Dilemma of Legal vs. Political Views Concerning 1915 Tragic Events

ANCA [1] reported that Senator Menendez announced the vote at the Armenian Genocide Observance on Capitol Hill on April 10, 2014 evening, where he told his colleagues and attendees, “To me, to all men and women of good will, I would think there is a simple statement—genocide is genocide, and you cannot call it anything else but that and you need to have a recognition of that. Next year when we mark a century—a hundred years ago that the Armenians were killed by Ottoman Turkey, it seems to me that with most of the survivors gone—but with a few left—it is incredibly important for us to lead globally at this time.”

Mr. Menendez is a lawyer, on a resolution he initiates, his team should have studied the topic seriously and found out about the decision of European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) of December 17, 2013 on Perinçek vs. Switzerland Case. Although it is the latest, this is not the only court decision which does support calling 1915 tragic events a genocide. At a panel [2] at TOBB University of Economics and Technology, Dr. Palabiyik mentioned three cases and summarized their importance as below:

• 2003 decision of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities: Referring to 1987 decision of European Parliament which recognized 1915 events as genocide, The Krikorians applied to the Court for negotiations on Turkey's entry to EU not to be started. The decision was that “The parliamentary decisions are political and cannot form a base for a legal decision since they are reversible. This decision is valid for all similar decisions taken in some 20 or so countries and this will apply if any other parliament takes such a decision here after.
• 2012 decision of Constitutional Council of the French Republic: The  French Parliament passed a law to punish denial of Armenian Genocide based on the Law dated 2001 which recognized the 1915 events as genocide. The Court rejected the law, not only because it was against freedom of thought, but also because a law should be normative, whereas this one sentence Law of 2001 was not normative and its validity was questionable. 
• ECHR decision mentioned above has three important points:
• "The Court took the view that the notion of “genocide” was a precisely defined legal concept", which is very narrow and "moreover, difficult to substantiate."
• "... The Court thus doubted that there could be a general consensus as to events such as those in 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." Among countries exceeding 190, only 20 countries' parliaments have recognized the event as a genocide and therefore there is no consensus.
• "The Court clearly distinguished the present case from those concerning the negation of the crimes of the Holocaust. In those cases, the applicants had denied the historical facts even though they were sometimes very concrete, such as the existence of the gas chambers. They had denied the crimes perpetrated by the Nazi regime for which there had been a clear legal basis. Lastly, the acts that they had called into question had been found by an international court to be clearly established." Although we do not know what will be the result of the appeal made by Switzerland these are important legal statements made by an international high level court [3].

In the light of these court decisions, one wonders why a politician with a background in law initiates such a resolution. I am afraid I have to agree with two comments I came across: "Lip service" and "What a waste of time…"

I felt sorry when I read the comments like the ones below:

"Thank you for your integrity, leadership and your dedication to the truth, Senator Menendez!"

"Many thanks to Senator Menendez and colleagues in Foreign Relations Committee for integrity and dedication to the truth!"

Use of words such as "Integrity", and "truth"  gives the impression that these people are not a part of the political plots which aim to demonize and defame Turkey and Turks, but they genuinely believe that their grandparents were subject to a genocide. 

Are the third generation Armenians aware that personal accounts of sufferings do not count for genocide and first generations' feelings were more of regret  and anger at Tashnagtsoutioun for what they caused. Can I suggest just one source available on Internet for a better understanding of the past --and remind  that the ratio of Armenians to Muslim people  was just 20 to 80 at the time [4]--:

Katchaznouni, H. (1955). TheArmenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnagtzoutiun) has nothing to do any more: The Manifesto of Hovhannes Katchaznouni, First Prime Minister of the Independent Armenian Republic. Translated from the original by Matthew A. Callender. Edited by John Roy Carlson (Arthur A. Derounian). Published by the Armenian Information Service.

Papazian's Patriotism Perverted can also be read. 

As for the second generation, they deployed genocide allegations with a strong voice, because Armenian spirit was loosening and the church was not supported by the community at a satisfactory level any longer. There might have been other reasons as well. 

It would be very frustrating if Ottoman Empire's intention were to exterminate the Armenians, but the events could not be called genocide because there was no evidence, or because  since genocide was defined and accepted as a crime against humanity in 1948 but 1915 events were earlier. If this were the case I would stand by the side of the Armenians, personally. But, I sincerely believe that our grandfathers did whatever they did to survive and protect their homeland, not to exterminate. If they hated Armenians like Nazis hated Jews, they would not allow conversions to Islam, marriages, child adoptions, going abroad. They would not allow NER (Near East Relief) to provide aid. They would not build hospitals at camps. Talat Pasha would not try to persuade the British so hard in vain to allow potatoes shipped from Spain to be unloaded to feed those on the camps. They would not encourage employment in new settlements and starting of businesses which surprised the US Ambassador Morgenthau when he heard those who set up businesses were very happy there from Zenop Bezirdjian [5].

Grandmothers have a small world of their own which does not help to see the big picture. My grandmother used to repeat intermittently that they had become immigrants. Muslims' stories were even worse because leaving home in fear of Armenians was their own decision and they were not looked after like Armenians. I will repeat a comparison for those who have not read my other posts. According to Justin McCarthy [6], while the ratio of losses among those relocated* was 20 percent, it was 50 percent among the Armenians who chose to go to Russia on their own. The ratio of losses (missing) among Muslim muhajirs (immigrants) from Erzurum was about 40 percent. At the panel I mentioned above, one of the panelists told about his grandmother who had lost her toes during migration (Muhajirlik) because they were frozen. He used to look at her feet and his own  on and on when he was young. Those who know Turkish can watch the video recording of the panel at the University Digital Archive.

When I bring the pieces together I see a fierce struggle for survival and independence which lead to heavy losses on both sides. It should also be noted that not all Armenians supported fighting together with Russia and other allies against the Ottoman Empire. As I earlier have written Armen Garo's brother Vahan was a very good soldier in the Ottoman Army praised by his commander in his memoirs [7]. Vahan was not the only Armenian who fought against invasion of the country.

People were mostly not hostile to each other at individual level either. When my grandmother's family arrived in Istanbul, they opened a grocery together with an old Armenian friend from Erzurum.  A man who was to be killed by Chetes was hidden by an Armenian neighbour in his home despite the fact that Chetes would kill Armenians who remained friends with Turks and refused to help Chetes of Fedayees. Some of those who were relocated entrusted their children with their Muslim neighbours.

It is too bad to born to hate. It is worth trying to see things from other perspectives as well. Think of a kaleidoscope. As you shake shapes change. We see things as we want to see them. It is worth trying to see things from others' eyes as well. Both sides should do this and come together as much as possible. I hope we can commemorate our losses and sufferings together at the centennial. I think our first big scale civil loss was at Van Insurrection which was one of the triggers of Relocation and Resettlement Law of May 27 and can be dated as April 20, 1915. This date is very close to April 24 when political leaders were collected and Armenians have chosen for commemoration. A joint commemoration should be possible.

I will never lose my hope that a better understanding will develop in due course and enmities will be left behind. I condemn those who delay peace imbuing hatred, ignoring sufferings of Muslims and forcing one side to admit a crime not committed.

Sources and notes

1) http://www.anca.org/Facebook or the ANCA website at www.anca.org

2) Yüzüncü Yılına Doğru 1915 Ermeni Tehcirine Yeni Yaklaşımlar [New Approaches to 1915 Armenian Relocation Towards Its Centennial]. Panel Discussion. TOBB University of Economics and Technology, March 18, 2014. Video recording is available at http://dijitalarsiv.etu.edu.tr

3) European Court of Human Rights. (2013). Criminal conviction for denial that the atrocities perpetrated against the Armenian people in 1915 and years after constituted genocide was unjustified. http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/webservices/content/pdf/003-4613832-5581451 Accessed on 21.03.2014.

4) Korsun, N. G. Turtsiya/Kurs Lektsii Po Voyenney Geografii, Çitannıh V Voyennoy Akademi RKKA, p. 37. Vıssiy Voyennıy Redaktsionny Sovyet, Moscow, 1923 [Coursebook used by Red Army Military Academy] as translated by Mehmet Perinçek into Turkish in Rus Devlet Arşivlerinden 150 Belgede Ermeni Meselesi [Armenian Question in 150 Documents from Russian State Archives]. Ankara: Kirmizikedi, 2012.

5) Halaçoğlu, Y. Ermenilerin Suriye'ye nakli : Sürgün mü, soykırım mı? p.14. http://www.ttk.gov.tr/templates/resimler/File/01.pdf accessed on 29.03.2014.

6) McCarthy, J. (November 2013) What Happened During 1915-1919 presented by Australian Turkish Advocacy Alliance: Melbourne Symposium. https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TPcNuu3jJWk.

7) Saygılı, Oğuzhan. "Tuğgeneral Ziya Yergök’ün Anıları: “Sarıkamış’tan Esarete [Brigadier General Ziya Yergök's Memoirs: "From Sarikamish to Captivity]”," Erzurum Gazetesi [local Internet newspaper], April 28, 2010. http://www.erzurumgazetesi.com.tr/default.asp?page=yazar&id=2103

* Even those who do not allege that the relocation counts for genocide use the term deportation wrongfully since Armenians were not expelled outside the borders of the Empire, but resettled in another province and Talat Pasha expected them to revive business and trade in their new homes.