Treaty of Sevres... can we do anything about it today?

[Tongue]

Hovik I saw your thread in "Documents & Letters", so I thought maybe you or someone can answer this for me. I’ve been thinking about it for a while now. According to the treaty of Sevres, the harbor of Trebizond (access to the Black Sea) was given to Armenia and much more that we don’t have today. But it was never implemented, and the treaty of Lausanne, that gave Turkey pretty much everything given to Armenia by president Wilson in the treaty of Sevres, was implemented instead. Now, we never signed Lausanne, so it’s not valid for us.

Now my question, can Armenians and Kurds (since they were given a state in Sevres) take the case to the United Nations or an international court today and fight it since neither signed Lausanne?

[imported_anoush]

The turks Learned Lying/Denying from the BEST of Them

They like to talk about the Kocharian interview, but they always talk about the part they like and leave out the rest. Kocharian knows quite a bit about it and he seems to say it's not a dead issue. However, it will be up to us to figure out what avenue in which to demand its implementation.

Here is the interview.

February 23, 2001


Groong has obtained the following transcript from official sources in
Yerevan.

President Robert Kocharian Interview
CNN-Turk 1-29-2001 Yerevan
Interviewer: Mehmet Ali Birand


Q. Until now, everyone has spoken about the latest developments. Only
you have remained silent. For you, what is the significance of the
resolution passed by France? Have you reached your goal?

A. This was, first of all, the goal of the Armenian community of
France - to reach genocide recognition through the French Senate. In
my opinion, the French Senate has affirmed and passed judgment on that
which took place at the beginning of the century. Of course, I can
only applaud the French legislature. But that is France's business.

Q. Are you satisfied with the decision?

A. Yes.

Q. That's all?

A. I believe I fully responded to your question.

Q. It has been announced that the year 2001 will be Armenia's year.
This year, is the matter going to pass other legislatures as well?
What's your first objective? They say that an upcoming target is to
see this pass the US Congress. Is such talk accurate?

A. Who has announced that 2001 is to be Armenia's year or the Armenian
year?

Q. Armenians of Armenia and the Diaspora have announced that 2001 is
to be Armenia's year. If we look at the streets, that number is
celebrated everywhere.

A. That refers to the 1700th anniversary of the adoption of
Christianity as a state religion being marked this year, and not
anything having to do with declaring it an Armenian year having to do
with the Genocide.

Q. They say that this year, the US Congress and other legislatures are
to pass genocide-related resolutions. Is that true?

A. I believe that the Armenian community of the US will this year
attempt to continue the process which was actively moving forward in
2000. I also believe that is the right of Armenian-Americans: as US
citizens, they have a right to deal in this way with their legislative
body, and to resolve certain issues.

Q. I see, but there is one thing that I don't understand. Who directs
this international campaign? You, that is, Yerevan, or the Armenian
Diaspora? Who controls this process?

A. You know, during the more than 70 years of Soviet rule, official
Yerevan probably never dealt with this issue. Nevertheless, there has
always been a process seeking Genocide recognition, and the Armenian
Diaspora had been very actively engaged in that process. We must also
accurately characterize this situation: Diaspora Armenians are
fundamentally those people who were victims of those events, or more
correctly, their descendants, and they can't remain indifferent
towards this matter. After independence, it was incumbent on the
Republic of Armenia to formulate and, to express its position on that
important issue. This was done by me, at the UN as well, it was done
in Istanbul in fact, during the OSCE Summit.

Q. The question is important, that's why I'm repeating it. You say
that at the time of the Soviet Union, no one in Armenia did anything
about those assertions. The Diaspora was occupied with that matter,
and they were the descendants of the victims. You are saying that when
you came to power, you took control of that matter, you pushed it to
the forefront?

A. This matter is both Armenia's matter and the Diaspora's. I believe
it is also generally an international community matter because we are
speaking of events which, we are deeply convinced, must be judged, by
the international community. It is not a question of whether this
matter must be directed by one individual or one center. This process
is a parallel process. Yes, I have a role in it, but I don't direct
either the Armenian-American community or the French-Armenian
community.

Q. Do you wish to say that Yerevan is not in control, the Diaspora is
doing what it's doing, and you are only helping?

A. I can't imagine how, with what levers, I, as President of the
Republic of Armenia, can bring pressure to bear on the US Congress. Of
course that's not possible. But, let me repeat that this is a process
that proceeds in tandem, it is not a question of controlling or
directing. Even if Armenia did not become involved in this issue, the
Diaspora would have, still. It is simply that joint efforts are more
effective, for obvious reasons.

Q. Fine, let's put aside the issue of who is leading. It's clear that
the process is moving forward, and decisions are being taken in
different countries, and in those decisions, Turkey is being found
guilty. For that reason alone, I'd like to ask two questions: One,
These assertions have what end in mind? Two, What comes next?

A. If any individual or nation attempts to defend its dignity, is it
necessary that this be done with other consequences or expectations in
mind, or is it by itself adequate justification for taking such a
step? As for our relations with Turkey, we understand that relations
between our two states will not lead to any new legal status after the
Genocide is recognized. That's not what we're talking about. Today, we
are concerned with reclaiming justice. For the Republic of Armenia,
for me, personally, this is more a moral issue. I know that in Turkey
some think that now, if the Genocide is recognized, then Armenia will
definitely present Turkey with territorial claims.

Q. That's just what I wanted to ask. Our people are saying Armenia is
applying pressure on us now, and after this, what is Armenia going to
want - compensation, territory?

A. That's exactly the question I'm answering. For Turkey, recognition
of the Armenian Genocide will not necessarily lead to legal
consequences regarding the Republic of Armenia.

Q. You are saying that if Turkey recognizes the Armenian Genocide,
Armenia will not demand of Turkey either reparations or territory, is
that right?

A. The Republic of Armenia will not have the legal basis for making
such demands. The question is not whether we do or don't desire to
raise this issue, or whether I do or don't have such a desire. The
issue is that Genocide recognition does not create the legal bases to
allow Armenia to present certain demands before Turkey. I am surprised
that Turkish attorneys themselves have not provided the Turkish
government with such counsel and such an assessment. It would have
been possible to approach this matter much more easily

Q. I understand but the question is this: You don't trust Turkey, and
Turkey doesn't trust you. In your Constitution, there is such a point,
in the Armenian Revolutionary Federation's program, there is such a
point. Now, you are saying that we don't have such a demand, but
tomorrow, you'll be gone, another person will take your place, and
that other person will say I haven't said that, Kocharian has, but we
demand and we want

A. We are speaking about relations between states. Issues of this kind
are regulated also by international law. Political parties, including
influential ones, can have such demands in their programs, but I
repeat, it is not Turkey's recognition of the Genocide that will
create legal consequences - in this case, the consequence being
demands by Armenia. It is another matter whether the descendants of
the victims of the Genocide can attempt to resolve compensation
issues, in certain matters, through the courts. But I repeat, they can
do that today as well. It is not the recognition of the Genocide that
will lead to such consequences.

For example, if a Diaspora Armenian appeals to a Turkish court and
presents documents which prove that during those years a certain
amount was being held in a certain bank, and today this plaintiff is
its legal heir, what verdict should the Turkish court reach today
regarding this man's rights, independent of Genocide recognition? If
the Turkish court rejects this appeal what if a European court is
approached? Today, those forums exist. I want to say that it is not
Turkey's recognition of the Genocide that may lead to such specific
claims by individual citizens.

I think, actually I'm convinced, that regarding Genocide recognition,
the atmosphere that has been created in Turkey is not commensurate to
the consequences for Turkey. The best solution, which in my opinion
would remove all such problems would be for Turkey to open its
archives, to ask forgiveness for all that has happened. You can label
that as non-genocide, but in any case, mass murders have taken place,
and people have been deported. The kind of Diaspora we have today is
the consequence, first of all, of the events of 1915. And, I repeat,
with one simple step, Turkey is in a position to categorically change
today's Armenian-Turkish relations, and the future of those relations.

Q. Then, if Turkey were to accept the Armenian Genocide and ask
forgiveness, then Armenia would not present claims for compensation
and territory. That's your objective - that Turkey open its archives
and ask forgiveness for that fact?

A. Yes, that's the first goal, and today that is more a matter of
morality and dignity.

Q. Do you say that this is a legal matter or a historical matter? Is
this a problem for historians?

A. No. I don't agree with that point of view, that this is a matter
for historians. If we had any doubt as to whether a Genocide took
place or not, whether it took place in 1915 or not, then it would be a
problem for historians. We have no such doubts nor does the
international community. The fact that not all of them have recognized
the Genocide has more to do with Turkey's non-commensurate response
today, and not with any doubts regarding the historical facts.

Let's attempt to theoretically imagine the following: Let's assume
that Turkey itself recognized the events of 1915, perhaps
characterizing it differently, but it recognized the Genocide and
asked the Armenian people for forgiveness. And let's assume that I
want, or any political party wants to come forth with territorial
demands. How? What are we to say? Don't such matters require that they
be presented in the form of legal documents? The state doesn't have
the bases to present such an issue.

Q. But Armenians go to other parliaments and say that it was Genocide,
when you don't have adequate evidence.

A. Oh, there is plenty of evidence. The entire Diaspora is evidence.

Q. So, you point to the entire Diaspora as evidence, but you don't
have legal evidence? Is that it?

A. It's not that we don't have legal bases because we don't have
documentation to prove whether the Genocide happened or not. That's
not the issue. We have plenty. The archives of Germany, the UK and the
US alone, the documents that the Diaspora has collected are
sufficient. That's not the problem. The problem is that those events
have taken place in Turkey, and the Republic of Armenia did not exist
at that time, and today's Republic of Armenia is not the heir to those
lands. I don't know under what system I can present a complaint,
saying that "certain events transpired there, and you must give me
those lands." I can't imagine how I am to make that formulation.

Q. You mean legally?

A. Yes, of course, legally.

Q. That means that you are saying that you have no written evidence
where it is written, let's kill all the Armenians, let's commit
genocide against the Armenians. You mean documents in the Ottoman
archives.

A. No, no. You are repeating the same thing. We do have them.

Q. You do?

A. Yes, we do. It is not proving that is the problems.

Q. You consider that it's a matter of legal rights?

A. Yes, the rights of a state.

Q. Fine, I understand. Can the Armenian parliament pass a resolution
stating that "we have no territorial or compensation demands of
Turkey?"

A. Armenia has a Constitution which defines Armenia's borders, and the
number of its administrative regions. In any case, until today, no
official agency in Armenia has made such declarations or presented
such decisions. Armenia is a serious state. We understand that we
can't take any steps which fall outside legal foundations. In this
matter, we must try to distinguish the approach of the state, the
legal approach, and the emotional approach from one another.

Q. The Parliament has still not passed any resolutions defining the
Armenian-Turkish border.

A. We have been speaking about Genocide recognition. And the idea is
this. Turkey's recognition of the Genocide will not lead to such legal
consequences. Territorial issues can arise only within the
framework/provisions of the Treaty of Sevres which was never been
enforced, in any case. However, I repeat, these issues exist on
different planes.Q. Do you wish to say that the Treaty of Sevres is over, we can put it
to one side?

A. No. I wish to say that recognizing the genocide will not lead to
legal consequences. Such consequences can arise from the Treaty of
Sevres. In this case, the question of genocide recognition is not
directly tied to the Treaty of Sevres, genocide recognition will not
in any way revive it. And, on the contrary, if Turkey recognizes the
Genocide, and actually apologizes to the Armenian people, then I am
convinced that this atmosphere of relations, this process will evolve
completely differently. Simply in a human and positive sense. There is
no doubt that Turkey is a large, strong state. And size and strength
are also achieved through nobleness and goodwill. A strong nation and
a strong state must find it in them to see the truth with open eyes,
and to judge it accordingly. The strong person is always able to ask
forgiveness, it is the weak one who is afraid, who is hesitant to
apologize, because he has complexes and expects, thinks that by asking
forgiveness or accepting something, he is in some way demonstrating
weakness.

Q. You're right. In order not to misunderstand, I would like to ask
you once again. You are saying that the time for the Treaty of Sevres
is passed, and it has been set aside?

A. I'm not dealing with the Treaty of Sevres, and I'm not saying that
its time has or has not passed. The fact is that when the Soviet Union
was formed, it did not stand by the Treaty of Sevres, and signed
another treaty to which Armenia was not a party. Let me say again,
that is a different matter, on a different plane. Separate these two
issues from each other. How do you see this? How can Armenia
realistically demand territory of Turkey under today's conditions?

Q. We are speaking with the President of Armenia on very important
matters. That is why, Mr. President, I would ask to once again
ascertain what has been said, and to generalize. You are saying that
you have no territorial or compensation demands of Turkey. That is
associated with the Treaty of Sevres, which is no longer in force, and
that in the Diaspora there are people who can desire compensation, and
today desire compensation, but Armenia as a state has no compensation
or territorial claims of Turkey. Is that it?

[imported_anoush]

Conclusion

A. No. I would ask that you express my formulations more clearly. I am
saying the following: Genocide recognition by Turkey will not lead to
legal consequences for territorial claims. If in Turkey there is
concern that genocide recognition, or that generally a more temperate,
balanced approach to this matter can bring about such consequences,
then I am saying that such consequences will not result from such a
solution to the problem.

The Treaty of Sevres may present the opportunity to examine such
issues, however, the treaty was not implemented, was not activated
because of certain historical events, and Armenia, the state, has not,
until today, raised any issues related to that treaty. Realistically
assessing today's situation, I can't imagine how this expression of
the sentiments of the Armenian people can be brought to life through
concrete steps.

Q. Last Question. There is some confusion in Turkish public
opinion. According to Turkish public opinion, there was internal war
in Anatolia in 1915, and I believe that as well. At that time, the
Ottomans were strong, they won, if the Armenians were strong, they
would have won. According to Turkish public opinion, in order to
secure the territorial integrity of their country, the Ottomans made a
decision to deport the Armenians, and in the implementation of that
decision, 500-600,000 Armenians died and Turkey accepts this. Turkey
sympathizes, but does not apologize.

You say that 1.5 million people were killed (and where that many
people lived in Anatolia, I don't know, but that's a different matter)
and you characterize that as genocide. Turkish public opinion does not
accept that as genocide and asks why should we ask forgiveness for
something we haven't done.

A. If you accept, if Turkish public opinion accepts that 500-600,000
Armenians were actually killed and a much larger number deported,
can't that be called genocide?

Q. But that was reciprocated, it took place during war, and Turks,
too, died.

A. I believe that you can't point to a genocide that did not take
place during wartime. That which took place in Turkey took place not
just in 1915, but also during the reign of Sultan Hamid, also at the
turn of the century, and earlier, there are other examples as
well. There was an organized approach, and it naturally did take place
during the war, by taking advantage of the opportunity war
presented. And, it is natural, that the Armenians could have had a
position.

One should pick up the UN's Genocide Resolution, study it point by
point and attempt to evaluate whether that which took place then, in
Turkey, fits within the framework of that resolution or not?

Even if you consider that that was not genocide, is it possible to
apologize for whatever happened or not? Let me repeat that all those
events in the world which have been labeled genocide or something
similar, have all taken place during a time of war, in preparation for
a war, or in post-war conditions. There is no justification in saying
that if there was a war, it is possible to deport an entire people,
families, women, children, drive them to the desert of Der Zor, cut
them off from their homes, their homeland. Is it possible to apologize
for this?

Q. Turkish public opinion differs from your perspective. In
conclusion, I'd like to say that our program may serve as a call to
the Turkish people, the president, the prime minister, and other
officials. What do you have to say directly to them?

A. This is a pointed issue and I understand that it is perceived
differently in Turkey and I don't wish, in this case, to turn the
dialogue, which still does not exist into a mediated one. I'm
convinced that we will still have an opportunity, and that Armenia
will have dialogue with Turkey.

I would wish to say just one thing that is probably for both the
Turkish people and the Turkish leadership. We are neighbors, and it is
clear that neither Turkey nor we are going to change our geographic
location. I believe that we must both be concerned about creating
good-neighborly relations. I am convinced that relations for the
future must be built on the right foundations, and we can't forget
that which has happened. Turkey's step would benefit the improvement
of relations, their development, and would remove the tension which
exists today.

We have heavy issues which we have inherited from history. Armenia's
independence was followed by the blockade. By whom? Turkey. Why?
Because of undefined relations with Azerbaijan. Our relations began on
a completely different plane.


Q. In order for there to be no problems, let me repeat that the
President of Armenia said that if Turkey were to recognize the
genocide, Armenia would not present Turkey with demands. If there are
demands, they would be from the Diaspora, Armenia would not push
forward the issue of territories and compensation.

A. I said the same thing from the podium of the Council of Europe a
few days ago.

[imported_anoush]

Here is a Good One for You

Sevres Treaty turns 85

Editorial

Yerkir/arm
19 Aug 05

Signed by the legitimate authorities of the time, the Severs Treaty had a great significance for Armenia, and could be revived if the international situation becomes more advantageous for Armenia and if Armenia itself lays its demands before the international community.

The Dashnaktsutiun made the first steps to revive this document in 1970's when marking the 50th anniversaries of the Treaty and the Armenian Genocide. And it is not surprising that the Armenian political forces operating in a relatively free conditions outside Armenia unofficially backed by Yerevan, put aside their differences and were united around the idea of getting back the Armenian
territories that Sevres Treaty describes as Armenian.

The movement was not crowned by success but on the background of reshaping the map of the Middle East, the Treaty was this way or another included in the policies of the great powers. The most successful result was the 1987 resolution of the European Parliament on the Armenian issue.

Today, we are marking the 85th anniversary of the Sevres Treaty in a completely different environment. Armenia is independent again.

Transcaucasus and Middle East play a greater role in the new geopolitical developments. All the packages are open now for reshaping the map of the region, and the Sevres Treaty is of great significance as a matter of fact. If the leaders of the of the new world order realize the need to reconsider the rights forced by brutal force and establishing a new world based on freedom and democracy, then the Sevres Treaty has not lost its meaning.

The Sevres Treaty is an important document for regional states and great powers, and the tomorrow's prospect for a better life in Middle East and the world depends on the fair solution based on this treaty.

http://groong.usc.edu/news/msg120945.html

[Tongue]

So what are we waiting for!!

[Doberman]

So what are we waiting for!!

In legal terms Armenia has every right to dispute the threaty of Sevres. At the very least, Kars and Ardahan LEGALLY BELONG TO ARMENIAN TIL THIS DAY and there is no dispute whatsoever about that. However, Armenia is currently not in any situation to put forth territorial claims, albeit however legitimate they maybe. We must first digest Artsakh and the liberated territories, we must beef up our armed forces, we must economically strengten and make todays tiny Armenia flourish and bloosom. Once Armenia becomes economically viable and is able to take care of its small population of 2 - 3 million and provide jobs for them, hundreds upon thousands of Armenians from Lebanon, Iran, Russia, and ect... will pour into Armenia. Once THIS Armenia becomes a viable state capable of taking care of its people, everything will fall into place.

[elendil]

In legal terms Armenia has every right to dispute the threaty of Sevres. At the very least, Kars and Ardahan LEGALLY BELONG TO ARMENIAN TIL THIS DAY and there is no dispute whatsoever about that.

Yeah right. Countries world wide recognize Turkey's borders. These borders will not change. We have the strength and will to keep it. I dont know how you guys consider yourself serious in this land demand issue. Look at Armenia for God's sake. There is not the slightest chance that you will be able to take these lands from us. Simple I may sound, but this is due to the analysis of the situation is simple.

[Tongue]

In legal terms Armenia has every right to dispute the threaty of Sevres. At the very least, Kars and Ardahan LEGALLY BELONG TO ARMENIAN TIL THIS DAY and there is no dispute whatsoever about that. However, Armenia is currently not in any situation to put forth territorial claims, albeit however legitimate they maybe. We must first digest Artsakh and the liberated territories, we must beef up our armed forces, we must economically strengten and make todays tiny Armenia flourish and bloosom. Once Armenia becomes economically viable and is able to take care of its small population of 2 - 3 million and provide jobs for them, hundreds upon thousands of Armenians from Lebanon, Iran, Russia, and ect... will pour into Armenia. Once THIS Armenia becomes a viable state capable of taking care of its people, everything will fall into place.

That makes sense I guess... though, already Armenians from diaspora are moving back in. This year, is the first after 1996 when the amount of immigrants to Armenia is actually higher than emigrants from Armenia! I don't know about Lebanon or Russia, but MANY families have moved to Armenia from Iran in the past 2-3 years, or have sent their kids there to go to school and almost all end up living there afterwards, as the matter of fact, there are only 60,000 Armenians left in Iran!! Unbelievable! All we need now is more jobs and a higher birth rate... Give it another 10 years, and we'll be ready.

[Tongue]

Yeah right. Countries world wide recognize Turkey's borders. These borders will not change. We have the strength and will to keep it. .

It doesn't matter what countries worldwide recognize. You do know that Armenia never signed the treaty that gave Turkey the lands that belonged to Armenia, right?

So legally, yes, we have every right to make land claims and not recognize your borders.

Look at Armenia for God's sake. There is not the slightest chance that you will be able to take these lands from us.

You know what we have that you don't? Motives.
Why do you think we were able to get karabagh back with only a few people (heros!)?

[elendil]

You might be angry,you may have motives, you may have heroes??, but still a bullet can easily kill you. Especially thinking of attacking one of the most heavily armed countries in the world, it will take much more than motives. Besides, we too will have motives if you dare such an action. Who knows, such an act may result in destruciton of entire Armania since this will give legal basis Turkey to declare war, which can summon up to 3-4 millions soldiers in case of Emergency.
I would re-consider if I were you my Armenian friend