Tweet
New Anatolian, Turkey
Feb 15 2007
Let it be over and done with!
Gunduz Aktan
15 February 2007
The Armenian genocide resolution has been presented to the House of
Representatives. It's expected to be passed this time. Even though
such congressional resolutions aren't legally binding, this does not
reduce its symbolic importance for Turkey.
At a meeting held in Washington in September 2005 with the
participation of all governmental foreign policy institutions, I said
that if the U.S. believes that the 1915 incidents are genocide,
President Bush should stop indirectly defining the genocide in his
April 24 messages and clearly use the word "genocide." The Congress
should also take a genocide decision. Then we, as two friendly and
allied countries, should apply for adjudication or arbitration.
Otherwise the damage to be done by this problem, which has been
poisoning our relations for years, may be much more severe. The
others at the meeting remained silent, probably because they weren't
ready for such a move.
Contrary to what people usually think, the problem created by the
Armenian genocide allegations for our relations with the U.S. does
not stem from the Congress but from the fault of the administrations.
To date, U.S. presidents have somehow implied that the 1915 incidents
were genocide. So it's understandable that the Congress wants to use
the word "genocide" in a country where politics is much more local
than elsewhere and ethnic Armenians constitute a hyperactive pressure
group.
Britain, which was the occupying power during World War I, had access
to all the Ottoman archives. Knowing the realities of the time,
British governments explicitly state at the House of Lords almost
annually that the 1915 incidents are not genocide according to the
1948 UN convention. U.S. presidents cannot make this statement.
In order to prevent passage of the resolution by the House, the
administration uses the argument that Turkey is an ally which has
great strategic importance and if the resolution were passed,
bilateral relations would be damaged. This actually means condemning
rather than defending Turkey.
By contrast it would be much more beneficial for all of us if the
administration pointed out the mistakes in the resolution of the
Congress. The feeling of injustice to be created as a result of
passing this resolution by one-half of the legislative organ of the
world's greatest power would also be prevented in this way.
The resolution discards important parts of the Harbord report, does
not mention the insignificance of Henry Morgenthau's book and ignores
the fact that the genocide definition which lies behind Raphael
Lemkin's Armenian genocide allegations is not incorporated in the UN
genocide convention. But let's put this aside.
Referring to the American archives, this draft says that out of 2
million Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, 1.5 million were subjected
to genocide between 1915 and 1923 (Why 1923?). I don't believe that
there is a single American archive document showing that there were 2
million Armenians in prewar Ottoman Anatolia. However, an American
archive document dated November 1922, which was declassified on May
5, 1961, states that 281,000 Armenians were living in Istanbul and
Anatolia in addition to 817,873 Armenian refugees outside the Ottoman
Empire, and 95,000 Armenians were converted to Islam. In other words,
the total Armenian "survivors" at the end the war were not half a
million, but almost 1.2 million.
Why doesn't the administration tell Congress this fact?
The resolution claims that the Armenian genocide was recognized in
the UN Genocide Convention of 1948 and the first UN General Assembly
resolution 96 (1) on genocide. But these claims are incorrect.
Doesn't this situation disturb the administration?
The resolution alleges that the UN human rights subcommission
recognized the Armenian genocide in August 1985. In reality this
decision wasn't adopted by the subcommission and wasn't forwarded to
the commission. If this decision and the related minutes aren't
available at the U.S. State Department, I can provide them free of
charge from my personal archives.
I can't find anything to say about the argument that the Holocaust
occurred because those who were responsible for the Armenian genocide
were not punished. Did the punishment of the Holocaust prevent the
Western powers from being onlookers to the Bosnia and Rwanda
genocides?
There is one more question. Why don't the statistics concerning the
civilian Turks who died or were killed between 1915 and 1917 find
their way into resolutions of Congress? Aren't Turks considered human
beings?
As of now we should declare that we will invite the U.S. to go to
court together with us, as soon as this resolution is adopted by the
House of Representatives.
This scandalous situation ought to be brought to an end.
Feb 15 2007
Let it be over and done with!
Gunduz Aktan
15 February 2007
The Armenian genocide resolution has been presented to the House of
Representatives. It's expected to be passed this time. Even though
such congressional resolutions aren't legally binding, this does not
reduce its symbolic importance for Turkey.
At a meeting held in Washington in September 2005 with the
participation of all governmental foreign policy institutions, I said
that if the U.S. believes that the 1915 incidents are genocide,
President Bush should stop indirectly defining the genocide in his
April 24 messages and clearly use the word "genocide." The Congress
should also take a genocide decision. Then we, as two friendly and
allied countries, should apply for adjudication or arbitration.
Otherwise the damage to be done by this problem, which has been
poisoning our relations for years, may be much more severe. The
others at the meeting remained silent, probably because they weren't
ready for such a move.
Contrary to what people usually think, the problem created by the
Armenian genocide allegations for our relations with the U.S. does
not stem from the Congress but from the fault of the administrations.
To date, U.S. presidents have somehow implied that the 1915 incidents
were genocide. So it's understandable that the Congress wants to use
the word "genocide" in a country where politics is much more local
than elsewhere and ethnic Armenians constitute a hyperactive pressure
group.
Britain, which was the occupying power during World War I, had access
to all the Ottoman archives. Knowing the realities of the time,
British governments explicitly state at the House of Lords almost
annually that the 1915 incidents are not genocide according to the
1948 UN convention. U.S. presidents cannot make this statement.
In order to prevent passage of the resolution by the House, the
administration uses the argument that Turkey is an ally which has
great strategic importance and if the resolution were passed,
bilateral relations would be damaged. This actually means condemning
rather than defending Turkey.
By contrast it would be much more beneficial for all of us if the
administration pointed out the mistakes in the resolution of the
Congress. The feeling of injustice to be created as a result of
passing this resolution by one-half of the legislative organ of the
world's greatest power would also be prevented in this way.
The resolution discards important parts of the Harbord report, does
not mention the insignificance of Henry Morgenthau's book and ignores
the fact that the genocide definition which lies behind Raphael
Lemkin's Armenian genocide allegations is not incorporated in the UN
genocide convention. But let's put this aside.
Referring to the American archives, this draft says that out of 2
million Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, 1.5 million were subjected
to genocide between 1915 and 1923 (Why 1923?). I don't believe that
there is a single American archive document showing that there were 2
million Armenians in prewar Ottoman Anatolia. However, an American
archive document dated November 1922, which was declassified on May
5, 1961, states that 281,000 Armenians were living in Istanbul and
Anatolia in addition to 817,873 Armenian refugees outside the Ottoman
Empire, and 95,000 Armenians were converted to Islam. In other words,
the total Armenian "survivors" at the end the war were not half a
million, but almost 1.2 million.
Why doesn't the administration tell Congress this fact?
The resolution claims that the Armenian genocide was recognized in
the UN Genocide Convention of 1948 and the first UN General Assembly
resolution 96 (1) on genocide. But these claims are incorrect.
Doesn't this situation disturb the administration?
The resolution alleges that the UN human rights subcommission
recognized the Armenian genocide in August 1985. In reality this
decision wasn't adopted by the subcommission and wasn't forwarded to
the commission. If this decision and the related minutes aren't
available at the U.S. State Department, I can provide them free of
charge from my personal archives.
I can't find anything to say about the argument that the Holocaust
occurred because those who were responsible for the Armenian genocide
were not punished. Did the punishment of the Holocaust prevent the
Western powers from being onlookers to the Bosnia and Rwanda
genocides?
There is one more question. Why don't the statistics concerning the
civilian Turks who died or were killed between 1915 and 1917 find
their way into resolutions of Congress? Aren't Turks considered human
beings?
As of now we should declare that we will invite the U.S. to go to
court together with us, as soon as this resolution is adopted by the
House of Representatives.
This scandalous situation ought to be brought to an end.