What will happen if Turkey recognize AG?

[ardakilic]

Although it seems impossible, i am really just curios about what will happen if Turkey recognizes Armenian Genocide? I can guess a consequence:
Armenian people (and also all other conscientious and honesty people) will feel that a rough justice will turn out to be true... others?

[SoSarkissian]

application of SEVRES treaty will be next:

SEVRES treaty was signed between Turkey and Armenian in 1920 defining borders between the two countries but had been never applied since then.

This agreement should be applied as next step. Especially where other major countries had signed that agreement as well back then under supervision of USA president Willson after the WWI.

The map below shows you the defined borders:
PINK+ORANGE+YELLOW = Armenia





and follows the section about ARMENIA in that treaty:
------------------------------------------------------
SECTION VI: ARMENIA.

ARTICLE 88.

Turkey, in accordance with the action already taken by the Allied Powers, hereby recognises Armenia as a free and independent State.

ARTICLE 89.

Turkey and Armenia as well as the other High Contracting Parties agree to submit to the arbitration of the President of the United States of America the question of the frontier to be fixed between Turkey and Armenia in the vilayets of Erzerum, Trebizond, Van and Bitlis, and to accept his decision thereupon, as well as any stipulations he may prescribe as to access for Armenia to the sea, and as to the demilitarisation of any portion of Turkish territory adjacent to the said frontier.

ARTICLE 90.

In the event of the determination of the frontier under Article 89 involving the transfer of the whole or any part of the territory of the said Vilayets to Armenia, Turkey hereby renounces as from the date of such decision all rights and title over the territory so transferred. The provisions of the present Treaty applicable to territory detached from Turkey shall thereupon become applicable to the said territory.

The proportion and nature of the financial obligations of Turkey which Armenia will have to assume, or of the rights which will pass to her, on account of the transfer of the said territory will be determined in accordance with Articles 241 to 244, Part VIII (Financial Clauses) of the present Treaty.

Subsequent agreements will, if necessary, decide all questions which are not decided by the present Treaty and which may arise in consequence of the transfer of the said territory.

ARTICLE 91.

In the event of any portion of the territory referred to in Article 89 being transferred to Armenia, a Boundary Commission, whose composition will be determined subsequently, will be constituted within three months from the delivery of the decision referred to in the said Article to trace on the spot the frontier between Armenia and Turkey as established by such decision.

ARTICLE 92.

The frontiers between Armenia and Azerbaijan and Georgia respectively will be determined by direct agreement between the States concerned.

If in either case the States concerned have failed to determine the frontier by agreement at the date of the decision referred to in Article 89, the frontier line in question will be determined by the Pricipal Allied Powers, who will also provide for its being traced on the spot.

ARTICLE 93.

Armenia accepts and agrees to embody in a Treaty with the Principal Allied Powers such provisions as may be deemed necessary by these Powers to protect the interests of inhabitants of that State who differ from the majority of the population in race, language, or religion.

Armenia further accepts and agrees to embody in a Treaty with the Principal Allied Powers such provisions as these Powers may deem necessary to protect freedom of transit and equitable treatment for the commerce of other nations.

--------------------------------------------------------

This Treaty was signed by:
---------------------------
HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND AND OF THE BRITISH DOMINIONS BEYOND TIIE SEAS, EMPEROR OF INDIA:
Sir George Dixon GRAHAME, K. C. V. O., Minister Plenipotentiary of His Britannic Majesty at Paris;

for the DOMINION of CANADA:
The Honourable Sir George Halsey PERLEY, K.C. M. G
High Commissioner for Canada in the United Kingdom;

for the COMMONWEALTH of AUSTRALIA:
The Right Honourable Andrew FISHER, High Commissioner for Australia in the United Kingdom;

for the DOMINION of NEW ZEALAND:
Sir George Dixon GRAHAME, K. C. V. O., Minister Plenipotentiary of His Britannic Majesty at Paris;

for the UNION of SOUTH AFRICA:
Mr. Reginald Andrew BLANKENBERG, O. B. E., Acting High Commissioner for the Union of South Africa in the United Kingdom;

for INDIA:
Sir Arthur HIRTZEL, K. C. B., Assistant Under Secretary of State for India;

THE PRESIDENT OF THE FRENCH REPUBLIC:
Mr. Alexandre MILLERAND, President of the Council, Minister for Foreign Affairs
Mr. Frederic FRANÇOIS-MARSAL, Minister of Finance
Mr. Auguste Paul-Louis ISAAC, Minister of Commerce and Industry;
Mr. Jules CAMBON, Ambassador of France
Mr. Georges Maurice PALÉOLOGUE, Ambassador of France, Secretary-General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs;

Hls MAJESTY THE KING OF ITALY:
Count LELIO BONIN LONGARE, Senator of the Kingdom

Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of H. M. the King of Italy at Paris
General Giovanni MARIETTI, Italian Military Representative on the Supreme War Council;

Hls MAJESTY THE EMPEROR OF JAPAN:
Viscount CHINDA, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of H. M. the Emperor of Japan at London;
Mr. K. MATSUI, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of H. M. the Emperor of Japan at Paris;

ARMENIA:
Mr. Avetis AHARONIAN, President of the Delegation of the Armenian Republic;

HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE BELGIANS:
Mr. Jules VAN DEN HEUVEL, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary, Minister of State;
Mr. ROLIN JAEQUEMYNS, Member of the Institute of Private International Law, Secretary-General of the Belgian Delegation;

HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE HELLENES:
Mr. Eleftherios K. VENIZELOS, President of the Council of Ministers;
Mr. Athos ROMANOS, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of H. M. the King of the Hellenes at Paris;

HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE HEDJAZ:

THE PRESIDENT OF THE POLISH REPUBLIC:
Count Maurice ZAMOYSKI, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the Polish Republic at Paris;
Mr. Erasme PILTZ;

THE PRESIDENT OF THE PORTUGUESE REPUBLIC:
Dr. Affonso da COSTA, formerly President of the Council of Ministers;

His MAJESTY THE KING OF ROUMANIA:
Mr. Nicolae TITULESCU, Minister of Finance;

Prince DIMITRIE GHIKA, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of H. M. the King of Roumania at Paris;

Hls MAJESTY THE KING OF THE SERBS, THE CROATS AND THE SLOVENES:

Mr. Nicolas P. PACHITCH, formerly President of the Council of Ministers;
Mr. Ante TRUMBIC, Minister for Foreign Affairs;

THE PRESIDENT OF THE CZECHO-SLOVAK REPUBLIC:
Mr. Edward BENES, Minister for Foreign Affairs;
Mr. Stephen OSUSKY, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the Czecho-Slovak Republic at London;

TURKEY:
General HAADI Pasha, Senator;
RIZA TEVFIK Bey, Senator;
RECHAD HALISS Bey, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Turkey at Berne

[Gavur]

USA president Nixon after the WWI.???

[SoSarkissian]

oops my bad, that should be Willson

[Kharpert]

Who will enforce the Sevres treaty?

[Gavur]

I think we can't live in the past
what Turkey need;s to do is start the process of consultations between Yerevan and Ankara so there is a mutual agreement how Turkey will accept its responsibility of acknowlidgment and reparations for the Genocide commited against the Armenian's by the Otto-Jon-Donme Turk's.
Kocharian is prepared to go one on one with Erdogan and I think they will late 2007 or early 2008.

[SoSarkissian]

This Treaty will take place because it was frozen from the date we joined the Soviet Union, and it will be unfrozen (whether Turkey likes it or not) once Armenia shows attention to do so. This is undebatable treaty and well recognized in modern history and politics.

[ardakilic]

A Remark About Sevres

The treaty solidified the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire, which was in plan with secret agreements among the Allied Powers. The partitioning followed the outlines of earlier agreements which renogetiated last time between the Allies at the Sanremo conference in April 1920.

Allies invited Ottoman cabinet to peace negotiations on 22 April 1920. Sultan Vahdeddin Mehmet VI, sent a commission and the head-delegateur was former prime minister Ahmed Tevfik Pasha. When the items of treaty was declared to Ahmed Tevfik Pasha, he denied to negotiate as expressing "these conditions cannot be compromised with an independent state".

İstanbul and other parts of Turkey were occupied by several Allied powers. The treaty had four signatories on behalf of the Ottoman government. It was an unestablished agreement in the absence of the Ottoman Parliament, which was forced to close after the session at February 12, 1920 (Abolishment: March 18, 1920). In the absence of the Parliament, it was not sent to the sultan Mehmed VI Vahdeddin to be ratified, or published in Takvim-I Vakayi, the official newspaper.

[phantom]

I think we can't live in the past
what Turkey need;s to do is start the process of consultations between Yerevan and Ankara so there is a mutual agreement how Turkey will accept its responsibility of acknowlidgment and reparations for the Genocide commited against the Armenian's by the Otto-Jon-Donme Turk's.
Kocharian is prepared to go one on one with Erdogan and I think they will late 2007 or early 2008.

Gavur, I agree with you. There are ways to preserve the cultural heritage that we created within Turkish borders without redrawing the borders. I do believe, however, that a plan to compensate Armenian families who's property was stolen should be made. Everything else can be solved through diplomacy and business. I don't believe that a tiny nation like ours needs large amounts of land to survive and thrive. What we need most is true peace with our neighbors. If we have that, we will always do well. You know how we are!

[Joseph]

Gavur, I agree with you. There are ways to preserve the cultural heritage that we created within Turkish borders without redrawing the borders. I do believe, however, that a plan to compensate Armenian families who's property was stolen should be made. Everything else can be solved through diplomacy and business. I don't believe that a tiny nation like ours needs large amounts of land to survive and thrive. What we need most is true peace with our neighbors. If we have that, we will always do well. You know how we are!

I agree for the most part. Realisticaly, Armenians are not going to get any land back from what is now Turkey; not in this day and age. Armenians need to concentrate on retaining Artsakh and strengthening the Armenian economy, military, politically,educational system, democracy etc. which despite what the Turks and Azeris are saying, is actually happening and things are indeed improving quite dramatically in most spheres. I've seen the changes firsthand in Armenia (not just Yerevan) in 1994 and then as recently as 2002.

This may be dissapointing to some of our more nationalistic members (and before you get angry, please know that I still share many or you sentiments and empathize with you).

Here is what I stand for:

- I am full force for the Armenian Genocide, or should I say Christian Genocide, being accepted universally.
- The blockade needs to end
- Turkey cannot be involved in the Armenian-Azeri peace talks because they are not an honest broker

And activities taken by Turkey as desribed in the article below need to cease:

"Turkey Interferes in Lawsuit Against German Banks on Genocide Assets" by Harut Sassounian

jeudi 29 mars 2007, Stéphane/armenews




Turkey Interferes in Lawsuit Against German Banks on Genocide Assets

By Harut Sassounian Publisher, The California Courier

Defying all acceptable legal norms, Turkey’s ambassador to the U.S., Nabi Sensoy, recently sent a highly inappropriate letter to U.S. District Judge Margaret M. Morrow (Federal Court), asking her to dismiss a lawsuit by Armenian plaintiffs against the German Deutsche Bank and Dresdner Bank. A copy of this previously undisclosed letter was obtained by this writer. In a class action lawsuit, filed by Yeghiayan & Associates ; Kabateck, Brown, Kellner, and Geragos & Geragos, Armenian plaintiffs had accused the two German banks of concealing and preventing the recovery of assets which were deposited by Armenians in these banks "prior to World War I and the Armenian Genocide." The plaintiffs had further alleged that the banks "accepted looted assets, forcibly taken by the government of the Ottoman Turkey during World War I and the Armenian Genocide."

Ever since the filing of this lawsuit in 2004 (amended in 2006), these German banks have done everything possible to have it dismissed. They have challenged the constitutionality of the law passed by the California Legislature which extended the Statute of Limitations and created standing for plaintiffs to sue the German banks and other institutions until 2016. In their attempt to counter the charge that they are the beneficiaries of ill-gotten gains, the German banks, through their legal counsel, Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, have claimed that the California law "is an unconstitutional encroachment on the federal government’s exclusive power over foreign affairs."

It now appears that in order to back up their claim, the German banks have succeeded in getting Turkey to instruct its ambassador to the U.S. to send a letter to the Judge Morrow telling her that the District Court is interfering in a matter involving U.S.-Turkish relations. This modern-day German-Turkish collaboration reminds one of the alliance forged some 90 years ago between the German and Turkish governments during the Armenian Genocide. By reviving this unholy union, the German banks hope to keep their "loot," while the Turkish government can continue to cover up the genocide and attempt to preempt any future claims against Turkey itself.

However, the German banks and the Turkish government apparently were oblivious to the fact that by writing a letter directly to the Federal Judge, the Turkish ambassador was interfering in a judicial process to which the Turkish side is not a legal party. It is noteworthy that the Turkish Ambassador’s letter, dated February 23, 2007, came on the heels of Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul’s latest visit to Washington, leading one to speculate that the Ambassador may have been pressured into this improper act by his political superiors, possibly against the advice of his American attorneys. It is noteworthy that, during the court hearing on February 27, 2007, the German banks’ attorney disclosed that David Saltzman, the attorney for the Turkish Embassy, had been in close communication with him for several years since the lawsuit was first filed.

In his letter to Judge Morrow, Amb. Sensoy wrote : "I am deeply concerned that the plaintiffs have asked you to sit in judgment on Turkey’s sovereign acts carried out within its territory, from which I would request that you refrain. Specifically, the plaintiffs have made allegations that require this court to delve into whether there was a governmental plan to commit crimes against Armenians living in the late Ottoman Empire, including the looting of property. The plaintiffs have made clear that they wish their allegations to span the demise of the Ottoman Empire and carry over into modern Turkey. For example, the plaintiffs allege that the Armenian tragedy extended from 1915 to 1923, insinuating that any wrongful acts that contributed to it are not only the responsibility of the Ottoman Empire, the predecessor state, but also its successor, Republic of Turkey, which was founded in 1923."

The Turkish ambassador then unabashedly offered the Judge his embassy’s services as an unimpeachable source for documentation on the Armenian Genocide ! "My embassy places itself at your disposal to provide references to scholarly works that disagree with the current orthodoxy that the Armenian tragedy ought to be termed genocide," the letter said.

Amb. Sensoy then chastised Judge Morrow by instructing her that her "use of the term ‘Armenian Genocide,’ is inappropriate." He said he was unhappy that in her September 11 opinion, the Judge had made a reference to the "Historical Background of the Armenian Genocide." He also accused the Judge of "being an advocate of one side in a genuine historic controversy...."

In response to this unwarranted intrusion into the affairs of the court, the attorneys for the Armenian side — the plaintiffs — filed an affidavit with the court on March 7, 2007, that stated : "The letter from the Turkish Ambassador is replete with inaccuracies and erroneous suppositions.... The Republic of Turkey is not a party to this lawsuit, nor has it appeared in any capacity in such a way to allow it any voice in this process.... There is no legal justification for this Court to consider any position presented by the Republic of Turkey in this case. Accordingly, Plaintiffs recommend that the Court disregard the Turkish Ambassador’s letter."

On the other hand, the attorneys for the German banks — the defendants - claimed in their affidavit that the Turkish ambassador’s letter was "relevant evidence." Not surprisingly, the defendants used that letter to buttress their allegation that the lawsuit could have to "negative implications" on U.S. relations with Turkey. They claimed that the Turkish ambassador’s letter demonstrates that the court’s consideration of “the degree of Turkey’s culpability for its treatment of Armenians during the WWI period implicate[s] sensitive foreign policy concerns between the United States and Turkey even to this date."

While the Turkish government’s intent in sending such a letter to the Judge may have been to defend its interests, it may actually result in the following unintended and detrimental consequences for Turkey :

1) The Ambassador’s unwarranted interference in the affairs of a U.S. Federal Court could result in the Judge not only rejecting his unsolicited intervention but also negatively disposing her towards the German banks for their possible role in orchestrating that letter ;

2) Should the judge reject the letter, her ruling would imply that a straightforward case of seeking the return of Armenian assets held by German banks, would become, as the Turkish ambassador himself stated, a legal case with far reaching consequences for the Turkish side, including the reaffirmation of the Armenian Genocide by a U.S. Federal Court and holding today’s Republic of Turkey responsible for the losses suffered by genocide victims. Once again, by its emotional over-reaction to all issues dealing with the Armenian Genocide, the Turkish government may have shot itself in the foot !