Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Recognising Genocide: Part One

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

  • Recognising Genocide: Part One

    RECOGNISING GENOCIDE: PART ONE

    Neos Kosmos, The Hellenic Perspective, Australia
    May 30 2014

    Here is a question for the gentle reader: How many countries around
    the world do not recognise FYROM as Macedonia?

    Dean Kalimniou

    Here is a question for the gentle reader: How many countries around
    the world do not recognise FYROM as Macedonia? The answer is a mere
    seventeen. On the other hand, some one hundred and thirty three
    countries do recognise FYROM as Macedonia with a good deal many
    deciding to take no part in the naming dispute. The reason for this
    statistic will become clear hopefully, as this diatribe progresses.

    The former senator Bob Carr, when premier of New South Wales,
    personally recognised the Armenian genocide. He wrote several letters
    in which he referred to the genocide as a genocide and a crime against
    humanity and argued that Turkey must apologise. Last year, in the wake
    of the Parliament of New South Wales recognising the Armenian, Assyrian
    and Pontian genocide, in the guise foreign minister of Australia,
    Bob Carr, when asked, commented that Australia had no stance on the
    issue. And this from someone who was previously very vocal in his
    recognition. Similarly, Armenian-Australian activists in particular
    are dismayed at the Liberal government's retreat from the unequivocal
    position held by many of its prominent members while in opposition.

    These two ostensibly disparate fact bytes are in fact connected when
    it is considered that, up until now, campaigners of the recognition
    of the genocide of the Christian peoples of Anatolia are convinced
    that genocide recognition is linked to the domino effect - that is,
    that if enough Australian states recognise the genocide, then the
    Commonwealth of Australia will recognise the genocide and if the
    Commonwealth of Australia recognises the genocide then other countries
    inevitably shall follow suit. If the vast majority of countries around
    the world recognise the genocide, then the pressure on Turkey to do
    the same will be so inexorably great that it will have absolutely no
    other choice than to recognise the genocide, crushed as it will be,
    under the weight of global public opinion.

    However, the Macedonian example above appears to indicate that in
    reality, the dynamic of lobbies and pressure groups are complex and
    calculations of domino effects are far from simple. To wit: Even if
    Greece is the last country left alone in the world, in refusing to
    allow FYROM to appropriate the term Macedonia, it will conceivably, not
    bow to world opinion and afford FYROM the recognition it seeks, both
    for domestic reasons and also as a matter of principle. As a corollary,
    it is reasonable to assume that even if the entire world recognises
    the genocide, Turkey will not, solely for fear of being isolated in
    the issue and in absence of other intervening considerations.

    Given the above, though well meaning, committed and energetic,
    it is not unreasonable to suggest that if genocide campaigners are
    determined that Turkey should recognise the Genocide, (rather than
    just creating global public awareness, which is also intrinsically
    important ), then they are going about things in the wrong way,
    focusing their efforts at the broader base rather than at the top.

    After all, it is not as if the Western Powers were blissfully unaware
    of the Genocide while it was being carried out. Thousands of newspaper
    articles published in the Western world attest to its concern for
    the victims and outrage against the perpetrators of this heinous crime.

    Indeed, so moved were the Allies by the weight of western public
    opinion that they issued the Ottomans the following warning in
    1915: "In view of these new crimes of Turkey against humanity
    and civilization, the Allied Governments announce publicly to the
    Sublime Porte that they will hold personally responsible for these
    crimes all members of the Ottoman Government, as well as those of
    their agents who are implicated in such massacres." The fact that
    these same western powers, with the exception of France now choose
    to resile from that recognition, should remind Genocide campaigners
    that other, more profane considerations than justice and historical
    proof are at play here. Consequently, it is logical to suppose that
    if Turkey recognises the genocide of its own accord then all the
    other countries would lose nothing in doing the same and finally,
    justice will be afforded to the innocent victims of intolerance.

    One often overlooked consideration that should be noted, is that to
    some extent, Turkey has already recognised the genocide. It did so in
    1919, after the war, when Constantinople was occupied by the Allies
    and the Sultan's administration was coerced to conduct War Crimes
    Trials, an eerie and ineffective precursor of the Nuremberg Trials.

    These trials focused extensively on the chain of command and the often
    harrowing testimonies of Ottoman military officers, suggesting that
    there truly was an organised plan to rid Anatolia of its Christian
    population. Furthermore, ample evidence exists of Ottoman Muslims, even
    army officers actively hiding their Christian neighbours, or refusing
    to carry out deportation and slaughter orders. If no massacres took
    place, what were these protected and privileged Muslims protecting
    their Christian friends from?

    Nonetheless, the Trials were problematic. Being held under occupation,
    the judges were under the scrutiny of the occupying forces. Due
    process did not exist, and there were gross absences of legal rights.

    The Ottoman penal code did not acknowledge the right of
    cross-examination. The decision was taken by evidence submitted during
    the preparatory phase, the trial, and how the defendant presents his
    defence. Of great concern was the fact that none of the presented
    evidence was verified and validity of the evidence presented, such
    as letters and orders have been in study, with some of them proving
    to be forgeries. In some cases hearsay was an issue, though many
    officials did testify to receiving orders to carry out the Genocide.

    Nonetheless, during the trials, testimonies were not subjected to
    cross-examination, and some of the materials were presented as
    "anonymous court material." So tainted by the absence of proper
    process were the Trials that John de Robeck, the Commander-in-Chief,
    of the Mediterranean forces stated that "its findings cannot be held
    of any account at all."

    It comes as no surprise that after the Ataturk regime assumed power,
    the Military Trials were hushed up, denied and referred to as victor's
    justice. Events such as the ethnic cleansing of 15,000 native Greeks
    from the Gallipoli peninsula were also covered up and it is only in
    the context of the rediscovery of Australian contemporary accounts
    of massacres that such information is now re-entering the popular
    consciousness - a process that is being strenuously resisted by
    the Turkish state, which has even sought to punish local Australian
    politicians who are at the forefront of such endeavours.

    The process of erasure seems to suggest that one cannot force an
    unwilling nation to admit something it doesn't want to admit to,
    unless that force is sustained and tied to punishment, as was the case
    with Nazi Germany, where the Allies, learning from their mistakes
    in the Ottoman Trials, made a concerted effort in the Nuremberg
    Trials to punish the perpetrators of the Holocaust. Failing the
    imposition of external sanctions, the perpetrator nation needs to
    mature and become ready to listen, before recognition of its deeds
    is possible, domestically or otherwise. As of today, that maturity
    has been late in coming, though the Turkish PM recently hazarded the
    oblique opinion that the events that took place at the expense of the
    Armenians were "our shared pain," and that this "should not prevent
    Turks and Armenians from establishing compassion and mutually humane
    attitudes towards one another." Coming from the same person who stated:
    "We should all be ready and well-equipped so that the 1915 events can
    be dealt in an objective, scientific and realistic way. The Armenian
    diaspora is making its preparations to turn the events of 1915 into a
    political campaign by [distorting] the historical reality. In contrast
    to this political campaign, we will firmly stand against them by
    highlighting historical and scientific data," we can question the
    motivation for the expression of such ostensibly moving sentiments.

    Next week we will examine some of the obstacles impeding Genocide
    recognition in modern Turkey.

    *Dean Kalimniou is a Melbourne solicitor and freelance journalist.

    http://neoskosmos.com/news/en/recognising-genocide-part-one

Working...
X