Tweet
GENOCIDE BY ANY INTERNATIONAL STANDARD
By Sean Gannon
Jerusalem Post
13 February 2009
"The persecution of Armenians is assuming unprecedented
proportions. Reports from widely scattered districts indicate
a systematic attempt to uproot peaceful populations and through
arbitrary efforts, terrible tortures, wholesale expulsions and
deportations from one end of the Empire to the other, accompanied by
frequent instances of rape, pillage and murder turning into massacre,
to bring destruction and destitution on them." - Henry Morgenthau Sr.,
US ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, July 10, 1915.
But did this constitute genocide? Not according to Israel which, for
reasons of "practical realpolitik" regarding relations with Turkey
has long refused to recognize the 1915-1923 massacre of up to 1.5
million Armenians by Ottoman Turks as an act of ethnic extermination.
Nor according to the United States, which bases its refusal on
similar grounds.
And not without cause. Most recently, Turkey responded to an October
2007 draft congressional resolution calling on president George Bush
to characterize the killings as genocide by threatening to cut its
logistical support for US operations in Iraq and close its strategic
Incirlik air base to American aircraft. Turkey spent $300,000 a month
on Washington lobbyists to ensure its message hit home. The resolution,
which had already passed the committee stage and had 225 cosponsors
in the House of Representatives, was quickly withdrawn.
Ankara's indefatigable efforts to prevent international recognition of
the Armenian genocide derive from the fact that its denial is part of
Turkey's founding mythology, a plank of official policy since the 1922
Lausanne Conference, where claims of mass killings were dismissed as
"Christian propaganda." In 1934, it successfully lobbied Washington
to persuade MGM to drop plans to film The Forty Days of Musa Dagh,
Franz Werfel's best-selling novel about the Armenian experience,
by threatening to boycott American films.
This campaign of denial intensified after 1965 when Armenian
commemorations of the 50th anniversary brought the issue to
international attention. By the mid-1970s, Turkey was engaged in
what Richard Falk described as "a major, proactive, deliberate
effort to... keep the truth about the Armenian genocide from
general acknowledgment." By the 1990s, this included the endowment
of chairs in Turkish studies at several US universities with the aim
of disseminating Ankara's version of events.
According to this version, Armenians have willfully painted an
inaccurate picture of what happened in the World War I period and
why. And there is certainly truth in Turkey's claim that the situation
was not as clear-cut as generally presented. Rarely acknowledged,
for instance, is that the rise of Armenian nationalism in the 19th
century led to enormous tensions between Armenians and their Ottoman
overlords, and that many had sided against the empire in the 1828,
1854 and 1877 wars.
It is also infrequently admitted that although 250,000 Armenians
were conscripted into the Ottoman armies during World War I, another
150,000, out of a sense of religious affinity with the Orthodox Slavs
and in the hope that a Russian victory would lead to an independent
Armenian state, volunteered to serve under the czar, while a further
50,000 joined Armenian guerrilla groups which openly sided with
him. Seldom spoken of either is the fact that hundreds of thousands
of Muslim, Greek and Jewish civilians died directly at their hands.
But while Constantinople may have gained grounds for viewing the
Armenians as a fifth column, nonpartisan sources make clear that their
deportation and murder began before any attempted insurrection. As
David Fromkin, who studied German sources, has written: "There are
historians today who continue to support the claim... that the Ottoman
rulers acted only after Armenia had risen against them. But observers
at the time who were by no means anti-Turk reported that such was
not the case. German officers stationed there agreed that the area
was quiet until the deportations began."
Ankara also denies that 1.5 million Armenians actually died. While
some Turkish historians allow that up to 600,000 were killed, the
semi-official Turkish Historical Society puts the figure closer to
300,000 and argues that, of these, only 10,000 were massacred, the
remainder dying of starvation and disease. It further claims that
these 10,000 were killed, not as part of a genocidal plan, but in
the heat of battle and more often than not by Kurds.
But it is a matter of historical record that the Special Organization,
an official arm of the Defense Ministry, oversaw the activities
of Einsatzgruppen-style killing squads that, in the words of one
US diplomat, "swept the countryside, massacring [Armenian] men,
women and children." And while Kurds were certainly involved in the
killing, they were deliberately coopted for the task by the Turkish
War Ministry in the knowledge that, as the Armenians' historic blood
enemies, they would lose no opportunity to avenge ancient grudges.
Ankara's distinction between those directly murdered and those who
died indirectly from starvation, disease and exposure is also highly
questionable. With no provision made for clothing, food or shelter,
the anticipated outcome of the deportations into the Syrian desert
was obviously death. In fact, the Turkish interior minister termed
them "marches to eternity" and his meaning was clear to his appalled
German allies who distanced themselves from the policy. To say that
the Armenians who died during the deportations were not deliberately
killed is like claiming there were no intentional Jewish deaths during
their "relocation" to the East or on the death marches to the West
during World War II.
The fact is that the Armenian massacres constituted genocide by any
international standard, conforming to the UN's criterion of having been
"committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national,
ethnical, racial or religious group." Indeed, Raphael Lemkin, who
coined the term 'genocide' in 1944, used the Armenian massacres as
an illustrative example.
Today Turkey's campaign to prevent its recognition is assuming
a Canute-like quality. Some 21 countries have already formally
acknowledged it, including Russia, Canada and France, as has
the European Parliament, the World Council of Churches and the
International Association of Genocide Scholars. And with President
Barack Obama (who twice pledged to recognize the genocide during his
election campaign), Joe Biden, Hilary Clinton, CIA chief Leon Panetta
and the NSC's director of multilateral affairs Samantha Power also on
board, we now have what the Turkish daily Hurriyet described as the
"most pro-Armenian [administration] in history," and the Armenian
National Committee of America is currently preparing to place another
"recognition resolution" before Congress. In fact, Obama may well use
this year's April 24 White House statement commemorating the killings
to recognize them as genocide.
Furthermore, an official with a leading American Jewish organization
recently told The Jerusalem Post that the post-Cast Lead "deterioration
in Israel-Turkey relations might prompt his group and others to
reconsider" their traditional support for Ankara's stance. And Israel,
which Yair Auron, author of The Banality of Denial: Israel and the
Armenian Genocide, describes as Turkey's "principal partner" in denial,
has itself made similar noises, with Deputy Foreign Minister Majallie
Whbee warning that if Turkey persists in its claims that genocide is
taking place in Gaza, "we will then recognize the Armenian-related
events as genocide."
Albeit for the wrong reasons, this is surely the right thing to
do. For, while fears regarding repercussions for both bilateral
relations and Turkey's 25,000-strong Jewish community are unfortunately
well-founded, Israel, perhaps more than other nations, has a moral
obligation to call this crime by its name.
The writer, Sean Gannon, is a freelance journalist, writing mainly
on Irish and Middle Eastern affairs. He is currently preparing a book
on the history of Irish-Israeli relations.
By Sean Gannon
Jerusalem Post
13 February 2009
"The persecution of Armenians is assuming unprecedented
proportions. Reports from widely scattered districts indicate
a systematic attempt to uproot peaceful populations and through
arbitrary efforts, terrible tortures, wholesale expulsions and
deportations from one end of the Empire to the other, accompanied by
frequent instances of rape, pillage and murder turning into massacre,
to bring destruction and destitution on them." - Henry Morgenthau Sr.,
US ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, July 10, 1915.
But did this constitute genocide? Not according to Israel which, for
reasons of "practical realpolitik" regarding relations with Turkey
has long refused to recognize the 1915-1923 massacre of up to 1.5
million Armenians by Ottoman Turks as an act of ethnic extermination.
Nor according to the United States, which bases its refusal on
similar grounds.
And not without cause. Most recently, Turkey responded to an October
2007 draft congressional resolution calling on president George Bush
to characterize the killings as genocide by threatening to cut its
logistical support for US operations in Iraq and close its strategic
Incirlik air base to American aircraft. Turkey spent $300,000 a month
on Washington lobbyists to ensure its message hit home. The resolution,
which had already passed the committee stage and had 225 cosponsors
in the House of Representatives, was quickly withdrawn.
Ankara's indefatigable efforts to prevent international recognition of
the Armenian genocide derive from the fact that its denial is part of
Turkey's founding mythology, a plank of official policy since the 1922
Lausanne Conference, where claims of mass killings were dismissed as
"Christian propaganda." In 1934, it successfully lobbied Washington
to persuade MGM to drop plans to film The Forty Days of Musa Dagh,
Franz Werfel's best-selling novel about the Armenian experience,
by threatening to boycott American films.
This campaign of denial intensified after 1965 when Armenian
commemorations of the 50th anniversary brought the issue to
international attention. By the mid-1970s, Turkey was engaged in
what Richard Falk described as "a major, proactive, deliberate
effort to... keep the truth about the Armenian genocide from
general acknowledgment." By the 1990s, this included the endowment
of chairs in Turkish studies at several US universities with the aim
of disseminating Ankara's version of events.
According to this version, Armenians have willfully painted an
inaccurate picture of what happened in the World War I period and
why. And there is certainly truth in Turkey's claim that the situation
was not as clear-cut as generally presented. Rarely acknowledged,
for instance, is that the rise of Armenian nationalism in the 19th
century led to enormous tensions between Armenians and their Ottoman
overlords, and that many had sided against the empire in the 1828,
1854 and 1877 wars.
It is also infrequently admitted that although 250,000 Armenians
were conscripted into the Ottoman armies during World War I, another
150,000, out of a sense of religious affinity with the Orthodox Slavs
and in the hope that a Russian victory would lead to an independent
Armenian state, volunteered to serve under the czar, while a further
50,000 joined Armenian guerrilla groups which openly sided with
him. Seldom spoken of either is the fact that hundreds of thousands
of Muslim, Greek and Jewish civilians died directly at their hands.
But while Constantinople may have gained grounds for viewing the
Armenians as a fifth column, nonpartisan sources make clear that their
deportation and murder began before any attempted insurrection. As
David Fromkin, who studied German sources, has written: "There are
historians today who continue to support the claim... that the Ottoman
rulers acted only after Armenia had risen against them. But observers
at the time who were by no means anti-Turk reported that such was
not the case. German officers stationed there agreed that the area
was quiet until the deportations began."
Ankara also denies that 1.5 million Armenians actually died. While
some Turkish historians allow that up to 600,000 were killed, the
semi-official Turkish Historical Society puts the figure closer to
300,000 and argues that, of these, only 10,000 were massacred, the
remainder dying of starvation and disease. It further claims that
these 10,000 were killed, not as part of a genocidal plan, but in
the heat of battle and more often than not by Kurds.
But it is a matter of historical record that the Special Organization,
an official arm of the Defense Ministry, oversaw the activities
of Einsatzgruppen-style killing squads that, in the words of one
US diplomat, "swept the countryside, massacring [Armenian] men,
women and children." And while Kurds were certainly involved in the
killing, they were deliberately coopted for the task by the Turkish
War Ministry in the knowledge that, as the Armenians' historic blood
enemies, they would lose no opportunity to avenge ancient grudges.
Ankara's distinction between those directly murdered and those who
died indirectly from starvation, disease and exposure is also highly
questionable. With no provision made for clothing, food or shelter,
the anticipated outcome of the deportations into the Syrian desert
was obviously death. In fact, the Turkish interior minister termed
them "marches to eternity" and his meaning was clear to his appalled
German allies who distanced themselves from the policy. To say that
the Armenians who died during the deportations were not deliberately
killed is like claiming there were no intentional Jewish deaths during
their "relocation" to the East or on the death marches to the West
during World War II.
The fact is that the Armenian massacres constituted genocide by any
international standard, conforming to the UN's criterion of having been
"committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national,
ethnical, racial or religious group." Indeed, Raphael Lemkin, who
coined the term 'genocide' in 1944, used the Armenian massacres as
an illustrative example.
Today Turkey's campaign to prevent its recognition is assuming
a Canute-like quality. Some 21 countries have already formally
acknowledged it, including Russia, Canada and France, as has
the European Parliament, the World Council of Churches and the
International Association of Genocide Scholars. And with President
Barack Obama (who twice pledged to recognize the genocide during his
election campaign), Joe Biden, Hilary Clinton, CIA chief Leon Panetta
and the NSC's director of multilateral affairs Samantha Power also on
board, we now have what the Turkish daily Hurriyet described as the
"most pro-Armenian [administration] in history," and the Armenian
National Committee of America is currently preparing to place another
"recognition resolution" before Congress. In fact, Obama may well use
this year's April 24 White House statement commemorating the killings
to recognize them as genocide.
Furthermore, an official with a leading American Jewish organization
recently told The Jerusalem Post that the post-Cast Lead "deterioration
in Israel-Turkey relations might prompt his group and others to
reconsider" their traditional support for Ankara's stance. And Israel,
which Yair Auron, author of The Banality of Denial: Israel and the
Armenian Genocide, describes as Turkey's "principal partner" in denial,
has itself made similar noises, with Deputy Foreign Minister Majallie
Whbee warning that if Turkey persists in its claims that genocide is
taking place in Gaza, "we will then recognize the Armenian-related
events as genocide."
Albeit for the wrong reasons, this is surely the right thing to
do. For, while fears regarding repercussions for both bilateral
relations and Turkey's 25,000-strong Jewish community are unfortunately
well-founded, Israel, perhaps more than other nations, has a moral
obligation to call this crime by its name.
The writer, Sean Gannon, is a freelance journalist, writing mainly
on Irish and Middle Eastern affairs. He is currently preparing a book
on the history of Irish-Israeli relations.