Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ANKARA: Armenia Should Constructively Consider PM's Proposal

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ANKARA: Armenia Should Constructively Consider PM's Proposal

    ARMENIA SHOULD CONSTRUCTIVELY CONSIDER PM'S PROPOSAL

    BY ŞUKRU ELEKDAĞ*

    Today's Zaman, Turkey
    June 2 2014

    Ministers applaud Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, front,
    at the Parliament in Ankara on Wednesday, April 23. (Photo: AP)

    June 02, 2014, Monday/ 17:18:24

    I believe that Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's April 23 statement
    on "the Armenian issue" reflects a rational, humane, peaceful and
    reconciliatory approach.

    It also shows that Turkey is not shunning the truth and is not afraid
    of confronting its past. That was evidenced in his remarks: "... we
    wish that the Armenians who lost their lives in the context of the
    early 20th century rest in peace, and we convey our condolences
    to their grandchildren. Regardless of their ethnic or religious
    origins, we pay tribute, with compassion and respect, to all Ottoman
    citizens who lost their lives in the same period and under similar
    conditions." However, his statement should not be taken as a step
    toward recognition of the Armenian allegations and a concession;
    nor should it be viewed as a unilateral apology.

    The functional side of the full statement is that the conditions
    for the aspired-to peace and reconciliation between the parties are
    clearly laid out. These conditions include the establishment of a
    joint historical commission by the parties to reveal the facts of the
    1915 incidents and analyze the findings in light of the applicable
    legal framework. The decision of the European Court of Human Rights
    (ECtHR) on the Doğu Perincek case, which rejected "the existence of a
    general consensus" on the Armenian genocide allegation and maintained
    that this is a controversial issue, allowed Ankara to adopt a bold
    initiative for peace with Yerevan.

    Parliament's declaration for the formation of a joint historical
    inquiry

    The prime minister's expression of regret for the lives lost by
    Armenians and other Ottoman people in the conditions that prevailed
    during the period of 1915 is another striking part of the statement.

    As for the humane approach in the statement, we should note that
    Parliament also adopted the same approach in a declaration unanimously
    adopted on April 13, 2005. The declaration extended a hand of peace
    and amity to Armenia and referred to the following justifications
    for the establishment of a joint historical commission.

    "The Parliament believes that both Turkey's and Armenia's interests
    are best served in the reconciliation of the Turkish and Armenian
    peoples, who lived in peace and mutual tolerance for centuries on
    the same land, to save them from being hostage to deep prejudices
    stemming from the war years, and in the creation of an environment
    that will enable them to share a common future based on tolerance,
    friendship and cooperation.

    "The government and the opposition parties have made a proposal to that
    end, which aims to shed light on historical facts through scientific
    research so as to prevent history from continuing to be a burden for
    these two nations. By this move they have proposed to establish a
    joint commission by Turkey and Armenia composed of historians from
    both sides, to open their national archives without any restrictions
    to research and to disclose the findings of this research to world
    public opinion. The proposal further specifies that the commission
    can carry on its research in the archives of other related countries
    and that the parties will determine the establishment and working
    methods of said commission.

    "Parliament fully supports and approves this historic proposal. The
    cooperation of the government of Armenia is a must for the
    implementation of this initiative. To this end, unless Turkey
    and Armenia rely on a common perspective on historical facts, the
    inheritance that both sides will leave to their children and future
    generations will be nothing other than biases, enmity and sentiments
    of revenge.

    "Wisdom and logic command Turkey and Armenia not to be afraid of
    destroying taboos and to face their history by discovering all the
    aspects of the human tragedy they experienced together. This is the
    way to prevent the past from overshadowing our present and future.

    Parliament underlines the fact that the proposal of the Turkish
    Republic should be considered, in essence, an initiative for peace. If
    Armenia wants to establish good neighborly relations with Turkey and
    develop a basis for cooperation, it should not hesitate to accept
    Turkey's proposal for a joint historical evaluation."

    Diaspora's attitude

    The positive impression generated by Turkey's bold and peaceful
    initiative to set up a joint historical commission in the international
    arena should be underlined. This impression is confirmed by the joint
    declaration of 97 parliamentarians from the Parliamentary Assembly
    of the Council of Europe (PACE), the decision by the Parliamentary
    Assembly of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
    (OSCE) and the remarks by former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder
    and American Ambassador to Turkey Francis Ricciardone that the
    establishment of a joint commission would contribute to the achievement
    of reconciliation between the Turkish and Armenian nations.

    The Armenian diaspora strongly opposed Turkey's proposal for the
    establishment of a joint commission, as it would undermine the
    credibility of their allegations. For this reason, the provision on
    the creation of a joint commission, which has been strongly supported
    and promoted by Turkey, was the main issue during the deliberations
    on the twin protocols concluded on Oct. 10, 2009 in Zurich between
    the Turkish and Armenian foreign ministers. This provision has also
    played an important role in the obstruction of the ratification of
    the protocols as well, because nationalist and militant Armenians as
    well as the diaspora fiercely opposed this proposal, asserting that
    the Armenian genocide is a historically established fact not open to
    further research and negotiation.

    ECtHR: Genocide allegation is controversial

    In light of this antagonistic stance, one is inclined to ask what
    sort of development took place that accounts for the Turkish side's
    hope that its proposal for the establishment of a joint commission
    might be practically viable.

    This development is the ECtHR judgment in the Perincek case. Swiss
    courts had convicted Perincek over his remarks that the Armenian
    genocide allegation was a lie, basing their decisions on the
    contention that there exists "a general consensus concerning the
    legal characterization of the events in question as genocide." But
    the European court, in its judgment on Dec. 17, 2013, rejected the
    Swiss courts' view and stressed that the Armenian genocide allegation
    was controversial for three reasons.

    First, it pointed out that it would be very difficult to identify
    a general consensus, as there were differing views even among the
    Swiss political organs themselves. The Swiss Federal Court itself had
    acknowledged that there was no unanimity in the community as a whole
    concerning the legal categorization in question. Furthermore, only
    about 20 states out of 190 worldwide had officially recognized the
    Armenian genocide, and such recognition had not always been extended
    by the governments of those states but from their parliaments, as
    was the case in Switzerland.

    Second, the court rightly recalled that the notion of "genocide" is
    a precisely defined legal concept. According to the case law of the
    International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal
    Tribunal for Rwanda, "genocide" requires that the acts in question
    must have been perpetrated with the specific intent to destroy not
    only certain members of the group but all or part of the group itself
    (dolus specialis). As a result the court, noting that genocide is a
    very narrow, difficult-to-prove legal concept, stated that it was not
    convinced that the "general consensus" on the existence of the Armenian
    genocide to which the courts of Switzerland referred in convicting
    Perincek was consistent with such very specific points of law.

    Third, the court expressed doubts on whether there could be a
    "general consensus" on events such as those at issue here, given that
    historical research was by definition open to discussion and a matter
    of debate, without necessarily giving rise to final conclusions or to
    the assertion of objective and absolute truths. In this connection, the
    court's underlining the fact that Armenian claims cannot be compared to
    the Holocaust, clearly distinguishes the case from those concerning the
    denial of the crimes of the Holocaust committed by the Nazi regime,
    as those crimes have a clear legal basis established and proven by
    an international court.

    Outcome of appeal is doubtful

    As can be seen from the above, the ECtHR rejected the Swiss court's
    assertion that the Armenian genocide is a matter of "general historical
    and scientific consensus" whose existence had to be considered
    established as a matter of fact and could not be challenged in court
    -- even though the issue had not been adjudicated by a competent
    judicial authority. The court also set aside any contention of
    legal equivalence of the "Armenian genocide" with the Holocaust,
    since there had been a clear legal basis for the recognition of the
    Holocaust as genocide. The Holocaust was unambiguously established
    as fact and defined as a crime by the International Military Tribunal
    at Nuremberg, whereas no such valid judicial finding has so far been
    made in respect to the Armenian situation.

    Switzerland decided to appeal the ECtHR ruling on the Perincek case.

    The Swiss Federal Office of Justice announced on March 11, 2014 that
    the ECtHR's Grand Chamber will be requested to review the ruling
    in order to clarify the scope available to the Swiss authorities in
    applying Swiss criminal law to combat racism. However, the appeal for
    review remains pretty weak, because it does not offer new findings
    or arguments. Furthermore, it is really a remote possibility that the
    Grand Chamber will challenge the above-mentioned three arguments that
    the court's judgment is based upon.

    In the light of these newly emergent conditions, the diaspora and
    Armenia need to switch to a more realistic approach vis-a-vis Turkey's
    proposal suggesting the establishment of a joint commission.

    Government's acceptance of my proposal for creation of a joint
    commission

    I have been proposing the establishment of a joint historical
    commission between Turkey and Armenia since the 2000s, in my talks
    with high-ranking officials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs;
    however, arguing that this is a fairly risky move, they did not adopt
    this proposal. I have continued to subscribe to this view since being
    elected as a Republican People's Party (CHP) deputy in the elections on
    Nov. 3, 2002. Following several meetings with then-Foreign Minister
    Abdullah Gul, he, despite objection by the ministry bureaucracy,
    concurred that this was a fair, constructive and humane approach and
    that it would take Turkey to a better position in the dispute. Most
    important, he persuaded Prime Minister Erdoğan that this project was an
    appropriate initiative. I also got the approval of then-CHP Chairman
    Deniz Baykal on this matter. The proposal thus resulted in a sort of
    miracle, as it brought together the prime minister and the chairman
    of the main opposition party, who were not on very good terms, for
    a meeting in the office of the prime minister at Parliament on March
    8, 2008. The prime minister reviewed the proposal, but he still had
    some questions in mind. Subsequent to my briefing, in a joint press
    conference, Erdoğan and Baykal announced the proposal to establish
    a joint historical commission in the context of the peace initiative
    vis-a-vis Armenia. With this initiative, they demonstrated that Turkey
    is not afraid to confront its past and that they expected the same
    attitude from Armenia in the name of peace and friendship.

    Parliament unanimously adopted this proposal on April 13, 2005.

    What wisdom and reason require

    Armenia should positively consider this initiative launched by Prime
    Minister Erdoğan in order to extract Turkish-Armenian relations from
    where they have been stuck for 99 years.

    Unless this is done, it will not be possible to free Armenians from
    a consuming preoccupation with victimization and usurpation and Turks
    from the feeling of being the unfair target of a worldwide conspiracy
    of calumny and slander. And in that case, it would be a fantasy to
    suppose that these two nations could ever achieve reconciliation
    and peace.

    For this reason, a contemporary approach based on wisdom and reason
    must be achieved by exposing all aspects of the human tragedy
    that befell Turks and Armenians to daylight and by confronting the
    historical facts and accepting them. Peace will inevitably be born
    out of this trauma.

    *Dr. Şukru Elekdağ is a retired ambassador, former undersecretary of
    the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and former deputy for the Republican
    People's Party.

    http://www.todayszaman.com/news-349386-armenia-should-constructively-consider-pms-proposal-by-sukru-elekdag-.html

Working...
X