The Treaty of Lausanne 24th July 1923 “an abject, cowardly, and infamous surrender” (Gregory Topalian)

Today is the 84th anniversary of the final nail in the coffin of any lingering hopes that the Armenians had of gaining justice for the human and territorial losses that resulted from the Armenian Genocide.

The Houses in which we currently sit had a huge role to play in the failure to honour promises made to the Armenians between 1915 and 1923, that they would gain compensation, territory and justice for the wrongs done to them during those years by the Ottoman State.

It is therefore an appropriate date to look back at the chronology of how their Western Allies in the Treaty of Lausanne, a Treaty that David Lloyd George described as “an abject, cowardly, and infamous surrender”, eventually failed the Armenians. The Treaty of Lausanne was the final outcome of the manoeuvrings of governments through the treaties of Versailles and Sevres. Ethical considerations were far from the minds of those involved with the Treaty of Lausanne, with Western governments seeking to make gains from the long drawn out process of deciding the shape of the world following World War One. David Lloyd George’s retrospective view of Britain’s role in the Armenian Genocide was expressed in 1932 in “The Truth about Peace Treaties”, he commented;

“ It was the actions of the British government that led to the massacres of 1894-96, 1909 and worst of all, the Holocaust of 1915”. Yet the British Government has failed, and still is failing in addressing their role in these wrongs."

Initial proclamations

One month into the Armenian Genocide, the Allies made their first proclamation, and the first of many promises that they would fail to keep, on the punishment that the Ottoman Empire would face if they were to continue with their abhorrent crimes. On 24th May 1915 they warned;

“In view of these new crimes of Turkey against humanity and civilisation, the allied governments announce publicly…. That they will hold personally responsible…all members of the Ottoman Government and those of their agents who are implicated in such matters”.

This declaration in itself is testament to the fact that what was occurring in Western Armenia was a new kind of crime, a crime that would later be termed ‘genocide’ by Raphael Lemkin. Indeed, Lemkin considered the events in Anatolia as well as those unfolding in Nazi Germany, as the blueprint for the creation of his new term in 1943.

As early as May 1915 then, there was also recognition that this was a State-sponsored massacre. The United Nations War Crimes Commission Report made specific reference to the allied directive as an example of one of the categories of crimes against humanity, and as a precedent for Articles 6 and 5 of the Nuremberg and Tokyo Charters respectively.

However, there is also a view that it was in Britain’s interests to bring the atrocities of 1915 to the public mind in order to suggest that this was not a war for imperialistic gain, but that there was a moral imperative also. By the end of the war, there was no need to carry on with this subterfuge, and so Britain’s interest in Armenia waned to some degree. The search for a moral imperative for war has been echoed recently in the efforts of the current British Government, as exposed in David Manning and Jack Straw’s memos to Tony Blair, to convince the public that there was a moral imperative for the assault on Iraq. The difference of course being, that with the Armenian Genocide there was a moral imperative.

After Turkey had signed the Armistice on October 30th 1918, the Allies gave the impression that they might make their warning of May 1915 more than simple bluster.

Initially, the attempt was made to apply the principles of international law against the perpetrators. Nicholas Politis desired a new category of war crimes to cover the massacres against the Armenians. The Commission’s final report on 29th March 1919 suggested that those responsible for being; “In violation of the elementary laws of humanity”, should face criminal prosecution

Asquith’s pledge in 1916 that there would be liberty for the Armenians, along with Balfour’s declaration that Armenia would be liberated, and Lloyd George’s statement that “Armenia would never be returned to the tyranny of the Turk”, all eventually proved to be hollow statements. In the face of the Russian revolution, it would appear that the British Government would find it preferable that the Armenians remained at great peril under Turkish control, than be absorbed into a Communist bloc.

Meanwhile, Point Twelve of Wilson’s famous Fourteen points at the Treaty of Versailles focused on the question of territory suggesting:

"The Turkish portion of the present Ottoman Empire should be assured a secure sovereignty, but the other nationalities, which are now under Turkish rule, should be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolute, unmolested opportunity of autonomous development."

These were similar assurances to those given to the Armenians at the Congress of Berlin in 1878, where Great Britain, France, and Russia had sponsored the arrangement and accepted responsibility for its augmentation, the first of many promises broken.

That the allies were neglectful is borne out by the eventual murder of the nation they had promised to protect.

The term from point twelve, ‘autonomous development’, is extremely vague, and promised little. It certainly did not promise an independent sovereign state and Armenians were right to be wary of it.

If one looks at the commentary on the Fourteen Points as drawn up by Frank Cobb and Walter Lippmann during the armistice and cabled to President Wilson for his approval, we find more questions than answers with regards Point Twelve:

"Anatolia should be reserved for the Turks... Armenia must be given a port on the Mediterranean and a protecting power established; France may claim it, but the Armenians would prefer Great Britain."

The Armenian desire to be protected by Great Britain can arguably be founded in the strong support given to them by former Prime Minister Gladstone during the massacres of 1894-96, and to British politicians strongly worded comments in support of the Armenians.

Arthur James Balfour, the British Foreign Secretary had accused Turkey of starting the massacre of the Armenians;

“ Without excuse, and (that the war) was conducted without mercy, (and) was accompanied by massacres whose calculated atrocity equals or exceeds anything in recorded history...”

However, Lord Bryce had perhaps come to understand that these statements were not going to be backed up with action and he had already begun to fear the worst, suggesting that he could see the whole idea of a free and independent Armenia being dropped.

On March 16th 1919, Colonel Stephen Bosnal who had the ear of all of the major signatories of the Treaty of Versailles wrote in his diary;

“I hate the whole wretched business, and from now on I shall decline to urge the Armenians to cherish hopes which I fear will never be realised”.

However, the Treaty of Sevres initially suggested that the Armenians cherished hopes might just be realised, but it also handed responsibility over to the American government to resolve these issues.

British involvement had become minimal over Armenia, and Oliver Baldwin, the Prime Minister’s son, claimed that the boldness of Ataturk’s burgeoning aspirations and confidence in fighting for independence, a month after the treaty of Sevres was proposed, was founded in Britain’s weakness in her dealings with Turkey.

The Treaty of Sevres contained articles that gave the Armenians a real hope that their losses might be compensated for, both in terms of justice and territory.

Articles 226 – 230 were inserted into the 1920 Peace Treaty of Sevres, which requested the surrender of those responsible for the Armenian Genocide. Therefore the Treaty provided a legal basis for the Allies’ prosecution of those responsible for the crime.

However, the first setback for justice occurred when the term “crimes against humanity” as described in the 1915 allied declaration and posited by Politis, was excluded from both the Versailles and Sevres treaties. It was replaced with a more encompassing but vague definition, that of ‘acts in violation of the laws and customs of war’.

The second setback for justice occurred when President Wilson proposed to exclude from consideration an international tribunal for the trial of enemy war criminals. Gary Bass claims that liberal states are usually only concerned with war crimes when it is their own citizens who have been the victims, and that after the First World War, Woodrow Wilson was uninterested in addressing the atrocities in Belgium, northern France, and Armenia.

Meanwhile, the British were trying to bring the perpetrators to justice. British High Commissioner Admiral Calthorpe told the Turkish Foreign Minister that his Government was intent on inflicting proper punishment on “Those responsible for the Armenian massacres”.

However, on the night of 1st November 1918, several of the top figures in the CUP had escaped from Istanbul on a German destroyer, whilst debate regarding legal evidence, penal codes and appropriate jurisdiction ensued. Eventually it was decided that the Allies would hold trials that would actually replace the Internal Ottoman Military Tribunal that was already under way. This was largely because it was felt that the Turkish authorities were too incompetent to deal with their own offenders. In fact, the Turkish Military Tribunal was far more efficient in it’s sentencing than the Allies would prove to be. The lack of support from above for people like Calthorpe, meant that any attempts at prosecution were doomed to fail.

The Turkish Military Tribunal

From a historical perspective, if not a judicial one, the Tribunal is important evidence in the face of the constant denial by the current Turkish State.

The Central Committee of the Ottoman Government was identified as the perpetrator group and the State sponsors of the genocide. In its indictment, the Tribunal accused the perpetrators of;

“The organisation and execution of the Armenian deportation, (which) was directed and ensued through oral and secret instructions and orders”.

It also accused the Government of taking advantage of the cover of total war, so that they might eradicate the Armenians. Indeed, German eyewitness testimony of the Genocide explicitly refers to the fact that the focus on the murder of Armenians was detrimental to the war effort.

The Indictment also states that the massacre of the Armenians;

“Was not due to a particular incident, nor was it limited to a particular locality. It was organised by a unanimously acting central body….”.

The Turkish Military Tribunal therefore, summarised what would now be viewed as a classic case of genocide; a systematic, far-reaching, and centrally organised attempt at mass murder.

The first successful prosecution and punishment was commented upon in the New York Times on Monday April 14th 1919.

“Kemal Bey, Governor of Diarbekir, has been publicly hanged in Bayazid Square in Stamboul… The prosecutor declared that it was necessary to punish the authors of the massacres, which had filled the whole world with a feeling of horror”.

Meanwhile, the following sentences were passed on the triumvirate seen as the main perpetrators of the Armenian Genocide. Talaat, Enver and Djemal, along with Dr Nazim were sentenced to death, but given their escape in November, the sentence was passed in absentia.

The Malta Trials faced difficulty from their inception. The rise of Kemalism was the first of a number of key factors in the disintegration of the trials. Within a year of defeat by the Allies, there was a renewed confidence in Turkey, and a belligerence in the face of allied interference in what were seen as largely internal affairs. The British, for instance, were having difficulty in extracting from the Turkish authorities, key pieces of evidence. Mr. W.S. Edmonds, Under Secretary in the Eastern Department of the Foreign Office, feared that some documents might be “smuggled away”.

There was also a sense that the united front that issued the warning to the perpetrators of the genocide in May 1915 was falling apart. Italy and France began to support the rise of Kemalism, and in doing so helped hinder British efforts to restore the authority of the Sultan. This gave Turkish authorities the confidence to refuse to comply with allied requests; more specifically in this case, the request for the hand-over of prominent individuals suspected of complicity in the genocide. Arnold Toynbee, the historian responsible for compiling the British Blue Book reports, was a British delegate at the Paris Peace Conference, and he described the political relations and manoeuvrings by Governments as “honour among thieves”.

Meanwhile, whilst the Turkish Military Tribunal continued, the British had carried out a surprise raid, and seized most of those suspected of involvement in the planning and execution of the Armenian Genocide. They were transferred to Malta to await international justice. The total number of prisoners held on Malta was one hundred and eighteen.

There were other obstructions to judicial proceedings, and Sir Harry Lamb, the political-legal officer of the British High Commission at Istanbul explained them thus;

“Unless there is whole hearted co-operation and will to act among the Allies, the trials will fall to the ground and the direct and indirect massacres of about one million Christians will get off unscathed. Rather than this should happen, it were better if the Allies had never made their declarations in the matter and had never followed up their declarations by the arrests and deportations that have been made”.

By late 1920, the British seemed exasperated in their efforts to collect the necessary evidence required for the prosecution. British judge Lindsey Smith suggested that it would be “idle to expect to get” the considerable amount of incriminating evidence collected by the Turkish Government.

Fearing the harm an abortive trial might have, he therefore recommended the abandonment of plans to prosecute the Malta prisoners.

Winston Churchill, the Secretary of State for War, proposed to the Cabinet on July 19th, 1920, the release of Turkish prisoners at Malta “at the first convenient opportunity”.

Now all that was left was for the British to seek a deal with the Kemalists that despite public pressure, they had delayed. They sought a prisoner exchange with Kemal, with the latter holding out for, and getting, an ‘all-for-all’ exchange as detailed in the Treaty of Sevres.

Foreign Minister Curzon retrospectively believed he made a mistake in pushing for this exchange, suggesting that he was under pressure to do so. The collapse of the Malta trials meant that there was no full stop to the horrific sentence that was the Armenian Genocide. The lack of international affirmation that the crime took place left a gap, both judicial and historical. Meanwhile the territorial issue showed much more promise for Armenia. Wilsonian Armenia

Wilsonian Armenia is a term used for the borders drawn by Woodrow Wilson at the Treaty of Sèvres. It incorporated Erzurum, Bitlis, and Van Provinces, which were parts of the region of Western Armenia. This region was extended to the north, up to the west of Trabzon Province to provide Armenia an outlet to the Black Sea with the port of Trabzon.

In August 1919, President Woodrow Wilson sent a fact-finding mission to the Middle East, headed by General Harbord, to investigate the feasibility of the Balfour Declaration, which supported the creation of a Jewish state in the Palestine lands taken from the Ottoman Empire during the war. The King-Crane Commission also investigated the viability of an Armenian state, and the possibility of a US mandate. The Commission came to the conclusion that there should be one. Arguments supporting the idea of an independent Armenian State sound remarkably similar to that put forward for an independent Israeli State following World War II. However, there the similarity ends, given that today Armenia is a victim of genocide with someone else occupying her lands, whilst Israel is a victim State of genocide occupying territories belonging to the Palestinians, which perhaps further exemplifies the catastrophic effect of British policy in the Middle and Near East. General Harbord was also to report on Turkish-Armenian relations in the wake of the Armenian Genocide. Harbord’s report stated that “the temptation to reprisals for past wrongs” would make it extremely difficult to maintain peace in the region.

The King-Crane Commission meanwhile noted that following the genocide, the Armenians could not trust the Ottoman Empire to respect their rights anymore. They therefore recommended that Armenian independence should be respected by the international community and insured by the Allies.

It was felt that the Armenians had a right to self-government in the region.

Woodrow Wilson’s conclusion on the various commissioned reports was to agree to transfer “Wilsonian Armenia” to the Armenians in the Treaty of Sèvres.

However, David Lloyd George could already anticipate problems. On April 29, 1920, speaking in the House of Commons, he said:

“... As for Armenia, it proved to be a problem of extreme difficulty. The difficulty – and hardly need to say it to the friends of Armenia – is connected with the circumstance that there is no Armenian population in some of the vast areas which we wanted to hand over to Armenia and for getting which Armenia has historical reasons. But if they are transferred to Armenia, who will realise our decisions?”

However, there were other reasons for the abandonment of Armenia too. Lloyd George later confessed, “Oil outweighed the blood of Armenians.” Similarly, the aforementioned Oliver Baldwin, suggested that Armenia would not have been deserted had there been oil wells there.

The Treaty of Sèvres was rejected by the Turkish national movement under the leadership of Ataturk who had split with the monarchy creating a rival Ankara government, which eventually emerged as the legitimate representative for the Turkish nation.

During what is known as the Turkish War of Independence, the Turkish nationalists successfully resisted and assured the security of what they defined as their homeland with the Treaty of Alexandropol and the Treaty of Kars reversing aspects of the Treaty of Sevres by cementing the eastern borders.

As a result of this, and with nations keen to foster ties with the emerging Turkish State, the former Allies of World War I had to return back to the negotiating table with the Turks. The result was the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923, which replaced the Treaty of Sèvres and recovered important amounts of land in Anatolia for the Turks.

The Treaty of Lausanne settled the Anatolian part of the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire by annulment of the Treaty of Sevres, and without mentioning Armenia once.

Winston Churchill who had urged the Armenian population to rebel during the Gallipoli landings remarked:

“In the Lausanne Treaty, which established a new peace between the allies and Turkey, history will search in vain for the name Armenia.”

Turkey finally hears its past (Henry Morgenthau III)

''AMBASSADOR Morgenthau's Story," my grandfather's account of the killings of Armenians in Turkey in 1915, was published just before World War I ended in November 1918. A personal chronicle of his service as the US ambassador to Ottoman Turkey for 26 months, the book was published last month for the first time in Turkish, a milestone in informing the Turkish people of what happened in their country more than 90 years ago.

The term genocide had not yet been invented when my grandfather wrote his book. Thus, Morgenthau refers to ''the destruction of the Armenian race" as ''the murder of a nation." It was Henry Morgenthau's lonely voice that alerted the world to the premeditated atrocities of the Young Turk leaders and the complicity of their German allies.

Why Morgenthau chose to speak out on behalf of the Armenians is a more complex question than how he did so. Almost from the time he arrived in New York as a 10-year-old German Jewish immigrant, he envisioned public service as his ultimate calling. When the opportunity arose, he attached himself to Woodrow Wilson's rising star and was appointed US ambassador to Turkey.

At the end of 1914, Morgenthau noted a pattern: Palestinian Jews were conscripted into the Turkish army, then promptly disarmed and placed in labor battalions. This was a tactic the Turks used against Greeks and other minorities, and, most ominously, against the Armenians.

Fearing reprisals against Jews in Turkish territories, Morgenthau warned international Zionist leaders to contain their indignation. Then he took it upon himself to call on the US Navy for help. In January 1915, the USS Tennessee was ordered to Alexandria, Egypt, ostensibly to protect US citizens. In fact, it made possible the evacuation of impoverished Jewish refugees, including David Ben-Gurion and Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, who became respectively Israel's first prime minister and second president.

Morgenthau was never able to carry out a rescue of the Armenians with the effectiveness he achieved in saving Jews, though certainly not for want of trying. There were fundamental differences between the Armenian and Jewish situations. The Armenians were a minority located within the borders of Ottoman Turkey and Czarist Russia. The Jews, on the other hand, were widely dispersed throughout Eastern and Western Europe and the United States, and to a much lesser extent in the Near East, including the Holy Land. In Western Europe and the United States, Jews had risen to positions of power and had learned how to network internationally. The diaspora Armenians had not yet achieved such status and so could not mobilize support for their persecuted kinsmen.

When Morgenthau appealed to Enver Pasha, the Turkish minister of war, to permit US missionaries to feed starving Armenians, the response was coldly cynical. ''We don't want the Americans to feed the Armenians. . . . That is one of the worst things that could happen to them. . . . It is their belief that they have friends in other countries which leads them to oppose the government and so bring down upon them all their miseries." The Turkish minister of the interior, Talaat Pasha, was equally callous: ''The hatred between the Turks and the Armenians is now so intense that we have got to finish them. If we don't, they will plan their revenge."

The memoirs of my grandfather factually chronicle an important period of history. Yet, 91 years later, the Turkish state insists the genocide of the Armenians did not happen. Why does Turkey protect the murderers of the past? That is a question that needs to be asked over and over again until the truth is acknowledged. As Turkey seeks membership in the European Union, it is being challenged to open up its society and adopt free speech.

But its penal code has resulted in several Turkish writers being brought before their own courts for speaking out about the Armenian genocide. Surely a modern country like Turkey needs to treat its citizens with more respect. Free speech cannot be denied, especially in a country seeking to join the EU. Whatever may have motivated Turkish officials to deny the genocide for more than 90 years, there now appears to be some light at the end of the tunnel. The US government, which had knuckled under in support of the Turkish policy of denial, is now urging all parties to accept the realities of history.

At this critical moment, the publication of the Turkish edition of ''Ambassador Morgenthau's Story" is an important step for the citizens of Turkey. It is their right to know their own history, good and bad, without interference from the state. A crime denied is a crime repeated. Great nations in history have acknowledged the misdeeds of their earlier governments. It is time for Turkey to join the ranks of those great nations.

Henry Morgenthau III, who lives in Cambridge, MA, is the author of a family history, ''Mostly Morgenthaus."

Shoot the Messenger (Taner Akçam)

In May 2007, I revealed the identity of Murad “Holdwater” Gümen, the secretive Webmaster of Tall Armenian Tale, an extensive and influential site devoted to “the other side of the falsified Genocide” and the defamation of genocide scholars, myself included. Mr. Gümen has been a leading voice in an ongoing campaign to denounce me as a traitor to Turkey and as a terrorist who ought to be of interest to American authorities.

For the last three years, disinformation about me from Tall Armenian Tale has been disseminated all over the Internet, eventually reaching the open-source encyclopedia, Wikipedia. This campaign, which intensified after the November 2006 publication of my book, A Shameful Act: The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility, culminated in my detention by Canadian and American border authorities last February, on suspicion of terrorism. As evidence, they showed me my vandalized Wikipedia biography.

Just one month before this incident, the assassination of Istanbul-based journalist Hrant Dink by an ultranationalist gunman had put Turkey’s intellectuals on high alert. We knew that in the months before his death, Mr. Dink had been targeted by an increasingly vicious media campaign intent on portraying him as a traitor. Among other things, Dink was pilloried for revealing the Armenian identity of Sabiha Gökçen, the adopted daughter of Turkey’s founding father, Kemal Ataturk. Leading the pack against Dink was Hürriyet newspaper, one of the most influential publications in Turkey.

In the campaign against me, disinformation from Tall Armenian Tale was copied to YouTube videos describing my “terrorist” activities. I received death threats by email. My lectures and book tour were disrupted, and poison-pen letters were sent to the hosting universities. Following my lecture on November 1, 2006, at City University of New York, I was physically assaulted.

My detention was the last straw. I challenged Mr. Gümen to stand up in public.

The unmasking of an individual who had been running a campaign of slander against me was presented to readers of Hürriyet as a criminal or unethical act. I was said to have endangered Mr. Gümen’s life.

“Murad Gümen, who has been defending Turkey for over 30 years under the assumed name ‘Holdwater,’ had his identity unmasked by Taner Akçam, supporter of the claim of a so-called genocide….Upon publication of his identity, Gümen became a target and has been the subject of a hate campaign.”—“Secret Lobbyist Deciphered,” Hürriyet, June 21, 2007

“Murad Gümen, whose identity was unmasked by Taner Akçam, has been the target of a flood of insults sent by Armenians via the Internet. Gümen, who’s been accused of racism, has had his photograph published on the Web….[Taner Akçam]’s disappeared. It has not been possible to reach Taner Akçam….Murad Gümen is a successful illustrator and film producer who lives in America.”—“Immediate Target,” Hürriyet, June 22, 2007

“Taner Akçam fled Turkey years ago. He lives overseas, in the United States at this point, and gets fed by the Armenian lobby. He vomits hate towards our country in all of his books and his speeches. Recently he unmasked the Web site that was maintained by Murad Gümen, who has been defending the Turkish position on Armenian issues in the United States, and he revealed the latter’s identity which had been kept secret until now. This individual named Taner Akçam who has spent his life living outside of the country, writing articles and giving speeches against Turkey…[T]his individual…escaped overseas, works in opposition to Turkey, betrayed his country, and serves the Armenian lobby by promoting the position that ‘there was an Armenian genocide’ all over the world!”—Emin Çolasan, “Bravo Atilla Koç! This is How You Introduce Turkey!”, Hürriyet, June 23, 2007

Hürriyet’s reportage concerns me deeply, for three reasons.

First, it bears an uncanny resemblance to the lynching mentality that was created against Dink. Having revealed the identity of a secret slanderer, I am now being denounced as a traitor who “vomits hate towards our country.”

My second cause for concern has to do with an anonymous email that I received on June 11, 2007: “Today we have started fighting you and those creatures you call your friends, within the boundaries of the law. But if we don’t get the result we’re looking for, we’ll start trying other alternative ways. It would be better for world peace and truth if sewer germs like you were taken off the planet… tomorrow is going to be much more difficult for you. Pray that the devil takes you away soon because otherwise you’ll be living a hell on earth… you think you’ve discovered who “Holdwater” is ...you have gotten it all wrong. Right now the world is full of millions of Holdwaters...One day you and your wild Armenian blood brothers will drown in this sea of Holdwaters…The truth hurts…it really does. One day you are going to feel the pain so badly that when you read these lines, you’ll remember how you were.” The similarity in character between the campaign against me by Hürriyet and the language used in this threatening email is frightening.

The writer of that letter concludes, “Who am I? You’re going to find out, Taner, you’re going to find out.” Was it a coincidence that the Hürriyet campaign began just 10 days later?

Third, Hürriyet cold-bloodedly disregarded the most basic principles of journalism. Their headline on the second day of coverage proclaimed that I had “disappeared.” Readers were given the impression that I had gone into hiding the day after Hürriyet reported my unmasking of Murad “Holdwater” Gümen.

The fact is that my office address, telephone numbers, and email address are all available online. The University of Minnesota, College of Liberal Arts, the Department of History, and the Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies have full-time staff. There is no record of a call, not one single email, from Hürriyet. They never bothered to contact me. They didn’t check their facts or attempt to interview me. And when I demanded a correction, the editor-in-chief ignored my letter.

Thus, in Dink’s case and also in mine, one of the most influential and widely circulated national newspapers does not hesitate to transform itself into a weapon. Once again, intellectuals and activists who dare to question the government’s “official history” are being put on notice. This shameful campaign not only endangers my life and the lives of my colleagues, my family and friends; ironically enough, the very notion of free expression is being undermined by the very institution that depends on it most: the public press.

And what is the point, after all? I published a scholarly study that deviated from the official position of the Turkish State. One should ask the Turkish authorities whether they truly believe that shooting the messenger will prove that their position on 1915 is the correct one.

HOUSE OF COMMONS CONFERENCE ON THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

HOUSE OF COMMONS CONFERENCE ON THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

Organised by

ARMENIA SOLIDARITY
BRITISH-ARMENIAN ALL-PARTY PARLIAMENTARY GROUP
NOR SEROUNT PUBLICATIONS

on 24th of April 2007 in The Grand Committee Room of the House of Commons

The full text of the proceedings of the conference can be downloaded from the following URL:

http://armenian-genocide.info/24april2007.pdf

The following is an excerpt from the Foreword by The Rt Hon Lord Avebury, PC.

The pogroms of 1894-6 and 1909, in which an estimated 90,000 and 20,000 Armenians were slaughtered, were the preliminary seismic indications of the genocidal eruption of 1915-16. Just as with the Nazi Holocaust of the Jews and Gypsies, there were plenty of warnings of the policy of extermination to come in earlier years, but it took a world war to create the conditions in which a small clique was able to mobilise the resources for the genocide itself.

Under cover of an acknowledged forcible displacement of the entire Armenian population from its ancestral homeland, men, women and children were mass murdered, starved on death marches, or left to die without food or shelter in the burning heat of the deserts. In May 1915 the Allies committed themselves to putting the Ottoman leaders on trial for "Crimes against Humanity", the first occasion this term was ever used. After the Armistice there were indeed some trials at which some of the perpetrators were sentenced in absentia. But then it suited first Russia, then France, and finally Britain, to make a dishonourable peace with Turkey involving collective amnesia about a million Armenian dead.

The evidence, however, survives. There was the official report laid before Parliament by Lord Bryce and Arnold Toynbee, meticulously documenting hundreds of first-hand testimonies. These have been supplemented by literally thousands of memoirs, diaries, letters, and reports in the archives of The Foreign Office, the US State Department, the German Auswärtiges Amt, and the Ottoman records themselves. The cumulative weight of this evidence amply prove that what happened in 1915-16 was indeed a genocide, intended by the three leaders of Turkey to produce the destruction of a people. Yet today, despite the commemoration of the Armenian Genocide together with the Holocaust and the Rwanda Genocide, the British Governments refuses to use the G word, pretending that the events of 1915-16 cannot be formally proved to constitute a genocide as defined by the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide.

It is really unfortunate that Britain, which played such a crucial role in exposing the atrocities of 1915-16 at the time, is now lagging behind others in recognising what happened by its proper name. On 24 April 2007, the anniversary of the day in 1915 when the leading Armenian intellectuals in Turkey were arrested in preparation for their exile and murder, a definitive meeting to examine the evidence was convened in the Grand Committee Room of the Palace of Westminster. Many MPs attended, and an even larger number signed Early Day Motion 357 urging the government to change its policy and recognise the Genocide

Not only will such a change assist to rectify a historical injustice but it could help to facilitate Turkey's application to the EU by removing a potential impediment. The United Kingdom is uniquely placed to carry out this role and it should not lose the current opportunity that may not be repeated for generations to come.

Dink's Murder Was 'Planned by a Bigger Network'

The Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink was gunned down on Jan. 19 this year. Now, six months later, the trial of his alleged killer and 17 other suspects has started. The trial is being carried out behind closed doors because the accused gunman, Ogün Samast, is a minor.

Dink was hated by ultranationalists for describing the mass killing of Armenians in the early part of the 20th century as genocide. He was prosecuted for his comments under Article 301 of Turkey's penal code, which bans insults to Turkish identity.

Critics have accused the authorities of failing to act on reports of a plot to kill Dink. Two of the suspects, Yasin Hayal and Erhan Tuncel, even claim they were working for the security forces. The current case is seen as an important test of whether the Turkish judiciary is capable of investigating claims of official negligence.

DER SPIEGEL spoke to Etyen Mahcupyan, Dink's successor as editor-in-chief of the Turkish-Armenian weekly Agos about the trial.

Turkey: Dangerous consequences of intolerance of religious minorities

A shadow still hangs over Turkey's non-Muslim religious minorities, following the brutal murder in April of three Protestants in the eastern town of Malatya. The murders have not so far produced any serious effort by the state to tackle the underlying causes of the murders. No effort has been made to tackle the xenophobia and hostility to religious minorities, which Turkish Protestants are convinced is a major factor in the murders. This official Turkish indifference looks bad to the outside world, notably to the European Union (EU).

Indeed, the situation for religious minorities is getting worse. Threats by telephone and in writing against churches, religious minority (eg. Armenian Apostolic) schools and individuals are mounting. Ethnic minorities – especially the Kurds – are also seeing rising numbers of threats. Public discussion is increasing over who should have the right to live in Turkey. Should the country only be the home of ethnic Turks?

Whenever there is a bomb attack, journalists focus on the place of origin of the suspects. When Istanbul airport became a target for bombers, journalists eagerly pointed out that the suspects came from the Lazistan region close to the border with Georgia. The suggestion is that they were not real Turks.

A wider range of religious minority individuals and institutions – including Catholic and Protestant churches and their clergy - are now being directly threatened with physical attacks.

Should genocide denial be an offence? (16 July 2007)

A new EU directive has made "publicly condoning, denying or grossly trivialising crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes" an offence which is punishable by law. Should deniers of genocide be allowed to propagate lies and historical distortions when these distortions are designed to instigate violence? Does the proposed EU-wide legislation confuse the role of the judge and the historian, is such a ban workable, and what are the legal and philosophical implications of its passage into law? Speakers: Deborah Lipstadt, Dorot professor of modern Jewish and holocaust studies at Emory University in Atlanta, defendant in the David Irving vs Penguin and Lipstadt case and author of History on Trial: My Day in Court with a Holocaust Denier; David Cesarani, research professor in history at Royal Holloway College, University of London and author of Eichmann: His Life and Crimes; Frank Furedi, professor of sociology at the University of Kent and author of Politics of Fear: Beyond Left and Right; Francesca Klug, professorial research fellow at the Centre for the Study of Human Rights, LSE, and author of Values for a Godless Age.

Turkey on trial as suspects claim state collusion in writer's killing

A small, sweltering courtroom in Istanbul has become the focal point for an intense examination of Turkey's democratic freedoms and the independence of its judiciary.

On trial inside the room yesterday were 14 defendants accused of involvement in the murder of the campaigning journalist Hrant Dink. The doors will stay closed to the media, because the person accused of pulling the trigger in a murder that shook Turkey is a 17-year-old boy.

Outside, thousands gathered with banners proclaiming solidarity with the dead Turkish-Armenian writer: "We are all still Hrant Dink"; "We want to see justice done." Many Turks are convinced that a so-called "deep state" - a network of state agents or former officials, possibly with links to organised crime - periodically targets reformists and other perceived enemies in the name of nationalism.

Yesterday, lawyers representing the Dink family called on the court to broaden its investigation beyond the current suspects, all from the northern Turkish city of Trabzon. Already, two of the key suspects, Yasin Hayal and Erhan Tuncel, claimed they worked for the security forces, while the alleged teenage gunman, Ogun Samast, has remained silent during the trial.

To his supporters, Dink was a modern Turkish hero: "He symbolises free speech," said one supporter. An Armenian orphan who had grown up in the most deprived conditions, he endured racial discrimination and fought for the dignity and rights of minorities. He used this platform to campaign for entry into the EU, friendship between Turks and Armenians, free speech and a free press. Dink became the target of thousands of death threats, and was harassed by six charges under the infamous Article 301 for "insulting Turkishness".

Response to the letter of the Rt Hon Geoff Hoon MP, the Minister for Europe

Rt Hon Geoff Hoon MP
Minister for Europe
Foreign & Commonwealth Office
LONDON
SW1A 2AH


5 July 2007

Dear Mr Hoon,

Thank you for your letter of 26th of June.

I am glad that you and the British Armenian community share the concern that "lessons are learnt and relationships are re-built to ensure a peaceful and secure future for everyone living in the region".

I would like however to further address the four points where you seem to disagree with the overwhelming and informed opinions of independent scholars, the European Parliament, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the majority of the U. S. House of Representatives, and parliaments of Canada, France, Italy, Lebanon, Sweden, Belgium, Greece, Russia, Argentina, Cyprus, Uruguay and the representatives of the Holy See, the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church in England, to name a few:

"it is not common practice in international law to apply such judgments retrospectively"
This is not exactly the case - as Professor Dr Alfred de Zayas writes in his legal opinion:

"The Genocide Convention of 1948 can be applied retrospectively, because it is declarative of pre-existing international law. There are numerous precedents for the retroactive application of treaties, e.g. the London Agreement of 8 August 1945 establishing the Nuremberg Tribunal, the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutes of Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity of 1968, and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969."

We are not sure that the Government is able to name a single authority on international law not employed by the Government - with qualifications, reputation and standing comparable to those of Professor Dr de Zayas - who can unequivocally state that the Genocide Convention cannot be applied to the Armenian Genocide. The argument is also quite jesuitical in nature as the word genocide was defined by Raphael Lemkin with specific and direct reference to the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust.

"The main concern of the Government is not what we call such horrific events"
That may not be the main concern of the Government, but it is absolutely the main concern of the British Armenian community, Armenians and historians worldwide. Having been nearly annihilated in a systematic and organised crime against humanity it is understandably quite important to our nation that the genocide is called what it was - a genocide. This position is further supported by academic research on the subject which has found that years after the event it is the denial and negationism that are most abhorrent and serve to erase the memory of the victims by claiming that it is just another regrettable event.

"panel drawn from both sides"
There are two sides to this issue - but they are not Armenians and the Turkey. To present this issue as between two sides - almost a petty dispute between neighbours - is a contempt for justice and ethics. Would you suggest to leave the "dispute over Holocaust" to be settled between Jews and the Nazis to a panel of what is left of European Jews and Nazis? The recognition and condemnation of this atrocity is an international responsibility - not least to the victims of all the genocides that followed.

"Turkey must demonstrate unequivocal commitment"
Indeed it must - however the only commitment so far was to the murder of Hrant Dink, a prominent journalist, who was murdered in the broad daylight, and the closed border and absence of diplomatic relations between Turkey and Armenia. It remains to be seen whether the Turkish courts administer justice or make a scapegoat of uneducated and confused murderer.

Mr Hoon, it is time to seek better advice on this issue as this country which many Armenians are proud and happy to call home becomes one of the last European states to recognise the Armenian Genocide. There is no doubt that it will be recognised by the United Kingdom - the only questions are when and by whom.

I conclude with a quote from the statement of the International Association of Genocide Scholars:

"We note that there may be differing interpretations of genocide - how and why the Armenian Genocide happened, but to deny its factual and moral reality as genocide is not to engage in scholarship but in propaganda and efforts to absolve the perpetrator, blame the victims, and erase the ethical meaning of this history."

Genocide Denial and the British Government's Ethical Foreign Policy (27 June 2007, House of Commons)

"The meeting was convened on the day that a new Prime Minister took up the seals of office and in anticipation of a subsequent cabinet reshuffle. Its purpose was to focus on the present UK government policy as it affected both the Armenian Genocide recognition and the current genocide in Darfur in the hope that it could become more effective and ethical.

The meeting was sponsored by David Drew MP and chaired by John Bercow MP. The chairman gave an overview of the terrible events in Darfur and the lack of effective international action to stop the carnage. He proposed that the inability to clearly condemn earlier genocides was one factor that allowed more than 60 repetitions of such crimes against humanity in the essentially genocidal 20th century.

Ruth Barnett, a survivor of the Holocaust who works with genocide survivors, stated that a diaspora remains troubled by genocide until it is recognised by the perpetrator. Denial consists of attempts to cover the evidence and to argue the events never happened. This worsens the psychological impact as true mourning cannot commence and survivors who carry the burden of memory cannot live their lives to their full potential. These feelings spread down the generations and are carried until the proper acknowledgment is given. The murdered ancestors are a loss to the whole of humanity, not just to their own people. A ‘genocide footprint’ can measure the destruction of humanity just as a carbon footprint the destruction of the environment. Each time there is no protest at genocide, a footprint is made on the human soul for the loss of the living and the unborn. What is needed for sufficient people to protest so as to make a difference to the direction of governments and other state organisations.

Dr James Smith, Chief Executive of the Aegis Trust, brought out the startling similarities between the Armenian Genocide and Darfur even though these are over 90 years apart. Both have a victimising power that claims to be responding to a threat from a minority in the context of external conflict (1st World War, fight against terrorism), the use of irregular forces against civilians coordinated by government forces, the use of privation and violence as a means of extermination, good communication of the unfolding events to the outside world whose response is high on rhetoric and low on action. In both cases, the perpetrators have not been held effectively to account, and denial continues despite the wealth of information to the contrary from reliable independent sources. The Armenian Genocide can be seen as a good prototype for denialism and Darfur follows the Turkish model of obfuscation and dissemination of confusion. Even today, Turkish denialism is rampant having temporarily closed a New York exhibition on the Rwandan genocide (because of a single reference to the Armenian Genocide) and the activities of TARC (Turkish Armenian Reconciliation Committee) aimed at diverting attention from the real issues. Denial legitimises the original murders and avoids addressing prevention. It must be met head-on.

Yet today there is an International Criminal Court which may have to wait decades before it is given the powers to prosecute the indicted of Darfur. Meanwhile, the Sudanese authorities still benefit from significant oil revenues using it to buy the hardware for repression, continue to control the irregular forces that brutalise civilians and the much talked about no fly zone has not been implemented. One wonders if the world had acted in concerted effort to stop the killing of Armenians in 1915, the 20th century may have been a different place.

Turkish society is beginning to change with some of the new generation becoming more aware of the past and challenging radical ultra-nationalistic views. The UK government is not helping this process by supporting the position of the Turkish government. The Aegis Trust would welcome an enquiry not only into the impact of the British foreign policy in failing to identify and stop the killing of Armenians during the 1st World War but also the behaviour of the British government in all subsequent genocides such as Rwanda and the Bosnia. Until we really understand the failings and lessons of these events, and bring the decision makers to account for the failure that leads to unnecessary mass murder of innocents, we will not change the future. We do have to look at history and combat denial to apply these lessons.

HE Dr Vahe Gabrielyan, Ambassador of the Republic of Armenia, applauded the convergence of many organisations to focus on all genocides and the relationship between them. The outcome of the recognition of past genocides should be not only be the moral and ethical tribute to the survivors but also lead to the prevention of potential future repetition. Because the Armenian Genocide has not been condemned, further appalling events could not be stopped. There should be a united front against all genocides across all nations backed by huge cross-border and cross-people pressure on all governments." The meeting was organised with the support of Armenia Solidarity, British Armenian All Party Parliamentary Group, Nor Serount Publications and the Armenian Genocide Trust of Great Britain.

Demand Deutsche Bank to return assets of victims of the Armenian Genocide

Act today: www.deutschebankprotest.eu

We call the descendants of Armenian Genocide survivors, defenders of human rights, European leaders, and all European citizens to protest Deutsche Bank's refusal to accept responsibility for the crimes it committed in 1915 and continues to profit from today.

In a manner consistent with the U.S-based New York Life Insurance Company and the French AXA Life Insurance Company, Deutsche Bank illegally appropriated funds and property from genocide victims and, as such, played a unconscionable role in Ottoman Turkey's destruction of the Armenian population between 1915 and 1923.

Recent estimates by experts in the field show that Armenians in the Ottoman Empire were, at the time of the Genocide, owned more than 20 million dollars that were held in trust by the German company. Deutsche Bank never returned these amounts to the heirs of genocide victims.

Compounding Deutsche Bank's intransigence was its use of Armenian deportees as slave workers on the construction of its Berlin-Baghdad road works. In similar fashion, nearly 30 years later, IG Farben exploited the forced labour of Jewish deportees from Birkenau-Monowicz. Following their slave labor, these Armenians were exterminated during deportations into deserts of Syria.

We noted that the current president of Deutsche Bank congratulates his company for fulfilling "its social responsibilities," a statement that stands in sharp contrast to both its genocidal complicity in 1915 and its refusal to accept responsibility for its crimes today.

We, noting that New York Life and AXA have been condemned for their crimes, welcome the fact that similar proceedings are under way against Deutsche Bank.

Consequently, we call on all EU citizens to call on Deutsche Bank to live up to its own standards by accepting responsibility for its wrongdoing and fairly compensating those whose families it has stolen from.

Swiss court rejects appeal from Turkish politician

An appeals court has confirmed the sentence against a Turkish politician, Doğu Perinçek, for denying that the killings of Armenians early last century were genocide. Perinçek, leader of the Turkish Workers' Party, is to lodge a further appeal at Switzerland's highest instance, the Federal Court, his lawyer said on Wednesday. A court in Lausanne convicted Perinçek in March and ordered him to pay a fine of SFr3,000 ($2,424.6). He was also handed a suspended fine of SFr9,000 and ordered to pay SFr1,000 to the Swiss-Armenian Association as a symbolic gesture. Perinçek had repeatedly denied during a visit to Switzerland in 2005 that the First World War era killings of more than 1.5 million Armenians amounted to genocide.

Professor Sir Ara Darzi KBE appointed to HM Government

Prominent member of the British Armenian community, Professor Sir Ara Darzi was appointed Parliamentary Under Secretary at the Department of Health as part of Gordon Brown's first Government in June 2007. Professor Darzi studied medicine in Ireland and qualified from the Royal College of Surgeons. He obtained his fellowship in Surgery from the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland and a MD degree from Trinity College, Dublin. He was subsequently granted the fellowships of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, the American College of Surgeons, the Royal College of Surgeons and Physicians of Glasgow and of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh. He was awarded an honorary fellowship of the Royal Academy of Engineering and fellowship of the Academy of Medical Sciences and of the City and Guilds of London Institute. Professor Darzi was knighted by the Queen as a Knight Commander of the most excellent Order of the British Empire (KBE) in December 2002.

Dink Murder Trial Starts In Istanbul

"Eighteen suspects went on trial in Istanbul Monday for the January murder of ethnic Armenian journalist Hrant Dink, which sparked fears of rising nationalist and anti-minority violence in Turkey.

The trial behind closed doors began as Dink's family said the procedure was flawed because it excludes security officials who knew as early as 2006 of plans to kill Dink, but failed to act.

Police in Istanbul and the northern city of Trabzon, home to most of the suspects, are responsible for "extremely grave mistakes and almost intentional negligence," family lawyer Ergin Cinmen said outside the courthouse. The defendants "are just the tip of the iceberg," he said. "If public servants are not put on trial, the ruling will never satisfy justice and public conscience."

In an emotional written statements, Dink's widow Rakel and his brother Hosrof appealed to the court to shed light on the involvement of officials. "Have the courage to challenge them... Let the justice of God work through you so that the trial may become a point of enlightenment for Turkey," Rakel said."

Letter to the new Prime Minister, The Rt Hon Gordon Brown MP

The Rt Hon Gordon Brown MP
The Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury
10 Downing Street
LONDON
SW1A 2AA

Dear Prime Minister,

I am writing to share the good news - the good news for all those who believe that peace and reconciliation require acknowledgment of difficult and often bloody periods of world history.

The Armenian Genocide resolution (H. Res. 106) in the U.S. Congress reached an important milestone yesterday with the number of co-sponsors for the human rights measure growing to 218 – a majority of the U.S. House of Representatives. This is another inevitable step towards recognition of the Armenian Genocide by the United States.

In this country, Parliamentary support for the recognition is steadily increasing and has reached unprecedented 144 signatures - 144 Members of Parliament who believe that "the killing of over a million Armenians in 1915 was an act of genocide; call upon the UK Government to recognise it as such; and believe that it would be in Turkey's long-term interests to do the same."

Polish jurist Raphael Lemkin, when he defined the term genocide in 1944, cited the Turkish extermination of the Armenians and the Nazi extermination of the Jews as defining examples of what he meant by genocide; 126 leading scholars of the Holocaust including Elie Wiesel and Yehuda Bauer placed a statement in the New York Times in June 2000 declaring the "incontestable fact of the Armenian Genocide" and urging western democracies to acknowledge it.

Prime Minister, do not let the United Kingdom become one of the last members of the European Union to recognise the Armenian Genocide.

Yours sincerely,

E. Danielyan
For and on behalf of the Armenian Genocide Trust of Great Britain

MAJORITY OF U.S. HOUSE MEMBERS COSPONSOR ARMENIAN GENOCIDE RESOLUTION

The Armenian Genocide Resolution (H.Res.106) reached an important milestone today with the number of cosponsors for the human rights measure growing to 218 – a majority of the U.S. House of Representatives, reported the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA).

“We welcome the growth of Armenian Genocide Resolution cosponsors to the 218 threshold – and want to extend our appreciation to Congressman Schiff and his colleagues who helped us reach this mark, as well as to each and everyone of the two hundred and eighteen cosponsors of this measure,” said Aram Hamparian, Executive Director of the ANCA. “We look forward in the coming days and weeks to working with our chapters and activists across the country in maintaining and expanding the bipartisan majority in favor of the timely adoption of this human rights legislation.”

"In gaining 218 cosponsors, we have demonstrated that a majority of the House strongly supports recognizing the facts of the Armenian Genocide," said lead sponsor, Congressman Adam Schiff. "While there are still survivors left, we feel a great sense of urgency in calling attention to the attempted murder of an entire people. Our failure to acknowledge these dark chapters of history prevents us from taking more effective action against ongoing genocides, like Darfur."

Conference on problem of Armenian Genocide denial in UK held in London

"The parliamentary group of Armenians of Great Britain (BAAPPG), Armenia Solidarity, The Armenian Genocide Trust and Aegis Trust held a conference titled “Genocide denial and ‘moral of foreign policy’ of UK government”. Representative of the interparliamentary group David Drew, Aegis Trust executive director James Smith, Armenia’s Ambassador to UK Vahe Gabrielyan made speeches. Member of the Jewish community Ruth Barnett remarked on moral consequences of genocide denial.

Mr James Smith drew a parallel between the Armenian Genocide and the genocide in Darfur. The governments acted the same way in both cases, according to him. Mr Smith also reminded of the attempt to close the UN exhibit dedicated to the Rwandan Genocide.

For his part, Armenian Ambassador to UK Vahe Gabrielyan noted the necessity of events of the kind for prevention of genocides by joint efforts. “Armenia, like the whole international community, describes the events in Darfur as genocide and exerts efforts for prevention of genocides in future,” the diplomat said, the RA MFA press office reports."

Message from Ruth Barnett of the Holocaust Education Trust

To the Honourable Members who have signed the Holocaust EDM 698

The Holocaust, the Nazi genocide against the Jews, has now been fully acknowledged by all European countries. This has led to two important major results: firstly, the survivors have gained access to the places where the murders took place, memorials have been created so that individual and collective mourning has been enabled and resolution is now possible. Secondly, an annual Holocaust Memorial day has been created in our national calender, around which Holocaust education for schools and local communities has grown year by year.

Since the first HMD in 2001 there has been a commendable broadening of Holocaust education to include study of and remembrance of subsequent genocides to enhance the intent in the vow "Never Again" expressed annually at Auschwitz. However there was a major genocide, currently unacknowledged, against Christian Armenians, Pontos Greeks and Assyrians during WWI that contributed substantially to the impunity that enabled perpetration of the Holocaust. An in depth understanding of the Holocaust requires teaching and learning about the Armenian Genocide, in relation to which Rapahel Lemkin coined the term 'genocide', which consequently became recognised in International Law. Furthermore, the Armenian genocide is currently continuing in the eighth stage of Denial (according to GenocideWatch six clear stages of developing genocide, seventh stage killing and final stage denial). This is experienced psychologically by the survivors as a second murder of their ancestor through the attempt to wipe out their ever having existed. Current survivors of the Armenian Genocide are not able to memorialise their ancestors and therefore carry them , unburied, in their minds and collective psyche. Not only individual mourning but collective mourning of this tragic loss to humanity cannot begin until the genocide is acknowledged.

Therefore, I ask you to sign EDM 357 to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide, reports of which were commissioned by your predecessors and now reside in the British Government archives.

Sincerely,

Ruth Barnett
Holocaust and Genocide Educator
HET and LJCC