Tweet
RECOGNISING GENOCIDE: PART ONE
Neos Kosmos, The Hellenic Perspective, Australia
May 30 2014
Here is a question for the gentle reader: How many countries around
the world do not recognise FYROM as Macedonia?
Dean Kalimniou
Here is a question for the gentle reader: How many countries around
the world do not recognise FYROM as Macedonia? The answer is a mere
seventeen. On the other hand, some one hundred and thirty three
countries do recognise FYROM as Macedonia with a good deal many
deciding to take no part in the naming dispute. The reason for this
statistic will become clear hopefully, as this diatribe progresses.
The former senator Bob Carr, when premier of New South Wales,
personally recognised the Armenian genocide. He wrote several letters
in which he referred to the genocide as a genocide and a crime against
humanity and argued that Turkey must apologise. Last year, in the wake
of the Parliament of New South Wales recognising the Armenian, Assyrian
and Pontian genocide, in the guise foreign minister of Australia,
Bob Carr, when asked, commented that Australia had no stance on the
issue. And this from someone who was previously very vocal in his
recognition. Similarly, Armenian-Australian activists in particular
are dismayed at the Liberal government's retreat from the unequivocal
position held by many of its prominent members while in opposition.
These two ostensibly disparate fact bytes are in fact connected when
it is considered that, up until now, campaigners of the recognition
of the genocide of the Christian peoples of Anatolia are convinced
that genocide recognition is linked to the domino effect - that is,
that if enough Australian states recognise the genocide, then the
Commonwealth of Australia will recognise the genocide and if the
Commonwealth of Australia recognises the genocide then other countries
inevitably shall follow suit. If the vast majority of countries around
the world recognise the genocide, then the pressure on Turkey to do
the same will be so inexorably great that it will have absolutely no
other choice than to recognise the genocide, crushed as it will be,
under the weight of global public opinion.
However, the Macedonian example above appears to indicate that in
reality, the dynamic of lobbies and pressure groups are complex and
calculations of domino effects are far from simple. To wit: Even if
Greece is the last country left alone in the world, in refusing to
allow FYROM to appropriate the term Macedonia, it will conceivably, not
bow to world opinion and afford FYROM the recognition it seeks, both
for domestic reasons and also as a matter of principle. As a corollary,
it is reasonable to assume that even if the entire world recognises
the genocide, Turkey will not, solely for fear of being isolated in
the issue and in absence of other intervening considerations.
Given the above, though well meaning, committed and energetic,
it is not unreasonable to suggest that if genocide campaigners are
determined that Turkey should recognise the Genocide, (rather than
just creating global public awareness, which is also intrinsically
important ), then they are going about things in the wrong way,
focusing their efforts at the broader base rather than at the top.
After all, it is not as if the Western Powers were blissfully unaware
of the Genocide while it was being carried out. Thousands of newspaper
articles published in the Western world attest to its concern for
the victims and outrage against the perpetrators of this heinous crime.
Indeed, so moved were the Allies by the weight of western public
opinion that they issued the Ottomans the following warning in
1915: "In view of these new crimes of Turkey against humanity
and civilization, the Allied Governments announce publicly to the
Sublime Porte that they will hold personally responsible for these
crimes all members of the Ottoman Government, as well as those of
their agents who are implicated in such massacres." The fact that
these same western powers, with the exception of France now choose
to resile from that recognition, should remind Genocide campaigners
that other, more profane considerations than justice and historical
proof are at play here. Consequently, it is logical to suppose that
if Turkey recognises the genocide of its own accord then all the
other countries would lose nothing in doing the same and finally,
justice will be afforded to the innocent victims of intolerance.
One often overlooked consideration that should be noted, is that to
some extent, Turkey has already recognised the genocide. It did so in
1919, after the war, when Constantinople was occupied by the Allies
and the Sultan's administration was coerced to conduct War Crimes
Trials, an eerie and ineffective precursor of the Nuremberg Trials.
These trials focused extensively on the chain of command and the often
harrowing testimonies of Ottoman military officers, suggesting that
there truly was an organised plan to rid Anatolia of its Christian
population. Furthermore, ample evidence exists of Ottoman Muslims, even
army officers actively hiding their Christian neighbours, or refusing
to carry out deportation and slaughter orders. If no massacres took
place, what were these protected and privileged Muslims protecting
their Christian friends from?
Nonetheless, the Trials were problematic. Being held under occupation,
the judges were under the scrutiny of the occupying forces. Due
process did not exist, and there were gross absences of legal rights.
The Ottoman penal code did not acknowledge the right of
cross-examination. The decision was taken by evidence submitted during
the preparatory phase, the trial, and how the defendant presents his
defence. Of great concern was the fact that none of the presented
evidence was verified and validity of the evidence presented, such
as letters and orders have been in study, with some of them proving
to be forgeries. In some cases hearsay was an issue, though many
officials did testify to receiving orders to carry out the Genocide.
Nonetheless, during the trials, testimonies were not subjected to
cross-examination, and some of the materials were presented as
"anonymous court material." So tainted by the absence of proper
process were the Trials that John de Robeck, the Commander-in-Chief,
of the Mediterranean forces stated that "its findings cannot be held
of any account at all."
It comes as no surprise that after the Ataturk regime assumed power,
the Military Trials were hushed up, denied and referred to as victor's
justice. Events such as the ethnic cleansing of 15,000 native Greeks
from the Gallipoli peninsula were also covered up and it is only in
the context of the rediscovery of Australian contemporary accounts
of massacres that such information is now re-entering the popular
consciousness - a process that is being strenuously resisted by
the Turkish state, which has even sought to punish local Australian
politicians who are at the forefront of such endeavours.
The process of erasure seems to suggest that one cannot force an
unwilling nation to admit something it doesn't want to admit to,
unless that force is sustained and tied to punishment, as was the case
with Nazi Germany, where the Allies, learning from their mistakes
in the Ottoman Trials, made a concerted effort in the Nuremberg
Trials to punish the perpetrators of the Holocaust. Failing the
imposition of external sanctions, the perpetrator nation needs to
mature and become ready to listen, before recognition of its deeds
is possible, domestically or otherwise. As of today, that maturity
has been late in coming, though the Turkish PM recently hazarded the
oblique opinion that the events that took place at the expense of the
Armenians were "our shared pain," and that this "should not prevent
Turks and Armenians from establishing compassion and mutually humane
attitudes towards one another." Coming from the same person who stated:
"We should all be ready and well-equipped so that the 1915 events can
be dealt in an objective, scientific and realistic way. The Armenian
diaspora is making its preparations to turn the events of 1915 into a
political campaign by [distorting] the historical reality. In contrast
to this political campaign, we will firmly stand against them by
highlighting historical and scientific data," we can question the
motivation for the expression of such ostensibly moving sentiments.
Next week we will examine some of the obstacles impeding Genocide
recognition in modern Turkey.
*Dean Kalimniou is a Melbourne solicitor and freelance journalist.
http://neoskosmos.com/news/en/recognising-genocide-part-one
Neos Kosmos, The Hellenic Perspective, Australia
May 30 2014
Here is a question for the gentle reader: How many countries around
the world do not recognise FYROM as Macedonia?
Dean Kalimniou
Here is a question for the gentle reader: How many countries around
the world do not recognise FYROM as Macedonia? The answer is a mere
seventeen. On the other hand, some one hundred and thirty three
countries do recognise FYROM as Macedonia with a good deal many
deciding to take no part in the naming dispute. The reason for this
statistic will become clear hopefully, as this diatribe progresses.
The former senator Bob Carr, when premier of New South Wales,
personally recognised the Armenian genocide. He wrote several letters
in which he referred to the genocide as a genocide and a crime against
humanity and argued that Turkey must apologise. Last year, in the wake
of the Parliament of New South Wales recognising the Armenian, Assyrian
and Pontian genocide, in the guise foreign minister of Australia,
Bob Carr, when asked, commented that Australia had no stance on the
issue. And this from someone who was previously very vocal in his
recognition. Similarly, Armenian-Australian activists in particular
are dismayed at the Liberal government's retreat from the unequivocal
position held by many of its prominent members while in opposition.
These two ostensibly disparate fact bytes are in fact connected when
it is considered that, up until now, campaigners of the recognition
of the genocide of the Christian peoples of Anatolia are convinced
that genocide recognition is linked to the domino effect - that is,
that if enough Australian states recognise the genocide, then the
Commonwealth of Australia will recognise the genocide and if the
Commonwealth of Australia recognises the genocide then other countries
inevitably shall follow suit. If the vast majority of countries around
the world recognise the genocide, then the pressure on Turkey to do
the same will be so inexorably great that it will have absolutely no
other choice than to recognise the genocide, crushed as it will be,
under the weight of global public opinion.
However, the Macedonian example above appears to indicate that in
reality, the dynamic of lobbies and pressure groups are complex and
calculations of domino effects are far from simple. To wit: Even if
Greece is the last country left alone in the world, in refusing to
allow FYROM to appropriate the term Macedonia, it will conceivably, not
bow to world opinion and afford FYROM the recognition it seeks, both
for domestic reasons and also as a matter of principle. As a corollary,
it is reasonable to assume that even if the entire world recognises
the genocide, Turkey will not, solely for fear of being isolated in
the issue and in absence of other intervening considerations.
Given the above, though well meaning, committed and energetic,
it is not unreasonable to suggest that if genocide campaigners are
determined that Turkey should recognise the Genocide, (rather than
just creating global public awareness, which is also intrinsically
important ), then they are going about things in the wrong way,
focusing their efforts at the broader base rather than at the top.
After all, it is not as if the Western Powers were blissfully unaware
of the Genocide while it was being carried out. Thousands of newspaper
articles published in the Western world attest to its concern for
the victims and outrage against the perpetrators of this heinous crime.
Indeed, so moved were the Allies by the weight of western public
opinion that they issued the Ottomans the following warning in
1915: "In view of these new crimes of Turkey against humanity
and civilization, the Allied Governments announce publicly to the
Sublime Porte that they will hold personally responsible for these
crimes all members of the Ottoman Government, as well as those of
their agents who are implicated in such massacres." The fact that
these same western powers, with the exception of France now choose
to resile from that recognition, should remind Genocide campaigners
that other, more profane considerations than justice and historical
proof are at play here. Consequently, it is logical to suppose that
if Turkey recognises the genocide of its own accord then all the
other countries would lose nothing in doing the same and finally,
justice will be afforded to the innocent victims of intolerance.
One often overlooked consideration that should be noted, is that to
some extent, Turkey has already recognised the genocide. It did so in
1919, after the war, when Constantinople was occupied by the Allies
and the Sultan's administration was coerced to conduct War Crimes
Trials, an eerie and ineffective precursor of the Nuremberg Trials.
These trials focused extensively on the chain of command and the often
harrowing testimonies of Ottoman military officers, suggesting that
there truly was an organised plan to rid Anatolia of its Christian
population. Furthermore, ample evidence exists of Ottoman Muslims, even
army officers actively hiding their Christian neighbours, or refusing
to carry out deportation and slaughter orders. If no massacres took
place, what were these protected and privileged Muslims protecting
their Christian friends from?
Nonetheless, the Trials were problematic. Being held under occupation,
the judges were under the scrutiny of the occupying forces. Due
process did not exist, and there were gross absences of legal rights.
The Ottoman penal code did not acknowledge the right of
cross-examination. The decision was taken by evidence submitted during
the preparatory phase, the trial, and how the defendant presents his
defence. Of great concern was the fact that none of the presented
evidence was verified and validity of the evidence presented, such
as letters and orders have been in study, with some of them proving
to be forgeries. In some cases hearsay was an issue, though many
officials did testify to receiving orders to carry out the Genocide.
Nonetheless, during the trials, testimonies were not subjected to
cross-examination, and some of the materials were presented as
"anonymous court material." So tainted by the absence of proper
process were the Trials that John de Robeck, the Commander-in-Chief,
of the Mediterranean forces stated that "its findings cannot be held
of any account at all."
It comes as no surprise that after the Ataturk regime assumed power,
the Military Trials were hushed up, denied and referred to as victor's
justice. Events such as the ethnic cleansing of 15,000 native Greeks
from the Gallipoli peninsula were also covered up and it is only in
the context of the rediscovery of Australian contemporary accounts
of massacres that such information is now re-entering the popular
consciousness - a process that is being strenuously resisted by
the Turkish state, which has even sought to punish local Australian
politicians who are at the forefront of such endeavours.
The process of erasure seems to suggest that one cannot force an
unwilling nation to admit something it doesn't want to admit to,
unless that force is sustained and tied to punishment, as was the case
with Nazi Germany, where the Allies, learning from their mistakes
in the Ottoman Trials, made a concerted effort in the Nuremberg
Trials to punish the perpetrators of the Holocaust. Failing the
imposition of external sanctions, the perpetrator nation needs to
mature and become ready to listen, before recognition of its deeds
is possible, domestically or otherwise. As of today, that maturity
has been late in coming, though the Turkish PM recently hazarded the
oblique opinion that the events that took place at the expense of the
Armenians were "our shared pain," and that this "should not prevent
Turks and Armenians from establishing compassion and mutually humane
attitudes towards one another." Coming from the same person who stated:
"We should all be ready and well-equipped so that the 1915 events can
be dealt in an objective, scientific and realistic way. The Armenian
diaspora is making its preparations to turn the events of 1915 into a
political campaign by [distorting] the historical reality. In contrast
to this political campaign, we will firmly stand against them by
highlighting historical and scientific data," we can question the
motivation for the expression of such ostensibly moving sentiments.
Next week we will examine some of the obstacles impeding Genocide
recognition in modern Turkey.
*Dean Kalimniou is a Melbourne solicitor and freelance journalist.
http://neoskosmos.com/news/en/recognising-genocide-part-one