Tweet
ARMENIA SHOULD CONSTRUCTIVELY CONSIDER PM'S PROPOSAL
BY ŞUKRU ELEKDAĞ*
Today's Zaman, Turkey
June 2 2014
Ministers applaud Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, front,
at the Parliament in Ankara on Wednesday, April 23. (Photo: AP)
June 02, 2014, Monday/ 17:18:24
I believe that Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's April 23 statement
on "the Armenian issue" reflects a rational, humane, peaceful and
reconciliatory approach.
It also shows that Turkey is not shunning the truth and is not afraid
of confronting its past. That was evidenced in his remarks: "... we
wish that the Armenians who lost their lives in the context of the
early 20th century rest in peace, and we convey our condolences
to their grandchildren. Regardless of their ethnic or religious
origins, we pay tribute, with compassion and respect, to all Ottoman
citizens who lost their lives in the same period and under similar
conditions." However, his statement should not be taken as a step
toward recognition of the Armenian allegations and a concession;
nor should it be viewed as a unilateral apology.
The functional side of the full statement is that the conditions
for the aspired-to peace and reconciliation between the parties are
clearly laid out. These conditions include the establishment of a
joint historical commission by the parties to reveal the facts of the
1915 incidents and analyze the findings in light of the applicable
legal framework. The decision of the European Court of Human Rights
(ECtHR) on the Doğu Perincek case, which rejected "the existence of a
general consensus" on the Armenian genocide allegation and maintained
that this is a controversial issue, allowed Ankara to adopt a bold
initiative for peace with Yerevan.
Parliament's declaration for the formation of a joint historical
inquiry
The prime minister's expression of regret for the lives lost by
Armenians and other Ottoman people in the conditions that prevailed
during the period of 1915 is another striking part of the statement.
As for the humane approach in the statement, we should note that
Parliament also adopted the same approach in a declaration unanimously
adopted on April 13, 2005. The declaration extended a hand of peace
and amity to Armenia and referred to the following justifications
for the establishment of a joint historical commission.
"The Parliament believes that both Turkey's and Armenia's interests
are best served in the reconciliation of the Turkish and Armenian
peoples, who lived in peace and mutual tolerance for centuries on
the same land, to save them from being hostage to deep prejudices
stemming from the war years, and in the creation of an environment
that will enable them to share a common future based on tolerance,
friendship and cooperation.
"The government and the opposition parties have made a proposal to that
end, which aims to shed light on historical facts through scientific
research so as to prevent history from continuing to be a burden for
these two nations. By this move they have proposed to establish a
joint commission by Turkey and Armenia composed of historians from
both sides, to open their national archives without any restrictions
to research and to disclose the findings of this research to world
public opinion. The proposal further specifies that the commission
can carry on its research in the archives of other related countries
and that the parties will determine the establishment and working
methods of said commission.
"Parliament fully supports and approves this historic proposal. The
cooperation of the government of Armenia is a must for the
implementation of this initiative. To this end, unless Turkey
and Armenia rely on a common perspective on historical facts, the
inheritance that both sides will leave to their children and future
generations will be nothing other than biases, enmity and sentiments
of revenge.
"Wisdom and logic command Turkey and Armenia not to be afraid of
destroying taboos and to face their history by discovering all the
aspects of the human tragedy they experienced together. This is the
way to prevent the past from overshadowing our present and future.
Parliament underlines the fact that the proposal of the Turkish
Republic should be considered, in essence, an initiative for peace. If
Armenia wants to establish good neighborly relations with Turkey and
develop a basis for cooperation, it should not hesitate to accept
Turkey's proposal for a joint historical evaluation."
Diaspora's attitude
The positive impression generated by Turkey's bold and peaceful
initiative to set up a joint historical commission in the international
arena should be underlined. This impression is confirmed by the joint
declaration of 97 parliamentarians from the Parliamentary Assembly
of the Council of Europe (PACE), the decision by the Parliamentary
Assembly of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
(OSCE) and the remarks by former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder
and American Ambassador to Turkey Francis Ricciardone that the
establishment of a joint commission would contribute to the achievement
of reconciliation between the Turkish and Armenian nations.
The Armenian diaspora strongly opposed Turkey's proposal for the
establishment of a joint commission, as it would undermine the
credibility of their allegations. For this reason, the provision on
the creation of a joint commission, which has been strongly supported
and promoted by Turkey, was the main issue during the deliberations
on the twin protocols concluded on Oct. 10, 2009 in Zurich between
the Turkish and Armenian foreign ministers. This provision has also
played an important role in the obstruction of the ratification of
the protocols as well, because nationalist and militant Armenians as
well as the diaspora fiercely opposed this proposal, asserting that
the Armenian genocide is a historically established fact not open to
further research and negotiation.
ECtHR: Genocide allegation is controversial
In light of this antagonistic stance, one is inclined to ask what
sort of development took place that accounts for the Turkish side's
hope that its proposal for the establishment of a joint commission
might be practically viable.
This development is the ECtHR judgment in the Perincek case. Swiss
courts had convicted Perincek over his remarks that the Armenian
genocide allegation was a lie, basing their decisions on the
contention that there exists "a general consensus concerning the
legal characterization of the events in question as genocide." But
the European court, in its judgment on Dec. 17, 2013, rejected the
Swiss courts' view and stressed that the Armenian genocide allegation
was controversial for three reasons.
First, it pointed out that it would be very difficult to identify
a general consensus, as there were differing views even among the
Swiss political organs themselves. The Swiss Federal Court itself had
acknowledged that there was no unanimity in the community as a whole
concerning the legal categorization in question. Furthermore, only
about 20 states out of 190 worldwide had officially recognized the
Armenian genocide, and such recognition had not always been extended
by the governments of those states but from their parliaments, as
was the case in Switzerland.
Second, the court rightly recalled that the notion of "genocide" is
a precisely defined legal concept. According to the case law of the
International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal
Tribunal for Rwanda, "genocide" requires that the acts in question
must have been perpetrated with the specific intent to destroy not
only certain members of the group but all or part of the group itself
(dolus specialis). As a result the court, noting that genocide is a
very narrow, difficult-to-prove legal concept, stated that it was not
convinced that the "general consensus" on the existence of the Armenian
genocide to which the courts of Switzerland referred in convicting
Perincek was consistent with such very specific points of law.
Third, the court expressed doubts on whether there could be a
"general consensus" on events such as those at issue here, given that
historical research was by definition open to discussion and a matter
of debate, without necessarily giving rise to final conclusions or to
the assertion of objective and absolute truths. In this connection, the
court's underlining the fact that Armenian claims cannot be compared to
the Holocaust, clearly distinguishes the case from those concerning the
denial of the crimes of the Holocaust committed by the Nazi regime,
as those crimes have a clear legal basis established and proven by
an international court.
Outcome of appeal is doubtful
As can be seen from the above, the ECtHR rejected the Swiss court's
assertion that the Armenian genocide is a matter of "general historical
and scientific consensus" whose existence had to be considered
established as a matter of fact and could not be challenged in court
-- even though the issue had not been adjudicated by a competent
judicial authority. The court also set aside any contention of
legal equivalence of the "Armenian genocide" with the Holocaust,
since there had been a clear legal basis for the recognition of the
Holocaust as genocide. The Holocaust was unambiguously established
as fact and defined as a crime by the International Military Tribunal
at Nuremberg, whereas no such valid judicial finding has so far been
made in respect to the Armenian situation.
Switzerland decided to appeal the ECtHR ruling on the Perincek case.
The Swiss Federal Office of Justice announced on March 11, 2014 that
the ECtHR's Grand Chamber will be requested to review the ruling
in order to clarify the scope available to the Swiss authorities in
applying Swiss criminal law to combat racism. However, the appeal for
review remains pretty weak, because it does not offer new findings
or arguments. Furthermore, it is really a remote possibility that the
Grand Chamber will challenge the above-mentioned three arguments that
the court's judgment is based upon.
In the light of these newly emergent conditions, the diaspora and
Armenia need to switch to a more realistic approach vis-a-vis Turkey's
proposal suggesting the establishment of a joint commission.
Government's acceptance of my proposal for creation of a joint
commission
I have been proposing the establishment of a joint historical
commission between Turkey and Armenia since the 2000s, in my talks
with high-ranking officials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs;
however, arguing that this is a fairly risky move, they did not adopt
this proposal. I have continued to subscribe to this view since being
elected as a Republican People's Party (CHP) deputy in the elections on
Nov. 3, 2002. Following several meetings with then-Foreign Minister
Abdullah Gul, he, despite objection by the ministry bureaucracy,
concurred that this was a fair, constructive and humane approach and
that it would take Turkey to a better position in the dispute. Most
important, he persuaded Prime Minister Erdoğan that this project was an
appropriate initiative. I also got the approval of then-CHP Chairman
Deniz Baykal on this matter. The proposal thus resulted in a sort of
miracle, as it brought together the prime minister and the chairman
of the main opposition party, who were not on very good terms, for
a meeting in the office of the prime minister at Parliament on March
8, 2008. The prime minister reviewed the proposal, but he still had
some questions in mind. Subsequent to my briefing, in a joint press
conference, Erdoğan and Baykal announced the proposal to establish
a joint historical commission in the context of the peace initiative
vis-a-vis Armenia. With this initiative, they demonstrated that Turkey
is not afraid to confront its past and that they expected the same
attitude from Armenia in the name of peace and friendship.
Parliament unanimously adopted this proposal on April 13, 2005.
What wisdom and reason require
Armenia should positively consider this initiative launched by Prime
Minister Erdoğan in order to extract Turkish-Armenian relations from
where they have been stuck for 99 years.
Unless this is done, it will not be possible to free Armenians from
a consuming preoccupation with victimization and usurpation and Turks
from the feeling of being the unfair target of a worldwide conspiracy
of calumny and slander. And in that case, it would be a fantasy to
suppose that these two nations could ever achieve reconciliation
and peace.
For this reason, a contemporary approach based on wisdom and reason
must be achieved by exposing all aspects of the human tragedy
that befell Turks and Armenians to daylight and by confronting the
historical facts and accepting them. Peace will inevitably be born
out of this trauma.
*Dr. Şukru Elekdağ is a retired ambassador, former undersecretary of
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and former deputy for the Republican
People's Party.
http://www.todayszaman.com/news-349386-armenia-should-constructively-consider-pms-proposal-by-sukru-elekdag-.html
BY ŞUKRU ELEKDAĞ*
Today's Zaman, Turkey
June 2 2014
Ministers applaud Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, front,
at the Parliament in Ankara on Wednesday, April 23. (Photo: AP)
June 02, 2014, Monday/ 17:18:24
I believe that Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's April 23 statement
on "the Armenian issue" reflects a rational, humane, peaceful and
reconciliatory approach.
It also shows that Turkey is not shunning the truth and is not afraid
of confronting its past. That was evidenced in his remarks: "... we
wish that the Armenians who lost their lives in the context of the
early 20th century rest in peace, and we convey our condolences
to their grandchildren. Regardless of their ethnic or religious
origins, we pay tribute, with compassion and respect, to all Ottoman
citizens who lost their lives in the same period and under similar
conditions." However, his statement should not be taken as a step
toward recognition of the Armenian allegations and a concession;
nor should it be viewed as a unilateral apology.
The functional side of the full statement is that the conditions
for the aspired-to peace and reconciliation between the parties are
clearly laid out. These conditions include the establishment of a
joint historical commission by the parties to reveal the facts of the
1915 incidents and analyze the findings in light of the applicable
legal framework. The decision of the European Court of Human Rights
(ECtHR) on the Doğu Perincek case, which rejected "the existence of a
general consensus" on the Armenian genocide allegation and maintained
that this is a controversial issue, allowed Ankara to adopt a bold
initiative for peace with Yerevan.
Parliament's declaration for the formation of a joint historical
inquiry
The prime minister's expression of regret for the lives lost by
Armenians and other Ottoman people in the conditions that prevailed
during the period of 1915 is another striking part of the statement.
As for the humane approach in the statement, we should note that
Parliament also adopted the same approach in a declaration unanimously
adopted on April 13, 2005. The declaration extended a hand of peace
and amity to Armenia and referred to the following justifications
for the establishment of a joint historical commission.
"The Parliament believes that both Turkey's and Armenia's interests
are best served in the reconciliation of the Turkish and Armenian
peoples, who lived in peace and mutual tolerance for centuries on
the same land, to save them from being hostage to deep prejudices
stemming from the war years, and in the creation of an environment
that will enable them to share a common future based on tolerance,
friendship and cooperation.
"The government and the opposition parties have made a proposal to that
end, which aims to shed light on historical facts through scientific
research so as to prevent history from continuing to be a burden for
these two nations. By this move they have proposed to establish a
joint commission by Turkey and Armenia composed of historians from
both sides, to open their national archives without any restrictions
to research and to disclose the findings of this research to world
public opinion. The proposal further specifies that the commission
can carry on its research in the archives of other related countries
and that the parties will determine the establishment and working
methods of said commission.
"Parliament fully supports and approves this historic proposal. The
cooperation of the government of Armenia is a must for the
implementation of this initiative. To this end, unless Turkey
and Armenia rely on a common perspective on historical facts, the
inheritance that both sides will leave to their children and future
generations will be nothing other than biases, enmity and sentiments
of revenge.
"Wisdom and logic command Turkey and Armenia not to be afraid of
destroying taboos and to face their history by discovering all the
aspects of the human tragedy they experienced together. This is the
way to prevent the past from overshadowing our present and future.
Parliament underlines the fact that the proposal of the Turkish
Republic should be considered, in essence, an initiative for peace. If
Armenia wants to establish good neighborly relations with Turkey and
develop a basis for cooperation, it should not hesitate to accept
Turkey's proposal for a joint historical evaluation."
Diaspora's attitude
The positive impression generated by Turkey's bold and peaceful
initiative to set up a joint historical commission in the international
arena should be underlined. This impression is confirmed by the joint
declaration of 97 parliamentarians from the Parliamentary Assembly
of the Council of Europe (PACE), the decision by the Parliamentary
Assembly of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
(OSCE) and the remarks by former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder
and American Ambassador to Turkey Francis Ricciardone that the
establishment of a joint commission would contribute to the achievement
of reconciliation between the Turkish and Armenian nations.
The Armenian diaspora strongly opposed Turkey's proposal for the
establishment of a joint commission, as it would undermine the
credibility of their allegations. For this reason, the provision on
the creation of a joint commission, which has been strongly supported
and promoted by Turkey, was the main issue during the deliberations
on the twin protocols concluded on Oct. 10, 2009 in Zurich between
the Turkish and Armenian foreign ministers. This provision has also
played an important role in the obstruction of the ratification of
the protocols as well, because nationalist and militant Armenians as
well as the diaspora fiercely opposed this proposal, asserting that
the Armenian genocide is a historically established fact not open to
further research and negotiation.
ECtHR: Genocide allegation is controversial
In light of this antagonistic stance, one is inclined to ask what
sort of development took place that accounts for the Turkish side's
hope that its proposal for the establishment of a joint commission
might be practically viable.
This development is the ECtHR judgment in the Perincek case. Swiss
courts had convicted Perincek over his remarks that the Armenian
genocide allegation was a lie, basing their decisions on the
contention that there exists "a general consensus concerning the
legal characterization of the events in question as genocide." But
the European court, in its judgment on Dec. 17, 2013, rejected the
Swiss courts' view and stressed that the Armenian genocide allegation
was controversial for three reasons.
First, it pointed out that it would be very difficult to identify
a general consensus, as there were differing views even among the
Swiss political organs themselves. The Swiss Federal Court itself had
acknowledged that there was no unanimity in the community as a whole
concerning the legal categorization in question. Furthermore, only
about 20 states out of 190 worldwide had officially recognized the
Armenian genocide, and such recognition had not always been extended
by the governments of those states but from their parliaments, as
was the case in Switzerland.
Second, the court rightly recalled that the notion of "genocide" is
a precisely defined legal concept. According to the case law of the
International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal
Tribunal for Rwanda, "genocide" requires that the acts in question
must have been perpetrated with the specific intent to destroy not
only certain members of the group but all or part of the group itself
(dolus specialis). As a result the court, noting that genocide is a
very narrow, difficult-to-prove legal concept, stated that it was not
convinced that the "general consensus" on the existence of the Armenian
genocide to which the courts of Switzerland referred in convicting
Perincek was consistent with such very specific points of law.
Third, the court expressed doubts on whether there could be a
"general consensus" on events such as those at issue here, given that
historical research was by definition open to discussion and a matter
of debate, without necessarily giving rise to final conclusions or to
the assertion of objective and absolute truths. In this connection, the
court's underlining the fact that Armenian claims cannot be compared to
the Holocaust, clearly distinguishes the case from those concerning the
denial of the crimes of the Holocaust committed by the Nazi regime,
as those crimes have a clear legal basis established and proven by
an international court.
Outcome of appeal is doubtful
As can be seen from the above, the ECtHR rejected the Swiss court's
assertion that the Armenian genocide is a matter of "general historical
and scientific consensus" whose existence had to be considered
established as a matter of fact and could not be challenged in court
-- even though the issue had not been adjudicated by a competent
judicial authority. The court also set aside any contention of
legal equivalence of the "Armenian genocide" with the Holocaust,
since there had been a clear legal basis for the recognition of the
Holocaust as genocide. The Holocaust was unambiguously established
as fact and defined as a crime by the International Military Tribunal
at Nuremberg, whereas no such valid judicial finding has so far been
made in respect to the Armenian situation.
Switzerland decided to appeal the ECtHR ruling on the Perincek case.
The Swiss Federal Office of Justice announced on March 11, 2014 that
the ECtHR's Grand Chamber will be requested to review the ruling
in order to clarify the scope available to the Swiss authorities in
applying Swiss criminal law to combat racism. However, the appeal for
review remains pretty weak, because it does not offer new findings
or arguments. Furthermore, it is really a remote possibility that the
Grand Chamber will challenge the above-mentioned three arguments that
the court's judgment is based upon.
In the light of these newly emergent conditions, the diaspora and
Armenia need to switch to a more realistic approach vis-a-vis Turkey's
proposal suggesting the establishment of a joint commission.
Government's acceptance of my proposal for creation of a joint
commission
I have been proposing the establishment of a joint historical
commission between Turkey and Armenia since the 2000s, in my talks
with high-ranking officials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs;
however, arguing that this is a fairly risky move, they did not adopt
this proposal. I have continued to subscribe to this view since being
elected as a Republican People's Party (CHP) deputy in the elections on
Nov. 3, 2002. Following several meetings with then-Foreign Minister
Abdullah Gul, he, despite objection by the ministry bureaucracy,
concurred that this was a fair, constructive and humane approach and
that it would take Turkey to a better position in the dispute. Most
important, he persuaded Prime Minister Erdoğan that this project was an
appropriate initiative. I also got the approval of then-CHP Chairman
Deniz Baykal on this matter. The proposal thus resulted in a sort of
miracle, as it brought together the prime minister and the chairman
of the main opposition party, who were not on very good terms, for
a meeting in the office of the prime minister at Parliament on March
8, 2008. The prime minister reviewed the proposal, but he still had
some questions in mind. Subsequent to my briefing, in a joint press
conference, Erdoğan and Baykal announced the proposal to establish
a joint historical commission in the context of the peace initiative
vis-a-vis Armenia. With this initiative, they demonstrated that Turkey
is not afraid to confront its past and that they expected the same
attitude from Armenia in the name of peace and friendship.
Parliament unanimously adopted this proposal on April 13, 2005.
What wisdom and reason require
Armenia should positively consider this initiative launched by Prime
Minister Erdoğan in order to extract Turkish-Armenian relations from
where they have been stuck for 99 years.
Unless this is done, it will not be possible to free Armenians from
a consuming preoccupation with victimization and usurpation and Turks
from the feeling of being the unfair target of a worldwide conspiracy
of calumny and slander. And in that case, it would be a fantasy to
suppose that these two nations could ever achieve reconciliation
and peace.
For this reason, a contemporary approach based on wisdom and reason
must be achieved by exposing all aspects of the human tragedy
that befell Turks and Armenians to daylight and by confronting the
historical facts and accepting them. Peace will inevitably be born
out of this trauma.
*Dr. Şukru Elekdağ is a retired ambassador, former undersecretary of
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and former deputy for the Republican
People's Party.
http://www.todayszaman.com/news-349386-armenia-should-constructively-consider-pms-proposal-by-sukru-elekdag-.html