Tweet
International law should decide on the controversial Armenian problem
By Senem Caglayan
The New Anatolian, Turkey
May 7 2005
In recent weeks the controversial Armenian problem has cast a long
shadow over Ankara's foreign and domestic debates, especially those
between Turkey and Armenia.
The main goal of the Armenians' lobbying efforts is to gain political
recognition of their claims. Although they know that political
recognition of the so-called genocide claims by various states
worldwide carries no legal effect, they consider this recognition
prestigious since they attribute a symbolic meaning to the issue.
But "genocide" is an international law term, and its chargeable
offenses are presented in the 1948 United Nations International
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
The convention defines "genocide" as an act of partial or total
annihilation of a national, ethnic, or religious group. The convention
also says that rather than states, the persons that committed this
crime could be accused and punished. The convention can only be applied
to cases which occurred after it was put into force. Therefore,
since it was put into force in 1948, past events do not fall under
its purview and since it can only be applied to persons, not states,
it is clear that it has no force for events in the closing days of
World War I.
Therefore, in order to succeed in heading off recognition of the
Armenian claims, Ankara should carry the issue to a legal basis
instead of entering into a political debate with other states or
applying Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's suggestion of
establishing a "joint commission" of Armenian and Turkish historians
to investigate the controversial issue. There are a number of reasons
for this.
Firstly, political discussions can do nothing better than eroding
bilateral relations and escalating the tensions between Turkey and
Armenia. Secondly, even if historians of the two states were to meet,
they could neither reach a sound conclusion nor could they find
any evidence that settles the "genocide" issue one way or another,
since these historians will interpret the documents and archives
differently. We should keep in mind that perception of history varies
according to the interpretation of events by the historians.
By Senem Caglayan
The New Anatolian, Turkey
May 7 2005
In recent weeks the controversial Armenian problem has cast a long
shadow over Ankara's foreign and domestic debates, especially those
between Turkey and Armenia.
The main goal of the Armenians' lobbying efforts is to gain political
recognition of their claims. Although they know that political
recognition of the so-called genocide claims by various states
worldwide carries no legal effect, they consider this recognition
prestigious since they attribute a symbolic meaning to the issue.
But "genocide" is an international law term, and its chargeable
offenses are presented in the 1948 United Nations International
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
The convention defines "genocide" as an act of partial or total
annihilation of a national, ethnic, or religious group. The convention
also says that rather than states, the persons that committed this
crime could be accused and punished. The convention can only be applied
to cases which occurred after it was put into force. Therefore,
since it was put into force in 1948, past events do not fall under
its purview and since it can only be applied to persons, not states,
it is clear that it has no force for events in the closing days of
World War I.
Therefore, in order to succeed in heading off recognition of the
Armenian claims, Ankara should carry the issue to a legal basis
instead of entering into a political debate with other states or
applying Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's suggestion of
establishing a "joint commission" of Armenian and Turkish historians
to investigate the controversial issue. There are a number of reasons
for this.
Firstly, political discussions can do nothing better than eroding
bilateral relations and escalating the tensions between Turkey and
Armenia. Secondly, even if historians of the two states were to meet,
they could neither reach a sound conclusion nor could they find
any evidence that settles the "genocide" issue one way or another,
since these historians will interpret the documents and archives
differently. We should keep in mind that perception of history varies
according to the interpretation of events by the historians.