Turkey's challenge to the Armenians

[phantom]

Neddy,

Your questions are all based on two assumptions: 1) the UN has not acknowlegded that the acts against Armenians during WWI constitute a Genocide; and 2) Armenians have failed to convince anyone that it was a Genocide. Here I quote you:

"It appears maybe the majority of the english speaking world has a different understanding of the word 'genocide' than that of what Armenians seem to have. The UN and the Armenians are all agreeing on what 'genocide' entails, but clearly the UN does not believe this is what transpired. Do Armenians maybe need to teach the world english?"

I think that the first thing you should have done before posing your questions was to do some basic research into whether or not the English speaking world and the UN accepts this event as Genocide or not. In fact, the UN has acknowledged that what happened to the Armenians was Genocide, and most of the English speaking world has also done the same.

United Nations Economic and Social Council
Commission on Human Rights
Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities
Thirty-eighth session
Item 4 of the provisional agenda

E/CN.4/Sub.2/1985/6 — 2 July 1985

"The Nazi aberration has unfortunately not been the only case of genocide in the twentieth century. Among other examples which can be cited as qualifying are the German massacre of Hereros in 1904,12 the Ottoman massacre of Armenians in 1915-1916 . . ."

Moreover, the term Genocide was invented by Jewish attorney Raphael Lemkin, who was a survivor of the Holocaust. In 1944 while working for the U.S. War Dept. he coined the term Genocide, and gave the Armenians as a prime example of what he meant by that term. His thesis and definition of the term was eventually codified into the U.N. definition. So, as you can see, even the man who invented the word believed that the Armenian experience was a prime example of Genocide.

As for the English speaking world, perhaps you must not consider the International Association of Genocide Scholars, Amnesty International, the International Center for Transitional Justice, the Encyclopedia of Genocide, the Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide, Jerusalem, and virtually every non-Turkish Holocaust and Genocide scholar and institution in the world as the "English speaking world." In fact, the only world that still thinks it wasn't Genocide is the Turkish world, and even that is changing as a growing number of Turkish historians and academics begin to acknowledge, and more importantly, study the whys, hows, and consequences of the Armenian Genocide.

[neddy]

Hi everyone,

Firstly in reply to Tongue, good post and I agree with you whole heartedly regarding document destruction. This is not just something specific to governments but corporations as well. Its not something new to the world either and is still something that exists today. Essentially, this is carried out for very obvious reasons....hiding to preserve ones secrets, interests or wrongdoings.There is clearly a major question of ethics that come into play when looking at this kind of activity at a Gvt level This is very normal and I doubt anyone can dispute the reality of its existence for all nations. On the other hand, I don't personally believe there is anything wrong about this practice from a military perspective. Especially during war time. The ability to communicate in complete secrecy & the 'read & destroy' between soldiers is of paramount to the military functioning.
However, the question I asked in my previous post still remains.....why aren't the many points you've posted illustrating the destruction of documents enough to force the UN to accept the events as 'genocide' under the criterias in Article 3? It fits the bill, yet is not pursued.Why?This is a very real and pivotal question that all Turks & Armenians must look hard and long at and answer it with integrity. By integrity I mean 'cut out the BS, the blind patriotic crap, cut out the thousands of robotic quotes /copy & pastes we can all get heavily into the habit of doing'.

Phantom,

Firstly thanks for your post as well and for keeping the discussion alive in a healthy manner. Conceptually I understand what your points are and they are all valid ones. I totally concur with your explanation/response to my post regarding the 'english speaking world' business, and by large in part I agree with you. However I do disagree with your 'wild' statement that 'In fact, the only world that still thinks it wasn't Genocide is the Turkish world'. I can disprove this very easily, but I think you just wrote this with high levels of passion and not much 'basic research' yourself.

However, on your claim supported by your quote about the UN having acknowledged the events as a 'genocide', I don't know for sure, but I certainly have strong ground to believe you are very ill-informed and misguided. I did indeed follow your advice and did conduct 'some basic research'.In the same breath I very much so stand ready to be corrected.

There are certain facts you are missing or overlooking:

- The 'Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities' that you quoted from is not a binding body and is nothing more than a body whom is given the task of making recommendations to the Commission. This is fact!This clearly means that what you have quoted is nothing more than an extract of an opinion. Hence this does not constitute under any circumstances an 'acknowledgement', a 'UN resolution' or 'The official position of the UN'.

- The quotation you quoted is dated 1985. The quotation I made in 'A recent comment on the U.N. position was rendered by, U.N. spokesman Farhan Haq on October 5, 2000 when he confirmed that the U.N. has not approved or endorsed a report labeling the Armenian experience as genocide. ' is dated in 2000. This also clearly demonstrates that my quotation supercedes that of yours not only chronologically but also lawfully. It would be totally reckless and absurd to use an older statement of a sub-commission that carries no lawful value over than that of an official UN official spokesman stating the position of the UN with no uncertain terms or vagueness.

-The quotation you made is nothing more than an extract from a 'provisional agenda'. If you are familiar with what this entails, you would automatically understand what little value an item of such nature carries.

There is one more fact that makes me believe that the Armenian people will not EVER succeed in changing the position of the UN. And I do not know the reason why it is being overlooked at all. The term 'genocide' and the laws pertaining to it as defined by the UN is not a retrospective law. This means for all whom cannot comprehend this...as I understand it...it cannot be applied to anything, any event, any tragedy, any massacre etc. prior to the acceptance and inception of the word and convention in 1948. This is so very clear. Having said this, why the insistance?

Im not saying for a moment that the act of 'genocide' did or didn't occur. But the UN is saying clearly that it cannot be labelled 'genocide'. Insisting on this term at a UN level is nothing more than stubborness, blindness, silliness and living in denial.

They say 'the same action will always provide the same result, only a fool would continue that same action and miraculously expect a different result'.

[neutral]

What are you saying neddy that the Armenian genocide can't be considered a genocide because it happened before 1948? I thought the Genocide of the Jews of Europe happened before 1948?

Also how about the fact that Americans anhilated at least 90%-95% of the Native American population. I'm talking about millions upon millions of innocent victims. Can't those events count as Genocide?

[neutral]

So what about natives of Southern America?

Yeah exactly the genocide of the Native Americans happened all over the Americas no one should forget that.

What about European Butchers like Explorer Hernan Cortes? For a fistful gold, they sliced them all. But when it comes to Turks, they say there haven't been more barbaric nation more than Turks.

I apologize for overlooking the fact that before the colonies across the Americas declared independence the crimes against humanity were perpetrated by the Europeans and the Europeans have alot of blame as well.

US and Europe know the trick. (Adamlar isi biliyor).

Step 1. Make a film about the bad treatment, for example, to the Blacks or Indians.

Step 2. Show the every detail in the film. For instance, while a white man is beating a Black.

Step 3. Write everything clearly, in the books and newspapers and the other mediatic publications and tell everything on TVs and Radios.

After that, you'll win all prizes and no one can blame you about anything else and all people will say ''how you have been democratic!'' '' Look at, what a great criticism of themselves!'' But on the other hand, racism, nationalism, wars, global warming, starvation, poverty etc. still continue mostly because of them too.

Four things here about this part of your post:

1.)I don't really follow it?

2.)I don't get what a film has to do with anything.

3.)Plus I don't understand Armenian what does '(Adamlar isi biliyor)' mean?

4.)Are you attributing racism, nationalism, wars, global warming, starvation, poverty to the Turks?

[Hovik]

Yeah exactly the genocide of the Native Americans happened all over the Americas no one should forget that.

True, unfortunately there are still nationalist, ignorant denialsts in the United States too! That doesn't make it right for either Turkey or America...

A main difference is that Turkey isn't even the nation that committed the Genocide, yet it lets some sort of twisted sense of pride get in the way of recognizing what another nation did...

I apologize for overlooking the fact that before the colonies across the Americas declared independence the crimes against humanity were perpetrated by the Europeans and the Europeans have alot of blame as well.

Yes, a lot of genocides and other atrocities are overlooked - not just by Europeans. Asians are still arguing over the reality of the Nanjing slaughter. We should forge ahead to recognize all of them...

Four things here about this part of your post:

1.)I don't really follow it?

2.)I don't get what a film has to do with anything.

I'm not really sure either... Cosmos do you suggest that Armenians or Native Americans make films about what happened to their nations to educate the world?

v3.)Plus I don't understand Armenian what does '(Adamlar isi biliyor)' mean?

Thats because it isn't Armenian... I believe it is Turkish... and should remind that the forum has strict rules about posting in Turkish - however if you want to make a quote or a phrase it should at least be translated into English or Armenian... this may be an exception...

4.)Are you attributing racism, nationalism, wars, global warming, starvation, poverty to the Turks?

I doubt it, since as I recall cosmos is Turkish in origin (don't quote me on that), but I doubt anyway that cosmos would imply such a thing. It would be a pretty rediculous statement for anyone to make...

[neddy]

Hi everyone,

Neutral,

I am not saying it was or it wasn't genocide. You simply need to read my post with a little more care to understand my point. You need to differentiate the difference between the act of or the carrying out of genocide AND the term 'genocide' as defined and applied by the UN.

The current shape and form of the application and definition of the term 'genocide' within the UN parameters, it appears to be technically impossible to accuse the Turks of 'genocide'. This is all I'm saying. Unless there is some very well hidden fine print or clause that I've yet to find within the convention, it is a total dead end to pursue this matter on this platform.

As for elusive term 'adamlar isi biliyor' means something to the tune of 'they know how to play the game', and yes it is in Turkish.
I too struggled initially with Cosmos' post but have understood what he's saying. In short he's saying that the Americans know how to deal with this situation with their past with the Indigenous Indians. He is saying that the Yanks commit the crime, make a movie, bombard the media accepting everything. They do all this but they beat everyone else to it. In essence, they take responsibility and make the admission before anyone else gets the chance and they hide under the umbrella of being forthright, diplomatic & transparent therefore creating a platform whereby they feel less inclined to take critisism because they've already come clean .

Hovik, you make an interesting point about Turkey not recognising the events even though they aren't the perpetrators. I've not much knowledge on this aspect of the topic. Do you have any information regarding the potential liability that Turkey may carry, if any, in the event it recognises the events as a 'genocide'? I don't mean just financially to the victims but in other ways on a wider variety of levels? Any contributions would be greatly appreciated.

To Hovik and/or Tongue as the moderators of this forum,

I fully support forums such as this one. I personally don't know the answer to 'the question'. But I'm very much in favour of a good intelligent, impartial analysis of the data we have before us to help one another in the quest for a mutual position and understanding. This coming to a mutual position is essentially the real objective that should be sought by politicians, diplomats and the poeples in question. This may sound idealistic but one thing I'm sure of is that imposing one's position on the other by way of threats, political menouvering and legal BS is not ever going to get a outcome that is going to be sincere and from the heart.

Getting to the question that I really would like to pose to you two is: Which recognition do you want, the one that is legally binding and not believed in the hearts OR the one that is legally not so ridgid but definitely believed in the hearts?

Another set of questions I'd also like to ask is why is it you believe that on a forum/website that is to my understanding dedicated to the discussion of the Armenain Genocide, how come there is soo much content to the ridiculing, generalising and simply insulting
Islam, Turks as a race and the Republic of Turkey? Anyone with any real intellect will know that Islam is a peaceful religion and it is the actions of ignorant humans that need to be blamed for the wrongdoings.
Turks as a race being marginalised as almost having a 'nasty gene' is also absurd, this is the thinking of cavemen, not of a civilised and rational person. Or do you disagree?
And as Hovik stated in his post above, Turkey is not the accused in question. And I do understand the point that the denial almost makes u equally wrong on a legal and moral standpoint. Why is there so much 'airing of dirty laundry' with respect to the shortcomings and problems Turkey may have internally as a nation, not just old news but current events? Is this exposing of other nations imperfections equally administered to every other nation that does not recognise the genocide?
The negative feeling, slander, spiteful feeling, denialist mentality, spitting the dribble of Gvt's like lambs etc etc etc that many Armenians are accusing the many Turks of doing seems equally to be problem of many Armenians alike. It's like the saying that goes 'the kettle calling the pot black'.

There is a very well known fact in the study of human behaviour about those who are constantly critisising others for their imperfections and faults. It is commonly attributed to the low self esteem of the party making the constant critisism therefore resorting to this kind of behaviour to somehow increase their own standing. But this is only the trickery of ones own mind, not the reality.

cheers

[neutral]

neddy.

So what do you suggest that the Armenian Genocide be called? the only thing I can think of is the 'Armenian Democide'? But Democides are suppost to be slaughters committed by or on government orders. But we know that the Turkish government denies its involvement as well as there ever being a Armenian Genocide.

I'm doing a research project on 'unknown' ethnic minorities of the world. One such group that I'm research on is the 'Melungeons' (Do a search of 'Melungeon' on google). It is really complex as to the genetic make up of the Melungeons. Apparently they might be the decendants of Turkish Pirates and naval men captured many centuries ago by the British and left in the New world (specifically in the USA) as well as the descendants of Armenians, Portuguese, Kurds and many others that may have mixed with blacks and native Americans. One factor to support that at least some of them might be Turkish is a physically feature that is 'apparently' present on every Turk and that is a small lump on the back of the head. Can you confirm that?

[phantom]

Hi everyone,

There are certain facts you are missing or overlooking:

- The 'Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities' that you quoted from is not a binding body and is nothing more than a body whom is given the task of making recommendations to the Commission. This is fact!This clearly means that what you have quoted is nothing more than an extract of an opinion. Hence this does not constitute under any circumstances an 'acknowledgement', a 'UN resolution' or 'The official position of the UN'.

I was resopnding to your earlier post in which you quoted a UN official who said that the U.N. has not approved or endorsed a report labeling the Armenian experience as genocide.

I guess I took exception with that characterization by Haq. My feeling is that if a UN sub-commission, i.e., an internal UN body commissioned and endorsed by the UN to conduct a study, includes the Armenian experience in its list of genocides, and the UN then takes notice of the Report without rejecting it, isn't that an endorsement or approval of the report? I think so. If the UN had a problem with that report, then the UN would have rejected it outright or not taken notice of it.

By the way, has the UN officially endorsed or approved of any reports or passed any resolutions acknowledging or condemning the Cambodian Genocide or the Rwandan Genocide? Just curious.

There is one more fact that makes me believe that the Armenian people will not EVER succeed in changing the position of the UN. And I do not know the reason why it is being overlooked at all. The term 'genocide' and the laws pertaining to it as defined by the UN is not a retrospective law. This means for all whom cannot comprehend this...as I understand it...it cannot be applied to anything, any event, any tragedy, any massacre etc. prior to the acceptance and inception of the word and convention in 1948. This is so very clear. Having said this, why the insistance?.

Well, that's your opinion. But reasonable minds differ on this point. Some agree with your assessment. But there are lots of brilliant attorneys out there who would argue that the UN Genocide Convention does apply retroactively. About a year ago, International law expert and former Secretary of the United Nations Human Rights Committee, Dr. Alfred de Zayas, published an in-depth report on the applicability of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide to the Armenian Genocide. In a point-by-point analysis of the treaty that defines genocide and outlines its ramifications under international law, de Zayas concluded that the U.N. Convention clearly applies to the Armenian Genocide.

Im not saying for a moment that the act of 'genocide' did or didn't occur. But the UN is saying clearly that it cannot be labelled 'genocide'. Insisting on this term at a UN level is nothing more than stubborness, blindness, silliness and living in denial.

I disagree. The UN isn't saying that it wasn't Genocide at all, rather it is keeping quiet on the topic, as most cowardly bodies tend to do. In fact, I would speculate that the UN has, in fact, never said anything very clearly about anything. This is the same body that pulled its peacekeeping troops from Rwanda and let over 800,000 Tutsis get slaughtered. This is the same body that has delegates from Libya, Cuba, Turkey

[phantom]

Hi everyone,

Neutral,

I am not saying it was or it wasn't genocide. You simply need to read my post with a little more care to understand my point. You need to differentiate the difference between the act of or the carrying out of genocide AND the term 'genocide' as defined and applied by the UN.

Can you explain to us what this difference is? I now about the UN definition, but it's not clear what other definition you are proposing to apply.

The current shape and form of the application and definition of the term 'genocide' within the UN parameters, it appears to be technically impossible to accuse the Turks of 'genocide'. This is all I'm saying. Unless there is some very well hidden fine print or clause that I've yet to find within the convention, it is a total dead end to pursue this matter on this platform.

Just curious, are you a lawyer specializing in international criminal law? As I stated earlier, I believe that reasonable minds differ on this point, and I know there are some very brilliant international law specialists who think that the Genocide convention can be applied retroactively. As for the definition itself, consensus among academics who specialize in this area of historical inquiry is that the definition applies to the acts that were perpetrated against the Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire between 1915-1918.

Hovik, you make an interesting point about Turkey not recognising the events even though they aren't the perpetrators. I've not much knowledge on this aspect of the topic. Do you have any information regarding the potential liability that Turkey may carry, if any, in the event it recognises the events as a 'genocide'? I don't mean just financially to the victims but in other ways on a wider variety of levels? Any contributions would be greatly appreciated.

This is a good question, but one that a layman can hardly answer. So unless Hovik is a lawyer who specializes in international criminal law, then how valuable do you expect his answer to be? I hate to assume any diabolical intentions on your part, but I suspect you may be fishing for an answer that you will then set about attacking. If that is the case, then why not just tell us why Armenians cannot get land concessions from Turkey? We've heard Turkish explanations about the Lausanne Treaty vs. the Treaty of Sevres countless times, so I wouldn't bother with that unless you have your own new spin on that topic that we might find interesting.

To Hovik and/or Tongue as the moderators of this forum,

I fully support forums such as this one. I personally don't know the answer to 'the question'. But I'm very much in favour of a good intelligent, impartial analysis of the data we have before us to help one another in the quest for a mutual position and understanding. This coming to a mutual position is essentially the real objective that should be sought by politicians, diplomats and the poeples in question. This may sound idealistic but one thing I'm sure of is that imposing one's position on the other by way of threats, political menouvering and legal BS is not ever going to get a outcome that is going to be sincere and from the heart.

I agree with you.

We Armenians want Turkey to accept what happened wholeheartedly, because only then will we feel that we can fully trust this neighbor and embrace as brothers and neighbors. Until then, we will always feel vulnerable to another attack.

But even more importantly, we want the world to acknowledge and learn from this tragic history so that it doesn't keep getting repeated. Sadly, it is a history that has taken too long to surface, the perpetrators have not been adequately condemned by international observers, and the results are chilling, horrifying genocides that have repeated themselves over and over again in Europe, Russia, Cambodia, Rwanda, and now in our own time Darfur. The same pattern is repeated in starkly similar ways. The leaders take action against an ethnic, political or religious minority; they incite hatred by the majority, and they use rebel forces to commit most of the crimes so that they can later say it wasn't a government action, that it was a civil war leading to a situation they could not control. Just look at the more recent example of Rwanda and compare it to the case in the Ottoman Empire and you'll see the pattern. And why does it keep happening? Because we turn a blind eye when it is happening, and after it is over, we don't take swift and severe measures against the criminals.

So even if Turkey shamelessly refuses to accept and acknowledge its history, that is no excuse for us to stop teaching it, researching it, and learning from it. Particularly as Armenians we would be irresponsible if we let our dissappointment over Turkey's belligerence prevent us from doing everything we can to teach this history, to get the message across that the idea of "never again" has yet to be achieved, and to stop the next Genocide from happening. It's not just about us anymore, and no matter how much we would like Turkey to acknowledge its part, we cannot let that be the only reason, or even the main reason for striving to educate the world about this and all other genocides.

Getting to the question that I really would like to pose to you two is: Which recognition do you want, the one that is legally binding and not believed in the hearts OR the one that is legally not so ridgid but definitely believed in the hearts?

I only know of one definition of Genocide, and that's the one that Turkey and Turks must eventually come to terms with wholeheartedly. If you know of any other definitions, please let us know what they are.

Another set of questions I'd also like to ask is why is it you believe that on a forum/website that is to my understanding dedicated to the discussion of the Armenain Genocide, how come there is soo much content to the ridiculing, generalising and simply insulting Islam, Turks as a race and the Republic of Turkey? Anyone with any real intellect will know that Islam is a peaceful religion and it is the actions of ignorant humans that need to be blamed for the wrongdoings. Turks as a race being marginalised as almost having a 'nasty gene' is also absurd, this is the thinking of cavemen, not of a civilised and rational person. Or do you disagree?

I totally agree. To the extent that this goes on here or in any other forum, it must stop for many reasons. One, generalizing about any ethnic, religious or political group is just a lazy, slothful exercise in and of itself, but one that most of us have been guilty of at one time or another. Two, Armenians have to understand that we have a better chance of convincing Turks that we are telling the truth and that their government is telling a lie if we are civil, kind and understanding towards them. Three, Turks and Armenians are of the same race, and our genes are largley intermingled as evidenced by how much we have in common culturally, artistically, and physically. You can't live with someone for 1000 years and not have some serious mixing going on. So denegrating the Turkish race is tantamount to ridiculing ourselves. Fourth, we make ourselves look stupid, uneducated, and racist when we do the things that Neddy has described above. Who would believe anything that a stupid, uneducated, and racist person has to say? Nobody rational, that's for sure. So we really need to get over our collective trauma posthaste and treat every Turk as an individual who is a potential friend rather than an immediate enemy.

And as Hovik stated in his post above, Turkey is not the accused in question. And I do understand the point that the denial almost makes u equally wrong on a legal and moral standpoint. Why is there so much 'airing of dirty laundry' with respect to the shortcomings and problems Turkey may have internally as a nation, not just old news but current events?

It's because most of the dirty laundry that we expose relates to Turkey's treatment of its minorities and touches us on a deep level, since we have probably suffered more than anyone else because of Turkey's mistreatment of its minorities. If Germany were still jailing authors and journalists for talking about the Holocaust, don't you think the Jews would have something, many things, to say about that? It's the same with us. There are still over 50,000 Armenians living in Turkey, and every time someone is sent to court in Turkey over mentioning our people, it is a painful and stinging experience for those Turkish Armenians. As for the diaspora, it is composed of the descendants of the people who were slaughtered because of a racist and dispicable mentality by the ancestors of modern Turkey. We have tried for 90 years to change this attitude of the Turks. We have done that by watching Turkey closely and exposing it whenever the racism rears its ugly head. We believe that it is in our interest to extinguish this ugly and racist activity in Turkey, and that we can do that by forcing the Turks to confront it.

Finally, my question to you. You are convinced that the UN Genocide convention could not apply to Turkey, yet you appear to be averse to Turkey's acceptance that what happened to Armenians was in fact a Genocide? What harm could it do to Turkey financially or geopolitically to accept this fact if the UN Genocide convention does not apply to Turkey? Also, do you perceive any benefits (political, psychological, holistic or otherwise) that Turkey may obtain by acknowledging this fact?

[Gavur]

Good points Phantom