul that had tobe postponed due to state pressure, takes place. (That was a reference to theconference a number of pro-Armenian Turkish academics and writers had wanted tostage at the Bogazici University in late May 2005. It is not clear why the Germangovernment should make an effort to ensure that conference would take place. Also,it is not true that the conference was postponed due to pressure put by the state. Infact, the conference took place four months later with the Turkish governments

help.)

Efforts should be made to ensure that freedom of thought would be guaranteed inTurkey especially vis--vis the Armenians fate. (Those who drafted this resolutionobviously did not have adequate information about the conditions in Turkey. Freedomof thought does exist in Turkey. In fact, there are a number of people currently sayingand writing that the mass relocation of the Armenians in 1915 was genocide.)

Germany should help normalize the relations between Turkey and Armenia. (TheBundestag resolution mirrors the Armenian views. In other words, this resolution isnot objective or just. In principle, the German government would have to take intoconsideration the views expressed in that resolution. Therefore, it is not possible forthe German government to make a favorable contribution to the normalization of theTurkey-Armenia relations.)


31/43

To sum up, the resolution passed by the Bundestag made groundless allegationssuch as, The Armenians in Anatolia were almost entirely annihilated. This showsthat the persons who drafted this resolution had no knowledge of history. It containsirresponsible, extremely dangerous and provocative proposals. For example, with

this resolution the Bundestag has advised the German government to include in theschoolbooks of the German states as a topic

Date post:	04-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	gueltekin-oencue
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

III. Armenian Question in a Historical Context

Documents