PULSE of TURKEY No.15..................MONDAY, JUNE 15th, 1998
GENOCIDE CLAIM MAKES FLOURISHING FRIENDSHIP DROOP
Turkey says “no” to the Sword of Damocles. Armenian issue has deeper motives than what is on the surface. The stale indictment British justice rejected 80 years ago is heated up and brought against Turkey within a scheme, believes Ankara. Pres. Kocharian after “western Armenia” claims. Is the Turks’ shortcoming about effective PR causing unnecessary feuds with friends and allies, or is the “Great Game” for oil at work?
As if it was not confusing enough to follow the Turkish Parliament’s tortuous procedures and political footwork, the Turkish public was also briefed about the intricacies of French Parliamentary procedures in a televised panel discussion on the evening of June 11th.
It concerned a bill passed by the French National Assembly with “unanimity” on May 29th to “officially recognize the Armenian genocide” in 1915. (Also see Issue No.11).
Referring to jubilant headlines in the Turkish press, a former Foreign Minister, Prof Mümtaz Soysal (DSP-Zonguldak), advised the Turkish public from Paris that they should not hail “The Armenian bill has now been buried”. It seemed that the Upper House had turned down the initiatives to put the bill on its agenda by June 29th and thus prevented its legislation, but it could always come up with the Senate again when Parliament reconvened in October. So Turkey had to be vigilant, he said.
Back in Ankara the Foreign Ministry’s reaction to the French move was no different. It was announced that Turkey could not allow this bill to hang over its head like the Sword of Damocles. So as long as the parliamentary process about the bill continued Turkey’s economic measures, if not embargo against France would continue.
The interviews Turkish journalists carried out in Paris with French parliamentarians made it apparent that the two sides were miles away from understanding one another.
French outlook of the Armenian “genocide”
Looking at it on the surface, the French stance and explanations seem very reasonable for anyone of any fair play. They say that the bill makes no reference to the Ottomans, let alone the Turkish Republic. It is not a Government bill, but the initiative of two socialist parliamentarians passed by an empty House, 29 members only. It is a fact that there were atrocities against the Armenians by the Turks during World War One. Such unfortunate events exist in any nation’s history. So why are the Turks today reacting so strongly to the remembrance of a rather distant historic event to commemorate the victims? It would help the Turkish cause and image worldwide much better if the Turks joined in this remembrance, rather than continue to antagonize and discriminate against the newly independent Armenia, go the French arguments.
This outlook is shared almost by the entire world, at least the western world, and no one in democratic countries seems to sympathize with the Turks in the current French-Turkish dispute.
The French Cabinet’s recent moves against the bill originate from its reluctance to lose trade and business opportunities in Turkey, rather than justifying the Turkish stance.
British justice when events were fresh
Yet contrary to what the West believes, not a single Turk is proud of what happened to the Armenians during World War One. Everyone admits that the Government of Istanbul should have been more efficient and prevented the Armenians’ sufferings in the hands of attacking extremists during their banishment from eastern Anatolia to safer Ottoman lands in what is today Syria and Lebanon.
What the Turks object to is the claim of genocide and the refusal to see similar atrocities to the Turks by the Armenians during the last days of the Ottoman Empire. It is a fact that the Ottoman Administration made similar mistakes against its own soldiers during World War One and in the same region. For instance, Enver Pasha, the dictatorial Defence Minister of the time, ordered an attack on the Russian Army in the severest winter conditions. The 75,000 Turkish soldiers who obeyed the order froze to death on the mountains, as they were ill equipped, in summer uniforms, and had no logistics support.
In other words, the mistake made against the Armenians by sending, or rather banishing them to the south at the expense of thousands of lives was made against its own soldiers by the same administration. In neither case was the purpose to eradicate these people. It was just the clumsiness of a disintegrating empire. Nothing happened to the Armenians in Istanbul and western regions. Furthermore, hundreds of thousands of these displaced Armenians did reach their target as evidenced by the Armenian diaspora in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world today.
It is a fact that after the armistice in October 1918, the British occupation forces in Istanbul started legal proceedings for a trial against Turkish rulers with charges of genocide, but could not find any evidence to satisfy British justice.
They had access to all the Ottoman documents at that time and the events were fresh, witnesses were alive. Instead, the British judiciary came to the conclusion that there was no planned genocide, no attempt to eradicate the Armenian nation, but rather there existed tragedies of war and regrettable human sufferings on both sides, mostly on the Armenian.
In fact, the word “genocide” was invented by Polish jurist Raphael Lemkin during World War Two to indicate the Nazi attempts to eradicate the Jewish people in Europe. The Ottoman action involved no concentration camps, no gas chambers, no orders to kill. It was a law for relocating some people from the strategic war areas to “elsewhere”. Relocation, deportation, banishment or whatever it may be called, the action was totally against the law and human rights understanding of today, but it definitely had nothing to do with genocide. Article 2 of the Ottoman law that took force on May 14th, 1915 reads:
“The commanders of armies, independent army corps or divisions can relocate elsewhere individually or collectively the inhabitants of villages or towns of whose espionage or treason they suspect or according to military requirements.”
The British occupation forces and the military judiciary went through the Ottoman archives at that time to find a document to the effect that the then Prime Minister Talat Pasha had said “nowhere” to a governor who had queried where to send these people. Instead, they found cables sent to five provinces by the Ministry of the Interior to the effect that “The security of life and property of the Armenians and their housing and livelihood during the shipment belongs to the administrators on the route.” For this purpose TL3 million kurush was allotted from the budget. Some administrators were court-martialed and punished for failing to fulfil their duties for safe passage of the Armenians through their areas.
Of course, one may suspect that the Ottoman rulers adjusted the files accordingly before the war ended so that they could save themselves from Justice. And there may well be some truth in it, because it is a fact that tens of thousands of Armenians died in tragic conditions during this “involuntary migration” to put it mildly.
But the claim of millions of Armenians were killed in 1915 is also wrong, as there were 583,519 Armenians in six eastern provinces in question at that time, according to Ottoman statistics and 635,806, according to foreign figures. Though tens of thousands of Armenians tragically died along the route, hundreds of thousands of them reached their destination, as the British occupation forces’ investigation resolved after the war.
Now, 80-85 years later, these realities have been discarded and a plan to undermine Turkey’s economic development is being staged with a secret plan by its friends and allies, believes Turkish diplomacy. The following are the justifications of this belief which some may tend to dismiss as “conspiracy theory”
The French move is not an isolated individual initiative
First of all, this is a bill by individual parliamentarians only in appearance. Under the French Constitution and the Standing Orders of both Houses, the French Cabinet could prevent this bill from coming up with Parliament, but it did not despite top level letters from the President, Prime Minister, Foreign Minister and the Speaker of the Turkish Parliament to their French counterparts.
In Paris Prof. Soysal cited these provisions to the French rulers one by one and when they saw that the Turkish Government had full knowledge of the French law and procedures, they finally took the step to stop the ongoing parliamentary process at the Senate.
Whatever is happening about this bill now, Ankara views it as a planned and willful initiative of the French Government, rather than one of the gimmicks of the democratic parliamentary system. Besides, it is not an isolated event either. It is part of an international movement against Turkey.
Since the 1980s the Legislature of several countries, namely the USA, Australia, Greece, Belgium, Russia and now France, have passed several official documents about the “Armenian genocide”. A friend of Turkey, Senator Robert Byrd, said in Congress during these debates that they were unnecessarily hurting Turkey, a staunch ally. “Would you like some people tell you all the time that your grandfather was a chicken thief,” demanded Senator Byrd during the debates, as President Demirel reminded the nation on TV recently.
The French Government dared to do so on recent days with no understandable reason at a time when France was very popular in Turkey. An unnecessary upheaval with unpredictable results is going on in Turkish-French relations at the moment, and it is up to Paris to clear up this mess in mutual relations now, believes Ankara. It is also aware of the fact that Turkey should be fare and reserved in its reactions for the common interest in Turkish-French relations. That is why this matter will come with Turkey’s top security organization, the NSC, at its first regular meeting at the end of June.
What is behind the French move and what are the consequences?
As for the motive behind this move and the forces behind it, Turkish diplomacy has files full of documents about it.
Turkey recognized the Armenian independence in December 1991, but this recognition was conditional and it did not result in the establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries to this day. The reason was expressly stated by the then Prime Minister Demirel in his letter to President Levon Ter Petrosian about the recognition of the independence:
“On recognizing the Republic of Armenia, our Government is acting with the understanding
That Armenia, in its relations with the Republic of Turkey and its other neighbours, will abide by the basic rules of International Law and especially respect their territorial integrity and the non-viability of the frontiers;
That it will fulfil all requirements of good neighbourliness and that its behaviours will be within this framework.
I believe that relations between the Republics of Turkey and Armenia will expand on this foundation and within respect of the principle of common interest.”
The Armenian answer to Turkish recognition
Why did Turkey put forward such unusual and unconventional remarks and warnings in its letter of recognition of the Armenian Republic which should normally have been a friendly message of congratulations?
The answer rests in Armenia’s Declaration of Independence. Article 11 of this document passed by the Armenian Parliament on August 23rd, 1990 with constitutional power, reads:
“The Republic of Armenia shall support the efforts which are exerted for the recognition in the international field of the genocide crime committed by Ottoman Turkey in 1915 in Western Armenia.”
What is termed “Western Armenia” in this document is Eastern Anatolia, i.e. a sizable part of the present lands of Turkey.
Under these conditions, Turkey should not have recognized the Armenian Republic in the first place. Partially because of its prompt recognition of all the rest of the NISs (newly independent states) and partly to please the USA and other western allies, this recognition was made in December 1991 with the above remarks of the Prime Minister. It was hoped that by doing so Turkey would also induce Armenia to moderation and help restore peace and stability in the Caucasus.
In fact, signs of such a hopeful development did appear under the Ter Petrosian Administration. The chauvinistic Armenian organization, the Dashnak Party was closed down in 1994 for its terrorist inclinations. A cease-fire in Karabagh brought peace to the region between Azerbaijan and Armenia in the same year. And the Minsk group of the OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe) begun to work out a peace agreement over Nagora Karabagh with signs of conciliation on the part of the Armenians. In return, Turkey opened an air corridor for Armenia from the South, tolerated indirect trade via Georgia and began preparations for opening a frontier gate between Turkey and Armenia.
All these constructive developments, however, were short-lived and the hardliners led by Robert Kocharian toppled the Ter Petrosian Administration last February and came to power at the elections to reverse the peace trend.
Kocharian reinstated the Dashnak Party, made the chairman of the party the vice president and declared that he would not give concessions in his dealings with Turkey. He said Karabagh had the right to self-determination, thus discarding the peace arrangements of the Minsk group. He also announced that they would make the “Armenian genocide” recognized worldwide.
At the last BSEC (Black Sea Economic Conference) summit in Yalta on June 5th, President Kocharian told President Demirel, “It would cause difficulties to tie our relations to the grave past that exists between us. But today’s Armenia cannot forget its past.”
Turkey’s interpretation of the Yalta summit was that Kocharian was rejecting to look to the future as Pres. Demirel had recommended to him. Instead, he was saying in diplomatic language that Turkey should establish diplomatic relations with Yerevan by dropping all preconditions about refugees from Karabagh and Azerbaijan. It should also open the frontiers, especially the Alican frontier gate, the Black Sea ports and air corridors to Armenia by lifting the embargo. Also, after the “recognition of the Armenian genocide”, claims of compensation and territorial demands are sure to come, as the Armenian Declaration of Independence clearly shows, according to Ankara’s assessments.
In a letter PKK terrorist chief Abdullah Öcalan sent to Kocharian on April 10th, he offered the enlargement of the mutual cooperation for Turkey’s recognition of the Armenian “genocide” and securing the Kurds’ “self-determination right” in eastern Anatolia. Even though there have been several claims in the Turkish press about the support of Armenia to the PKK terrorism, it has never been to the dimensions that would disturb Turkey too much. This was especially the case after Armenia made military cooperation arrangements with Russia about frontier security.
This is the background to the French Parliament’s recent move.
Looking at it from the above appraisals of Turkish diplomacy, the reasons for the strong reaction to it is better understood. In other words, Turkey sees it as part of the international “Great Game” over the Caspian basin, rather than a simple remembrance of a historic event. Considering that the Caucasus is the crossroads of the region and the energy corridor of the Caspian basin, can anyone blame Turkish diplomacy for engineering a “conspiracy theory” with its above assessments?