Tweet
Turkish Daily News
April 10 2005
Diplomats' declaration on the Armenian claims
Sunday, April 10, 2005
Opinion by Yüksel Söylemez
The Retired Ambassadors' Group was formed in Ankara in 2001 and
since then has met monthly for luncheons at Ankara Palace's State
Guest House. Our intention is to foster togetherness and solidarity
among Turkish and foreign colleagues. We are neither an association
nor a foundation, but an independent professional organization.
The Ankara Group invites chiefs of mission from the Ankara
diplomatic corps as guest speakers on matters of mutual interest,
enhancing friendships and taking advantage of their professional
experience. Last year a one-day symposium on the future of European
Union-Turkey relations organized by us generated much interest.
Upon the initiative of the Ankara chapter and with the support of
our Istanbul counterparts, we agreed on a declaration written by the
Working Group committee, announced on March 25, 2005, which countered
Armenian claims of genocide. We issued this statement to enlighten
international public opinion and contribute to friendship and peace
between Turks and Armenians.
The full text reads as follows:
`According to the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide dated December 9, 1948, genocide
is a crime under international law which only real persons can
commit. Only a competent tribunal can determine whether genocide has
been committed. The tribunal is either the tribunal of the state in
the territories of which the acts were allegedly committed or an
international penal tribunal having jurisdiction with respect to
those contracting parties that have accepted it as such.
"The tribunal in charge should recognize the defendant's right to
defend himself and accordingly examine the case to determine if a
crime has been committed. Without the existence of a decision by the
tribunal, the crime of genocide cannot be established 'de jure' and a
genocide claim cannot be put forward or otherwise supported on legal
grounds.
"No national parliament, no national senate, local or municipal
council, no individual or association, none of the organs of
international or regional organizations or an undesignated court 'in
lieu' of a competent court, can have the power to decide on a
genocide claim, including whether the crime has been committed or
not.
"The aforementioned Genocide Convention is the indivisible part and
parcel of the Turkish legal system. No party or persons should expect
the Turkish Government to disregard this international convention and
its corresponding competent court decision, or to accuse persons with
the crime of genocide, many of whom may not be alive.
"Today not only the Turkish government but also the government of
the United Kingdom have declared publicly through their official
spokesmen that the events of 1915 cannot be described as 'genocide.'
"Those people who wish to realize genocide claims regarding the
1915 tragedy are devoid of any legal basis, and are now trying to
substantiate their claims from a political standpoint as a form of
'political genocide.' Biased views of political bodies and
politicians and their political reasons are self-serving. But it is
categorically unacceptable to allow political prejudices to claim
such a crime.
"The purpose of such a behavior is explicit. The leaders of the
Republic of Armenia, in addition to the Armenian occupied territories
of Azerbaijan, openly designate the eastern Anatolia of Turkey as
'Western Armenia' and make no secret of their desire 'that one day
when conditions are more propitious these lands will become part of
the dream of greater Armenia.'
"Much has been written about the tragic events of 1915, before and
after the decision to relocate Ottoman Armenians to the southeast of
the state. Historic documents show that Armenian militant units lead
by Armenian members of the Ottoman parliament rushed to the eastern
provinces, slaughtering the local Muslim population and leading a
large scale rebellion in the that part of the Ottoman State.
"During the Sevres Conference peace negotiations that took place in
1920, participating Armenians demanded that they should be officially
accorded 'belligerent party status' during the First World War. In
light of these realities, those who support Armenian demands cannot
be allowed to interpret certain pages of history incompletely at
their own discretion, at the expense of other pages of history. They
cannot make invalid claims against the Turkish nationals or the
Turkish government.
"The best proof on this subject is the fact that the Allies of the
First World War, which occupied the capital of the defeated Ottoman
Empire, exiled to the island of Malta a group of purported Ottoman
offenders against the Armenians. With full access to all sources and
documents, the Allied officials could not find any clue to condemn
but and declared the exiles innocent of any wrongdoing. Nevertheless,
the Ottoman State itself punished some of those Ottoman exiles as
perpetrators against the Armenians and found them guilty of improper
execution of the rules during the forced relocations.
"There are thousands upon thousands of contradictory documents,
eyewitness accounts, analysis and interpretations. To analyze the
issue in an objective and academic manner is, unfortunately,
obstructed or prevented by Armenian politicians, historians and their
supporters. What they demand is the unquestioned recognition of their
claims.
"It unrealistic to expect the surviving relatives of the victims of
that time period to accept that nothing tragic happened. These events
can in no way be justified. However, it would be imprudent to
overlook some tragedies while mourning others. We believe deep wounds
created by these sad events should not be deepened by acts of terror
or feelings of revenge.
"We need to learn lessons from this sad chapter in history and
prevent feelings of hatred between the Turks and the Armenians, to
start strengthening the natural friendship between the Armenian and
Turkish nations, which have cultural similarities. There is no doubt
that Turkish Armenians can play a part in the building of this bridge
of friendship. At a time when serious efforts are being made to keep
the cultural ties alive between the Turks and the Armenians, certain
parliamentarians and other personalities abroad are against
reconciliation and burdened with political bias or racial disdain.
Their actions, devoid of analysis or legal basis, is in no way
conducive to the desired rapprochement among the Turks and Armenians.
"We sincerely invite international public opinion, in an impartial
way, on the divisions of responsibility about this issue, bearing in
mind the memory of the victims, including 34 innocent Turkish
diplomats mercilessly assassinated decades after 1915.
"Let there be a culture of peace, to replace the unfortunate
culture of hate between some Turks and Armenians.'
On Dec. 17, 2004 at the Asian Strategic Research Center (ASAM) an
important talk took place to meet and listen to Artush Lazarian of
Yerevan, the chief executive officer of the Caucasian Center for
Conflict Prevention and advertised as a former advisor to the
Armenian political leadership at the highest levels. His remarks were
generally well received. I personally shared my positive thoughts and
made a conciliatory offer to close this sad chapter in our common
history by saying: `Let's bury the past and look forward. Let the
Turks and Armenians shake hands and apologize for our shared pain
once and for all. Let bygones be bygones and end this chapter of
animosity, hate and vindication.'
Lazarian did not respond either positively or negatively. I
presented to him the following questions in writing and offered the
possibility of a full-page interview in the Turkish Daily News. The
answers, which still haven't reached me, would have provided a better
understanding of Armenian positions and susceptibilities:
`How do you compare Turkish and Armenian cultures and relations
today? What is the trade volume between Turkey and Armenia today?
What are the future prospects? What is the future of
Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, which is considered a key to
Turkish-Armenian relations? To what degree does the Armenian diaspora
influence Armenia and Armenia-Turkey relations? Can the present
situation in Nagorno-Karabakh be resolved? What are the conditions
for a peaceful settlement? How can a climate of mutual confidence be
created and the prejudices be overcome between Armenia and Turkey?
Can Turkey and Armenia apologize at the same time for historic
injustices towards each other and shake hands, to start a clean sheet
for normal relations and diplomatic relations?'
I have an Armenian pen pal in Yerevan whose e-mail to me was
published in the TDN. He wrote following the publication of the
declaration on the ASAM Web site and sadly perpetuated Armenian
territorial claims on eastern Turkey by describing it as Western
Armenia.
April 10 2005
Diplomats' declaration on the Armenian claims
Sunday, April 10, 2005
Opinion by Yüksel Söylemez
The Retired Ambassadors' Group was formed in Ankara in 2001 and
since then has met monthly for luncheons at Ankara Palace's State
Guest House. Our intention is to foster togetherness and solidarity
among Turkish and foreign colleagues. We are neither an association
nor a foundation, but an independent professional organization.
The Ankara Group invites chiefs of mission from the Ankara
diplomatic corps as guest speakers on matters of mutual interest,
enhancing friendships and taking advantage of their professional
experience. Last year a one-day symposium on the future of European
Union-Turkey relations organized by us generated much interest.
Upon the initiative of the Ankara chapter and with the support of
our Istanbul counterparts, we agreed on a declaration written by the
Working Group committee, announced on March 25, 2005, which countered
Armenian claims of genocide. We issued this statement to enlighten
international public opinion and contribute to friendship and peace
between Turks and Armenians.
The full text reads as follows:
`According to the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide dated December 9, 1948, genocide
is a crime under international law which only real persons can
commit. Only a competent tribunal can determine whether genocide has
been committed. The tribunal is either the tribunal of the state in
the territories of which the acts were allegedly committed or an
international penal tribunal having jurisdiction with respect to
those contracting parties that have accepted it as such.
"The tribunal in charge should recognize the defendant's right to
defend himself and accordingly examine the case to determine if a
crime has been committed. Without the existence of a decision by the
tribunal, the crime of genocide cannot be established 'de jure' and a
genocide claim cannot be put forward or otherwise supported on legal
grounds.
"No national parliament, no national senate, local or municipal
council, no individual or association, none of the organs of
international or regional organizations or an undesignated court 'in
lieu' of a competent court, can have the power to decide on a
genocide claim, including whether the crime has been committed or
not.
"The aforementioned Genocide Convention is the indivisible part and
parcel of the Turkish legal system. No party or persons should expect
the Turkish Government to disregard this international convention and
its corresponding competent court decision, or to accuse persons with
the crime of genocide, many of whom may not be alive.
"Today not only the Turkish government but also the government of
the United Kingdom have declared publicly through their official
spokesmen that the events of 1915 cannot be described as 'genocide.'
"Those people who wish to realize genocide claims regarding the
1915 tragedy are devoid of any legal basis, and are now trying to
substantiate their claims from a political standpoint as a form of
'political genocide.' Biased views of political bodies and
politicians and their political reasons are self-serving. But it is
categorically unacceptable to allow political prejudices to claim
such a crime.
"The purpose of such a behavior is explicit. The leaders of the
Republic of Armenia, in addition to the Armenian occupied territories
of Azerbaijan, openly designate the eastern Anatolia of Turkey as
'Western Armenia' and make no secret of their desire 'that one day
when conditions are more propitious these lands will become part of
the dream of greater Armenia.'
"Much has been written about the tragic events of 1915, before and
after the decision to relocate Ottoman Armenians to the southeast of
the state. Historic documents show that Armenian militant units lead
by Armenian members of the Ottoman parliament rushed to the eastern
provinces, slaughtering the local Muslim population and leading a
large scale rebellion in the that part of the Ottoman State.
"During the Sevres Conference peace negotiations that took place in
1920, participating Armenians demanded that they should be officially
accorded 'belligerent party status' during the First World War. In
light of these realities, those who support Armenian demands cannot
be allowed to interpret certain pages of history incompletely at
their own discretion, at the expense of other pages of history. They
cannot make invalid claims against the Turkish nationals or the
Turkish government.
"The best proof on this subject is the fact that the Allies of the
First World War, which occupied the capital of the defeated Ottoman
Empire, exiled to the island of Malta a group of purported Ottoman
offenders against the Armenians. With full access to all sources and
documents, the Allied officials could not find any clue to condemn
but and declared the exiles innocent of any wrongdoing. Nevertheless,
the Ottoman State itself punished some of those Ottoman exiles as
perpetrators against the Armenians and found them guilty of improper
execution of the rules during the forced relocations.
"There are thousands upon thousands of contradictory documents,
eyewitness accounts, analysis and interpretations. To analyze the
issue in an objective and academic manner is, unfortunately,
obstructed or prevented by Armenian politicians, historians and their
supporters. What they demand is the unquestioned recognition of their
claims.
"It unrealistic to expect the surviving relatives of the victims of
that time period to accept that nothing tragic happened. These events
can in no way be justified. However, it would be imprudent to
overlook some tragedies while mourning others. We believe deep wounds
created by these sad events should not be deepened by acts of terror
or feelings of revenge.
"We need to learn lessons from this sad chapter in history and
prevent feelings of hatred between the Turks and the Armenians, to
start strengthening the natural friendship between the Armenian and
Turkish nations, which have cultural similarities. There is no doubt
that Turkish Armenians can play a part in the building of this bridge
of friendship. At a time when serious efforts are being made to keep
the cultural ties alive between the Turks and the Armenians, certain
parliamentarians and other personalities abroad are against
reconciliation and burdened with political bias or racial disdain.
Their actions, devoid of analysis or legal basis, is in no way
conducive to the desired rapprochement among the Turks and Armenians.
"We sincerely invite international public opinion, in an impartial
way, on the divisions of responsibility about this issue, bearing in
mind the memory of the victims, including 34 innocent Turkish
diplomats mercilessly assassinated decades after 1915.
"Let there be a culture of peace, to replace the unfortunate
culture of hate between some Turks and Armenians.'
On Dec. 17, 2004 at the Asian Strategic Research Center (ASAM) an
important talk took place to meet and listen to Artush Lazarian of
Yerevan, the chief executive officer of the Caucasian Center for
Conflict Prevention and advertised as a former advisor to the
Armenian political leadership at the highest levels. His remarks were
generally well received. I personally shared my positive thoughts and
made a conciliatory offer to close this sad chapter in our common
history by saying: `Let's bury the past and look forward. Let the
Turks and Armenians shake hands and apologize for our shared pain
once and for all. Let bygones be bygones and end this chapter of
animosity, hate and vindication.'
Lazarian did not respond either positively or negatively. I
presented to him the following questions in writing and offered the
possibility of a full-page interview in the Turkish Daily News. The
answers, which still haven't reached me, would have provided a better
understanding of Armenian positions and susceptibilities:
`How do you compare Turkish and Armenian cultures and relations
today? What is the trade volume between Turkey and Armenia today?
What are the future prospects? What is the future of
Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, which is considered a key to
Turkish-Armenian relations? To what degree does the Armenian diaspora
influence Armenia and Armenia-Turkey relations? Can the present
situation in Nagorno-Karabakh be resolved? What are the conditions
for a peaceful settlement? How can a climate of mutual confidence be
created and the prejudices be overcome between Armenia and Turkey?
Can Turkey and Armenia apologize at the same time for historic
injustices towards each other and shake hands, to start a clean sheet
for normal relations and diplomatic relations?'
I have an Armenian pen pal in Yerevan whose e-mail to me was
published in the TDN. He wrote following the publication of the
declaration on the ASAM Web site and sadly perpetuated Armenian
territorial claims on eastern Turkey by describing it as Western
Armenia.