Tweet
ARMENIAN GENOCIDE COMMEMORATIVE COMMITTEE
259 Penshurst Street
Willoughby NSW 2068
Email: [email protected]
Contact: Dr Tro Kortian 0412197364
AUSTRALIA, President of European Armenian Federation, Mrs Hilda
Tchoboian, Delivers 2005 Armenian Genocide Commemorative Lecture in
NSW Parliament
Sydney, AUSTRALIA: [28 April 2005] Accepting the invitation of the
Australian Institute for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Mrs Hilda
Tchoboian, President of the Armenian European Federation for Justice
and Democracy, delivered the 2005 Armenian Genocide Commemorative
Lecture in the Parliament of New South Wales Theatrette.
The annual Armenian Genocide Commemorative Lecture series seeks to
honour the memory of the victims of the Armenian Genocide by
addressing human rights issues of contemporary importance and by
providing a constructive role in the understanding and prevention of
genocide and other crimes against humanity. Accordingly, each year a
distinguished speaker is invited to deliver the Commemorative Lecture
on a topic of contemporary national or international relevance with
respect to issues of tolerance, human rights, international law,
genocide, and other crimes against humanity. Previous speakers have
been Prof. Richard G. Hovannisian (1996), Prof. Vahakn N. Dadrian
(1997), NSW Supreme Court Judge Justice John Dowd (1998), Baroness
Caroline Cox, Deputy Speaker of the British House of Lords (2000) and
Israeli scholar Dr Yair Auron (2001): Mr Raffi Hovaannisian, former
Foreign Minister of the Republic of Armenia (2002); and Dr Sev
Ozdowski, OAM, Human Rights Commissioner and Disability Discrimination
Commissioner (2004)
Below is the text of Mrs Hilda Tchoboian's 2005 Armenian Genocide
Commemorative lecture:
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to share with
you these words on the occasion of the ninetieth anniversary of the
genocide of the Armenian people.
It is undeniable that although ninety years have passed since the
first genocide of the twentieth century, it is only for the past
quarter century, that its internationalization has been mounting.
At the end of the First World War, the extermination of the Armenians
made an important mark on international doctrines, in particular on
the Treaty of Sevres of August 10, 1920, in which article 230
stipulated that the Turkish leaders responsible for the massacres of
the Armenian populations would be brought to justice before an
international penal court:
`The Turkish Government undertakes to hand over to the Allied Powers
the persons whose surrender may be required by the latter as being
responsible for the massacres committed during the continuance of the
state of war on territory which formed part of the Turkish Empire on
the 1st August 1914. The Allied Powers reserve to themselves the
right to designate the Tribunal which shall try the persons so accused
and the Turkish Government undertakes to recognise such Tribunal.
Article 144 called for reparations, due to the survivors of the
genocide, and the return of goods confiscated from their Armenian
owners.
`The Turkish Government recognises the injustice of the law of 1915
relating to Abandoned Properties (Emval-I-Metroukeh), and of the
supplementary provisions thereof, and declares them to be null and
void, in the past as in the future.
`The Turkish Government solemnly undertakes to facilitate to the
greatest possible extent the return to their homes and
re-establishment in their businesses of the Turkish subjects of
non-Turkish race who have been forcibly driven from their homes by
fear of massacre or any other form of pressure since January 1, 1914.
It recognises that any immovable or movable property of the said
Turkish subjects or of the communities to which they belong, which can
be recovered, must be restored to them as soon as possible, in
whatever hands it may be found¦. The Turkish Government agrees that
arbitral commissions shall be appointed by the Council of the League
of Nations wherever found necessary. .. These arbitral commissions
shall hear all claims covered by this Article and decide them by
summary procedure.
Turkey refused to ratify this text; the Treaty of Lausanne of July 23,
1923, which replaced that of Sevres, remained silent on this
subject. It is here that the first attempt at establishing an
international penal tribunal failed, because of the indifference of
the Allies, who favored Real politik with regard to their trade
relations with Turkey.
It all started in the years following the Genocide, with the
Diaspora's first commemorations of the Great Catastrophe, "medz
Yeghern" in Armenian. These gatherings were of a private, disorganized
and tragic nature; it was an opportunity for the survivors to remember
their exterminated families or those they lost to deportation; these
gatherings always ended in tears, as people were overcome by the
enormous suffering and the feeling of powerlessness before such an
overwhelming tragedy.
The trials of the Ittihadist perpetrators indeed condemned in
abstencia the organizers of the Genocide; however, in the absence of
international justice, it was the Armenians themselves who had to
bring to justice some of the guilty, in particular the perpetrating
triumvirate Talaat, Enver and Jemal.
The trial of the young Soghomon Tehlirian, in Berlin, for the
execution of Talaat, the Turkish Minister of Interior, raised public
awareness of the extermination of the Armenians, but remained a
judicial act Though it certainly had great impact on public opinion,
it did not reach Germany's post-war political scene.
At the end of the Second World War, there was hope that the Soviet
Union would address the issue of the genocide and territorial claims
at the UN; but that too, for various reasons, resulted in
disappointment, when Molotov, who represented the USSR at the UN,
ended up asking for the Armenian territories in the eastern part of
Turkey in order to annex them...... to Soviet Georgia.
During the Cold War, the USSR policy froze the genocide issue, and all
of the Armenian Diaspora's efforts to internationalize the issue
resulted in failure during this time due to unfavorable conditions on
the international political scene. The memorandum that the independent
Delegation of Armenia regularly presented at the UN received no
traction. The UN remained silent in response to repeated demands by
Armenian organizations to consider the issue of plundering following
the Genocide. Similarly, requests made to various world governments
remained unanswered.
Ironically, it is on this foundation that the effort to
internationalize the Genocide issue began. It is through
acknowledgement by a few countries--still rare in the Sixties and
Seventies--that it developed. The recognition of the Armenian Genocide
was at no time a high-stakes issue in international relations; it is
thanks to the diligent work of dedicated activitists in Armenian
organizations, reinforced in their fight by democratic supporters,
often by local elected officials, that the recognition of the Genocide
gradually became a question of Humans Rights and the right to
historical memory, recognized by a growing number of national
parliaments and local and regional political bodies.
>From 1975 to 1985, there was a ten-year battle to retain mention of
the Armenian Genocide in article 30 of the report of the UN Human
Rights Commission's Subcommission on the Fight Against Discrimination
and Racism. Sixty years after the tragedy, the Armenian Genocide
forced its way onto into the international arena; the mention of the
Armenian question would have almost passed unnoticed if Turkey had not
engaged all its political and diplomatic might to remove it from the
report. Several years of pressure and blackmail by Turkey caused quite
some turmoil in the drafting and adoption of the report.
However, in August 1985, the final report by Benjamin Whittaker
maintained the Armenian Genocide among the Genocides of modern
times. It was a considerable victory, which mobilized the energy of
Armenian activists and independent experts; the Genocide issue left
the private sphere of the Armenian Diaspora, and made its entry into
an international text, and moreover at the level of a UN
Subcommission, which consisted of independent experts and where
Turkish diplomacy had less influence than it would have with a body of
government representatives.
In 1984, one year before the successful conclusion of the UN efforts,
the Permanent Peoples' Tribunal, heir to the famous Russel Tribunal,
brought together in Paris a few dozen experts, including several Nobel
Prize recipients and Genocide experts, to in turn affirm that the
Armenian killings indeed constituted a genocide according to the
definition of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention of Genocide.
Finally, it is on June 18 1987 that the rapporteur Jaak
Vandemeulebroucke, a Flemish deputy of the European Parliament,
proposed his final report titled "for a political solution to the
Armenian Question". The text adopted by the European Parliament stated
that denial of the genocide by Turkey constitutes, along with the
occupation of Cyprus and repression of the Kurds, unnegotiable
barriers to Turkey's entry into Europe. The same year, the European
Council rejected Turkey's application to join the European Community.
Since then, the worldwide movement to achieve Genocide recognition has
taken on new momentum; great Western Democracies, like France, Italy,
and Belgium have resisted economic and political blackmail, and in
spite of unprecedented Turkish pressures have officially recognized
the Armenian Genocide.
Of course all of these official recognitions had an important impact
on public opinion, but of a moral nature more than having an impact on
Turkey's relations with the recognizing countries. Turkey continued to
develop its campaign of denial, enveloping into its fold academics and
others who might lend credibility to its policy of denial.
And so, it was the acceleration of Turkey's EU accession process that
pushed the Genocide question to the forefront of the world political
scene.
In 1999, the European Summit of Helsinki included in its conclusions
that Turkey had a role associated with Europe;
In 2000, the European Commission published its report on Turkey's
progress, which was followed by the European Parliament, whose
rapporteur, General Morillon refused to include Genocide recognition
as a pre-condition to Turkey's accession. Our actions were
instrumental in influencing the Parliament's final decision; indeed,
the Parliament adopted amendments demanding that Turkey recognize the
Genocide and lift the blockade of Arménia. For the first time,
the recognition of the Genocide entered legislation governing the
relations between Turkey and the European Union.
In the following years, and in spite of the reticence of the major
political parties within the European Parliament, we succeeded in
inserting this requirement in all the legislation and resolutions of
this European democratic assembly. We in essence created a cumulative
effect between the European Parliament legislation and the growing
Genocide recognitions by the national Parliaments, in order to create
a situation where the public opinion would consider it totally
anti-democratic not to take into account all these recognitions and
resolutions.
Of course, during the early years, the European Commission turned a
deaf ear; however faced with mounting evidence of Turkey's obstinate
denial (from the Education Minister's directives to deny the Genocide
in the schools to the Turkish penal code's article 305 which calls for
prison sentences for anyone authoring a publication on the Armenian
Genocide or calling for the withdrawal of Turkish troops from Cyprus),
the European executive body finally invoked in 2004 the Genocide,
asking Turkey to reconcile its historical disputes with
Arménia.
And so today, Turkey faces the demand for recognition from its
relationships with third-party countries and international entities,
in particular from the European Union and the United States of
America. In this phase of the internationalization of the recognition
issue, Turkey continues to seek a way out through denial and attempts
at diversion.
In the summer of 2001, with the help and financing from the U.S. State
Department and Turkey, a group of Turks and Armenians formed a
so-called "Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission" supposedly to
start a discussion to reconcile the Armenian and Turkish people,
without broaching the genocide issue, since the Turkish members of the
group, all of whom were seasoned former diplomats in the denial
campaign, refused to discuss it.
The true nature of the so-called `Turkish Armenian Reconciliation
Commission' (TARC) was exposed, a long time ago, by the Armenian
National Committee of America (ANCA) in Washington and the European
Armenian Federation for Justice and Democracy (EAFJD) in
Brussels. Those who `masterminded' the operation have publicly
admitted recently that it was a failure for which the `Armenian
nationalists' are to be blamed. Armenians everywhere rejected this
suspect operation no sooner than it was launched. European Armenian
organizations, in large numbers, went on record signing the
Declaration initiated by EAFJD.
Since then, other more subtle forms of this Turkish-inspired strategy
are being initiated. Artificial forms of `cooperation' are being
devised bringing together elements of civil society in Turkey and
Armenia into a propaganda show. Large sums are being committed to
such operations targeting needy intellectuals and institutions in
Armenia who could be tempted. The organizers of TARC know that this
operation, in all of its forms, is doomed to eventual failure. Their
true purpose, however, is to create a false aura of `dialogue' at the
grass-roots level in order to confuse the political scene in the US
and in Europe. Their purpose is to divert the attention of the world
community away from Turkey's responsibility for the crime.
During this time of pre-accession negotiations, Europe is sending an
increasingly clear message to Turkey requiring its recognition of the
Genocide. For other reasons related to its economic and strategic
interests, the United States is also searching for a solution to lead
Turkey out of the grave that it continues to dig with its policy of
denial.
With this in mind, TARC commissioned a study on the applicability of
the 1948 Genocide Convention to the Armenian case; the answer was
foreseeable: with great media reinforcement, the "International Center
for Transitional Justice" hired for this study concluded that the
Convention could not apply because of the non-retroactive nature of
the Convention, even if the massacres of the Armenians constitute a
Genocide according to Convention criteria.
However, where crimes against humanity are involved, there can be no
statute of limitation. This is a fundamental principle of
international law. Responsibility for the crime of genocide cannot
lapse with time and it weighs heavily on the shoulders of the nation
whose government has perpetrated the mass annihilation. And ever since
the adoption of the United Nations Genocide Convention, the world
community also has the ancillary moral responsibility to make sure
that the perpetrator nation is brought to justice.
As reflected in the relevant provisions of the Treaty of Sevres, the
doctrine of State Responsibility for genocide Crimes against Humanity
already existed at the time of the genocide of teh Armenians. Such
State Responsibility entailed both an obligation to provide
restitution or compensation and the personal criminal liability of the
perpetrators.
At the end of the second world war, the Allies adopted he Cherter of
the International Military Tribunal, following the London Agreement of
8 August 1945, which provided for the prosecution of the Crime of
genocide ( « murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation,
and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population
») as international crimes within the « Crimes against
Humanity ».
Obviously the drafters of the London Agreement had clearly in mind the
genocide against the Armenian people. Thus we read the following in
the History of the United Nations` War Crimes Commission : «
The provisions of Article 230 of the Peace Treaty of Sevres were
obviously intended to cover, in conformity with the Allied note of
1915, ¦ offences which had been committed on Turkish territory
against persons of Turkish citizenship, though of At menian ¦
race. This article constitutes, therefore, a precedent for Articles
6c) and 5c) of the Nuremberg and Tokyo charters, and offers an exa
;ple of the one of the categories of « Crimes against Humanity
» as understood by these enactments ».
On 9 December 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the
Convention on the Prevention and the Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide. The Convention does not purport to create a new crime, but
recognizes in the preamble « thet at all periods of History
genocide has inflicted great losses on Humanity » ; and in
article 1, stipulates ˜ The Contracting Parties confirm that
genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a
crime under international law .. ».
So we see that the Convention merely codified the prohibition of
genocide, because it was not constitutive of a new offence in
internaitonal Law termed « genocide », but was
declaratory of the pre-existing crime.
Today the majority of the 191 member States of the United Nations have
ratified the Convention. But the Genocide Convention underlies
« principles which are recogniwed by civilized nations as
binding on all States, even without any Conventional obligation
» as stated by the International Court of Justice in 1951.
Later the Court stated that the rights involved in the outlawing of
genocide are obligations « erga omnes » which means
obligations « towards the International Community as a whole
».
And because of its « erga omnes » quality, the ceime of
genocide cannot be subject to prescription, and the obligation of the
genocidal State to make reparation and State Responsibility for the
crime does not lapse with time.
In 1968 the United Nations adopted the Convention of the Non
Applicability of Statutory Limitations to war Crimes and Crimes
against Humanity. Although Turkey is not a State-party ot this
Comvention, internatuional Law clearly stipulates that there is no
prescription on the prosecution of the crime of the genocide,
regardless of when the genocide occurredm and the obligation of the
responsible State to make restitution or pay compensation for
confiscated properties does not lapse with time.
Finally a general principle of international Law stipulates that a
State is responsible for injuries causes by its wronglul acts and
bound to provide reparation for it. In the case of the genocidem it is
not a mere violation of International Law, engaging inter-state
responsibity , but an obligation of thd crimimal State toward the
International Community as a whole.
The legal impact of the « erga omnes » nature of the
crime of genocide involves an obligationn to make reparation, which
lays over the responsible State and the International Community.
Responsibility, in this case, involves a formal and genuine
recognition of the crime committed and an official apology by the
perpetrator nation. It involves prosecution and punishment of the
individuals responsible under the accepted norms of international law;
reparations to the survivor population; compensation, for the damages
and pain incurred, to the individual victims (or their rightful
heirs), as well as to the collective interest of the victimized
community or the nation; restoration to the rightful inheritors (and
restitution) of the territories and all other cultural treasures
(mobile and immobile); finally, institution by the successor
government of the perpetrator nation of a massive educational program
about the genocide committed thus restoring the true collective memory
of the society involved for the benefit of the present and future
generations.
We take note of a new attempt by Turkey to escape from the increasing
European pressure.
Prime Minister Erdogan stated recently that he would like to see an
impartial study performed by a group of historians to determine
whether a Turkish genocide against the Armenians did, in fact, take
place. The Prime Minister's statement confused many in the world
community and for good reason. For a head of government, he was a
little late in trying to learn about his country's recent past. His
statement was, indeed, the vivid evidence of how systematically the
present Turkish Republic, since its inception, has wiped out Turkey's
historical memory depriving many generations of Turks of the truth
about themselves.
Knowing Turkey's policy of denial, however, the world community cannot
be naïve and not see the diversionary tactics behind the
Turkish government's recent campaign of deception. The facts about the
Armenian Genocide have long been established and recognized by the
world community. An impressive number of nations are on record on this
subject and many more will follow suit. Turkey is too late in meeting
its obligations and it knows it. Relegating this matter to
`historians' is a discredited tactic. Its aim is to drive this issue
out of the political arena.
Only a few days ago, the International Association of Genocide
Scholars wrote to the Turkish Prime Minister reminding him that he
cannot with any credibility use Turkish claims against Armenian
claims, quite simply because in fact it is not only the Armenians that
affirm that there was genocide, but hundreds of independent academics
whose works make them authorities in many countries.
The International Association of Genocide Scholars clearly demanded
that Turkey own up to its responsibility by recognizing and paying
reparations for the crime of genocide made by Turkey. Because Turkey
is responsible.
90 years later, the Armenian Genocide remains a contemporary
issue. The contemporary nature of the Armenian Genocide comes to
restate fact that there can be no statute of limitations on this
issue. And the children and grand-children of the victims will stand
up to demand justice of Turkey, which is responsible before
International law, whose entire State apparatus including its army,
police and judicial and legislative authorities, conceived, planned,
organized the most horrible Crime against Humanity: the Genocide of
the Armenians.
259 Penshurst Street
Willoughby NSW 2068
Email: [email protected]
Contact: Dr Tro Kortian 0412197364
AUSTRALIA, President of European Armenian Federation, Mrs Hilda
Tchoboian, Delivers 2005 Armenian Genocide Commemorative Lecture in
NSW Parliament
Sydney, AUSTRALIA: [28 April 2005] Accepting the invitation of the
Australian Institute for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Mrs Hilda
Tchoboian, President of the Armenian European Federation for Justice
and Democracy, delivered the 2005 Armenian Genocide Commemorative
Lecture in the Parliament of New South Wales Theatrette.
The annual Armenian Genocide Commemorative Lecture series seeks to
honour the memory of the victims of the Armenian Genocide by
addressing human rights issues of contemporary importance and by
providing a constructive role in the understanding and prevention of
genocide and other crimes against humanity. Accordingly, each year a
distinguished speaker is invited to deliver the Commemorative Lecture
on a topic of contemporary national or international relevance with
respect to issues of tolerance, human rights, international law,
genocide, and other crimes against humanity. Previous speakers have
been Prof. Richard G. Hovannisian (1996), Prof. Vahakn N. Dadrian
(1997), NSW Supreme Court Judge Justice John Dowd (1998), Baroness
Caroline Cox, Deputy Speaker of the British House of Lords (2000) and
Israeli scholar Dr Yair Auron (2001): Mr Raffi Hovaannisian, former
Foreign Minister of the Republic of Armenia (2002); and Dr Sev
Ozdowski, OAM, Human Rights Commissioner and Disability Discrimination
Commissioner (2004)
Below is the text of Mrs Hilda Tchoboian's 2005 Armenian Genocide
Commemorative lecture:
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to share with
you these words on the occasion of the ninetieth anniversary of the
genocide of the Armenian people.
It is undeniable that although ninety years have passed since the
first genocide of the twentieth century, it is only for the past
quarter century, that its internationalization has been mounting.
At the end of the First World War, the extermination of the Armenians
made an important mark on international doctrines, in particular on
the Treaty of Sevres of August 10, 1920, in which article 230
stipulated that the Turkish leaders responsible for the massacres of
the Armenian populations would be brought to justice before an
international penal court:
`The Turkish Government undertakes to hand over to the Allied Powers
the persons whose surrender may be required by the latter as being
responsible for the massacres committed during the continuance of the
state of war on territory which formed part of the Turkish Empire on
the 1st August 1914. The Allied Powers reserve to themselves the
right to designate the Tribunal which shall try the persons so accused
and the Turkish Government undertakes to recognise such Tribunal.
Article 144 called for reparations, due to the survivors of the
genocide, and the return of goods confiscated from their Armenian
owners.
`The Turkish Government recognises the injustice of the law of 1915
relating to Abandoned Properties (Emval-I-Metroukeh), and of the
supplementary provisions thereof, and declares them to be null and
void, in the past as in the future.
`The Turkish Government solemnly undertakes to facilitate to the
greatest possible extent the return to their homes and
re-establishment in their businesses of the Turkish subjects of
non-Turkish race who have been forcibly driven from their homes by
fear of massacre or any other form of pressure since January 1, 1914.
It recognises that any immovable or movable property of the said
Turkish subjects or of the communities to which they belong, which can
be recovered, must be restored to them as soon as possible, in
whatever hands it may be found¦. The Turkish Government agrees that
arbitral commissions shall be appointed by the Council of the League
of Nations wherever found necessary. .. These arbitral commissions
shall hear all claims covered by this Article and decide them by
summary procedure.
Turkey refused to ratify this text; the Treaty of Lausanne of July 23,
1923, which replaced that of Sevres, remained silent on this
subject. It is here that the first attempt at establishing an
international penal tribunal failed, because of the indifference of
the Allies, who favored Real politik with regard to their trade
relations with Turkey.
It all started in the years following the Genocide, with the
Diaspora's first commemorations of the Great Catastrophe, "medz
Yeghern" in Armenian. These gatherings were of a private, disorganized
and tragic nature; it was an opportunity for the survivors to remember
their exterminated families or those they lost to deportation; these
gatherings always ended in tears, as people were overcome by the
enormous suffering and the feeling of powerlessness before such an
overwhelming tragedy.
The trials of the Ittihadist perpetrators indeed condemned in
abstencia the organizers of the Genocide; however, in the absence of
international justice, it was the Armenians themselves who had to
bring to justice some of the guilty, in particular the perpetrating
triumvirate Talaat, Enver and Jemal.
The trial of the young Soghomon Tehlirian, in Berlin, for the
execution of Talaat, the Turkish Minister of Interior, raised public
awareness of the extermination of the Armenians, but remained a
judicial act Though it certainly had great impact on public opinion,
it did not reach Germany's post-war political scene.
At the end of the Second World War, there was hope that the Soviet
Union would address the issue of the genocide and territorial claims
at the UN; but that too, for various reasons, resulted in
disappointment, when Molotov, who represented the USSR at the UN,
ended up asking for the Armenian territories in the eastern part of
Turkey in order to annex them...... to Soviet Georgia.
During the Cold War, the USSR policy froze the genocide issue, and all
of the Armenian Diaspora's efforts to internationalize the issue
resulted in failure during this time due to unfavorable conditions on
the international political scene. The memorandum that the independent
Delegation of Armenia regularly presented at the UN received no
traction. The UN remained silent in response to repeated demands by
Armenian organizations to consider the issue of plundering following
the Genocide. Similarly, requests made to various world governments
remained unanswered.
Ironically, it is on this foundation that the effort to
internationalize the Genocide issue began. It is through
acknowledgement by a few countries--still rare in the Sixties and
Seventies--that it developed. The recognition of the Armenian Genocide
was at no time a high-stakes issue in international relations; it is
thanks to the diligent work of dedicated activitists in Armenian
organizations, reinforced in their fight by democratic supporters,
often by local elected officials, that the recognition of the Genocide
gradually became a question of Humans Rights and the right to
historical memory, recognized by a growing number of national
parliaments and local and regional political bodies.
>From 1975 to 1985, there was a ten-year battle to retain mention of
the Armenian Genocide in article 30 of the report of the UN Human
Rights Commission's Subcommission on the Fight Against Discrimination
and Racism. Sixty years after the tragedy, the Armenian Genocide
forced its way onto into the international arena; the mention of the
Armenian question would have almost passed unnoticed if Turkey had not
engaged all its political and diplomatic might to remove it from the
report. Several years of pressure and blackmail by Turkey caused quite
some turmoil in the drafting and adoption of the report.
However, in August 1985, the final report by Benjamin Whittaker
maintained the Armenian Genocide among the Genocides of modern
times. It was a considerable victory, which mobilized the energy of
Armenian activists and independent experts; the Genocide issue left
the private sphere of the Armenian Diaspora, and made its entry into
an international text, and moreover at the level of a UN
Subcommission, which consisted of independent experts and where
Turkish diplomacy had less influence than it would have with a body of
government representatives.
In 1984, one year before the successful conclusion of the UN efforts,
the Permanent Peoples' Tribunal, heir to the famous Russel Tribunal,
brought together in Paris a few dozen experts, including several Nobel
Prize recipients and Genocide experts, to in turn affirm that the
Armenian killings indeed constituted a genocide according to the
definition of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention of Genocide.
Finally, it is on June 18 1987 that the rapporteur Jaak
Vandemeulebroucke, a Flemish deputy of the European Parliament,
proposed his final report titled "for a political solution to the
Armenian Question". The text adopted by the European Parliament stated
that denial of the genocide by Turkey constitutes, along with the
occupation of Cyprus and repression of the Kurds, unnegotiable
barriers to Turkey's entry into Europe. The same year, the European
Council rejected Turkey's application to join the European Community.
Since then, the worldwide movement to achieve Genocide recognition has
taken on new momentum; great Western Democracies, like France, Italy,
and Belgium have resisted economic and political blackmail, and in
spite of unprecedented Turkish pressures have officially recognized
the Armenian Genocide.
Of course all of these official recognitions had an important impact
on public opinion, but of a moral nature more than having an impact on
Turkey's relations with the recognizing countries. Turkey continued to
develop its campaign of denial, enveloping into its fold academics and
others who might lend credibility to its policy of denial.
And so, it was the acceleration of Turkey's EU accession process that
pushed the Genocide question to the forefront of the world political
scene.
In 1999, the European Summit of Helsinki included in its conclusions
that Turkey had a role associated with Europe;
In 2000, the European Commission published its report on Turkey's
progress, which was followed by the European Parliament, whose
rapporteur, General Morillon refused to include Genocide recognition
as a pre-condition to Turkey's accession. Our actions were
instrumental in influencing the Parliament's final decision; indeed,
the Parliament adopted amendments demanding that Turkey recognize the
Genocide and lift the blockade of Arménia. For the first time,
the recognition of the Genocide entered legislation governing the
relations between Turkey and the European Union.
In the following years, and in spite of the reticence of the major
political parties within the European Parliament, we succeeded in
inserting this requirement in all the legislation and resolutions of
this European democratic assembly. We in essence created a cumulative
effect between the European Parliament legislation and the growing
Genocide recognitions by the national Parliaments, in order to create
a situation where the public opinion would consider it totally
anti-democratic not to take into account all these recognitions and
resolutions.
Of course, during the early years, the European Commission turned a
deaf ear; however faced with mounting evidence of Turkey's obstinate
denial (from the Education Minister's directives to deny the Genocide
in the schools to the Turkish penal code's article 305 which calls for
prison sentences for anyone authoring a publication on the Armenian
Genocide or calling for the withdrawal of Turkish troops from Cyprus),
the European executive body finally invoked in 2004 the Genocide,
asking Turkey to reconcile its historical disputes with
Arménia.
And so today, Turkey faces the demand for recognition from its
relationships with third-party countries and international entities,
in particular from the European Union and the United States of
America. In this phase of the internationalization of the recognition
issue, Turkey continues to seek a way out through denial and attempts
at diversion.
In the summer of 2001, with the help and financing from the U.S. State
Department and Turkey, a group of Turks and Armenians formed a
so-called "Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission" supposedly to
start a discussion to reconcile the Armenian and Turkish people,
without broaching the genocide issue, since the Turkish members of the
group, all of whom were seasoned former diplomats in the denial
campaign, refused to discuss it.
The true nature of the so-called `Turkish Armenian Reconciliation
Commission' (TARC) was exposed, a long time ago, by the Armenian
National Committee of America (ANCA) in Washington and the European
Armenian Federation for Justice and Democracy (EAFJD) in
Brussels. Those who `masterminded' the operation have publicly
admitted recently that it was a failure for which the `Armenian
nationalists' are to be blamed. Armenians everywhere rejected this
suspect operation no sooner than it was launched. European Armenian
organizations, in large numbers, went on record signing the
Declaration initiated by EAFJD.
Since then, other more subtle forms of this Turkish-inspired strategy
are being initiated. Artificial forms of `cooperation' are being
devised bringing together elements of civil society in Turkey and
Armenia into a propaganda show. Large sums are being committed to
such operations targeting needy intellectuals and institutions in
Armenia who could be tempted. The organizers of TARC know that this
operation, in all of its forms, is doomed to eventual failure. Their
true purpose, however, is to create a false aura of `dialogue' at the
grass-roots level in order to confuse the political scene in the US
and in Europe. Their purpose is to divert the attention of the world
community away from Turkey's responsibility for the crime.
During this time of pre-accession negotiations, Europe is sending an
increasingly clear message to Turkey requiring its recognition of the
Genocide. For other reasons related to its economic and strategic
interests, the United States is also searching for a solution to lead
Turkey out of the grave that it continues to dig with its policy of
denial.
With this in mind, TARC commissioned a study on the applicability of
the 1948 Genocide Convention to the Armenian case; the answer was
foreseeable: with great media reinforcement, the "International Center
for Transitional Justice" hired for this study concluded that the
Convention could not apply because of the non-retroactive nature of
the Convention, even if the massacres of the Armenians constitute a
Genocide according to Convention criteria.
However, where crimes against humanity are involved, there can be no
statute of limitation. This is a fundamental principle of
international law. Responsibility for the crime of genocide cannot
lapse with time and it weighs heavily on the shoulders of the nation
whose government has perpetrated the mass annihilation. And ever since
the adoption of the United Nations Genocide Convention, the world
community also has the ancillary moral responsibility to make sure
that the perpetrator nation is brought to justice.
As reflected in the relevant provisions of the Treaty of Sevres, the
doctrine of State Responsibility for genocide Crimes against Humanity
already existed at the time of the genocide of teh Armenians. Such
State Responsibility entailed both an obligation to provide
restitution or compensation and the personal criminal liability of the
perpetrators.
At the end of the second world war, the Allies adopted he Cherter of
the International Military Tribunal, following the London Agreement of
8 August 1945, which provided for the prosecution of the Crime of
genocide ( « murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation,
and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population
») as international crimes within the « Crimes against
Humanity ».
Obviously the drafters of the London Agreement had clearly in mind the
genocide against the Armenian people. Thus we read the following in
the History of the United Nations` War Crimes Commission : «
The provisions of Article 230 of the Peace Treaty of Sevres were
obviously intended to cover, in conformity with the Allied note of
1915, ¦ offences which had been committed on Turkish territory
against persons of Turkish citizenship, though of At menian ¦
race. This article constitutes, therefore, a precedent for Articles
6c) and 5c) of the Nuremberg and Tokyo charters, and offers an exa
;ple of the one of the categories of « Crimes against Humanity
» as understood by these enactments ».
On 9 December 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the
Convention on the Prevention and the Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide. The Convention does not purport to create a new crime, but
recognizes in the preamble « thet at all periods of History
genocide has inflicted great losses on Humanity » ; and in
article 1, stipulates ˜ The Contracting Parties confirm that
genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a
crime under international law .. ».
So we see that the Convention merely codified the prohibition of
genocide, because it was not constitutive of a new offence in
internaitonal Law termed « genocide », but was
declaratory of the pre-existing crime.
Today the majority of the 191 member States of the United Nations have
ratified the Convention. But the Genocide Convention underlies
« principles which are recogniwed by civilized nations as
binding on all States, even without any Conventional obligation
» as stated by the International Court of Justice in 1951.
Later the Court stated that the rights involved in the outlawing of
genocide are obligations « erga omnes » which means
obligations « towards the International Community as a whole
».
And because of its « erga omnes » quality, the ceime of
genocide cannot be subject to prescription, and the obligation of the
genocidal State to make reparation and State Responsibility for the
crime does not lapse with time.
In 1968 the United Nations adopted the Convention of the Non
Applicability of Statutory Limitations to war Crimes and Crimes
against Humanity. Although Turkey is not a State-party ot this
Comvention, internatuional Law clearly stipulates that there is no
prescription on the prosecution of the crime of the genocide,
regardless of when the genocide occurredm and the obligation of the
responsible State to make restitution or pay compensation for
confiscated properties does not lapse with time.
Finally a general principle of international Law stipulates that a
State is responsible for injuries causes by its wronglul acts and
bound to provide reparation for it. In the case of the genocidem it is
not a mere violation of International Law, engaging inter-state
responsibity , but an obligation of thd crimimal State toward the
International Community as a whole.
The legal impact of the « erga omnes » nature of the
crime of genocide involves an obligationn to make reparation, which
lays over the responsible State and the International Community.
Responsibility, in this case, involves a formal and genuine
recognition of the crime committed and an official apology by the
perpetrator nation. It involves prosecution and punishment of the
individuals responsible under the accepted norms of international law;
reparations to the survivor population; compensation, for the damages
and pain incurred, to the individual victims (or their rightful
heirs), as well as to the collective interest of the victimized
community or the nation; restoration to the rightful inheritors (and
restitution) of the territories and all other cultural treasures
(mobile and immobile); finally, institution by the successor
government of the perpetrator nation of a massive educational program
about the genocide committed thus restoring the true collective memory
of the society involved for the benefit of the present and future
generations.
We take note of a new attempt by Turkey to escape from the increasing
European pressure.
Prime Minister Erdogan stated recently that he would like to see an
impartial study performed by a group of historians to determine
whether a Turkish genocide against the Armenians did, in fact, take
place. The Prime Minister's statement confused many in the world
community and for good reason. For a head of government, he was a
little late in trying to learn about his country's recent past. His
statement was, indeed, the vivid evidence of how systematically the
present Turkish Republic, since its inception, has wiped out Turkey's
historical memory depriving many generations of Turks of the truth
about themselves.
Knowing Turkey's policy of denial, however, the world community cannot
be naïve and not see the diversionary tactics behind the
Turkish government's recent campaign of deception. The facts about the
Armenian Genocide have long been established and recognized by the
world community. An impressive number of nations are on record on this
subject and many more will follow suit. Turkey is too late in meeting
its obligations and it knows it. Relegating this matter to
`historians' is a discredited tactic. Its aim is to drive this issue
out of the political arena.
Only a few days ago, the International Association of Genocide
Scholars wrote to the Turkish Prime Minister reminding him that he
cannot with any credibility use Turkish claims against Armenian
claims, quite simply because in fact it is not only the Armenians that
affirm that there was genocide, but hundreds of independent academics
whose works make them authorities in many countries.
The International Association of Genocide Scholars clearly demanded
that Turkey own up to its responsibility by recognizing and paying
reparations for the crime of genocide made by Turkey. Because Turkey
is responsible.
90 years later, the Armenian Genocide remains a contemporary
issue. The contemporary nature of the Armenian Genocide comes to
restate fact that there can be no statute of limitations on this
issue. And the children and grand-children of the victims will stand
up to demand justice of Turkey, which is responsible before
International law, whose entire State apparatus including its army,
police and judicial and legislative authorities, conceived, planned,
organized the most horrible Crime against Humanity: the Genocide of
the Armenians.