Ozge Can Ozcanli GS, Cengiz Pehlevan GS and Mert Akdere GS: Slavery and justice report misleads on Armenian 'genocide'

Issue date: 12/6/06 Section: Columns
Brown Daily Herald
By Ozge Can Ozcanli, Cengiz Pehlevan and Mert Akdere

For centuries - longer than the lifetime of the United States - the Christian and the Muslim population of the Ottoman Empire had lived peacefully in Anatolia. However, with the decline of Ottoman rule, nationalistic movements began to tear the empire apart. In the 19th and early 20th century, the Balkan nations gained independence, and with considerable help from European and Russian interventions, relations between Muslims and Christian Armenians in modern-day eastern Turkey began to degenerate.

The Ottoman Empire was not "the peaceful paradise" that today's Turkish nationalists and their supporters portray it to be. Also external interventions were not the cause of its break-up. Religion served as the primary test which established who was included and who stood outside the political community in the history of the Ottoman period. Minorities lived peacefully as long as they accepted their dhimmitude; that is, they accepted to be the lawful subjects of the Sultan, exhibited a submissive attitude and were convinced of the superiority of the Turkish nation or race. The non-Muslim population were never anything but second-class citizens. They were required to symbolically exhibit their inferiority. For instance in clothing and the use of beasts of burden. There were also restrictions on the construction of places of worship. The most heavily felt restriction on non-Muslims, however, was fiscal differentiation. Non-Muslims had to pay higher taxes. Tax collection procedures were left to the tax collecting officers themselves. Corruption was widespread in the Ottoman Empire especially during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Armenians had two options: either convert to Islam (which many did) and thus have access to the same rights as the Turkish Muslim majority, or, continue to live as Armenians but not with the same rights as the majority. To be an Armenian under the Ottoman rule was both oppressive and very humiliating; something that present-day Turks cannot possibly fathom. Hence the Empire collapsed under the rise of nationalist movements among the subject peoples starting with the Balkans.

Many aspects of this history still need to be illuminated through objective studies; however, many historians agree that, during World War I, the Armenian population in Eastern Anatolia rose in an armed revolt in alliance with Russia, the enemy of the Ottomans.

The above is a denialist story woven by Turkey's propagandist state machinery. There is no proof of any revolt in terms of a mass national liberation movement backed by a powerful armed organization. The burden of proof lies with those who advance this absurd notion. Armenians were under Ottoman rule since the 14th century. Within the Ottoman State, the Armenians were recognized as a millet or a religious community with its own laws concerning personal status as well as its leader, the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Within this system, one had dual loyalties, one to the sultan and the other to the religious community to which one belonged. By the 18th and 19th centuries several transformations had taken place both in the Ottoman State and among the Armenians. There were waves of reforms that resulted in the secularization and democratization of the Armenian community through the adoption of the National Constitution in 1860. The Armenian National Constitution, 16 years after its ratification by the Ottoman State, became the basis of the Ottoman Constitution. The Ottoman State redefined citizenship through its reforms, Tanzimat of 1839-1876 that culminated in the Islahat or the Reform decree that adopted the notion of equality of all the members of the State including the dhimma. It is rather ironic that only after the adoption of the modern notion of citizenship that the massacres and atrocities that culminated in the 1915 genocide of the Armenian people took place in the Ottoman State. Indeed, the modernization of the Ottoman State and the creation of the Republic of Turkey are linked to the genocide of 1915. As The genocide took place in the context of the transformation and transition from millet based Empire into Republic and Nation State. This was due to Turkish national identity defined in exclusionary ways. In spite Ottoman exclusionary practices through the adoption of Islamic practices with respect to non-Muslims, it was still inclusionary and unifying of all subjects regardless of ethnicity and religion.

This revolt was viewed as a security threat and the empire ordered a forced relocation of Armenians from the region. During the relocation process, hundreds of thousands of Armenians were killed by famine, epidemics or by attacks from Muslim gangs and some corrupt policemen. The Turkish government, together with many international historians, refuses the contention that these unfortunate events represented an organized, one-sided "genocide" such as what took place recently in Rwanda. The debate around this issue - whether the word "genocide" should be used to describe the killings - is very sensitive for both ethnic Turks and Armenians.

It is true that they were armed Armenian formations before and during WWI, but they were not entrenched in the Armenian population which was dispersed throughout Anatolia. Nor these communities appear to have supported massively these armed groups. Such support did not exist in Sebastia or Kesaria or even in Istanbul where more than two thousand members of the Armenian elite were killed. Both the Armenian Church and the Dachnak party swore allegiance to the Sultan after the onset of the war and called upon Armenian communities to remain loyal to their sovereign. Most Armenians who were deported to the killing fields of Syria and Iraq came from regions far away from the front where indeed there were no history of armed activities. The armed uprising notion is just a lame excuse to justify mass killings, murder, rape, mass conversions to Islam in order to cause ultimately the death of a nation.

An observant mind can recognize an interesting connection between the debate surrounding these killings, the recent visit of Nobel Prize recipient Orhan Pamuk's visit to Brown and the October report of the University Steering Committee on Slavery and Justice. The middle section of the report proposes the killings of Armenians during World War I as an undeniable example of genocide; Pamuk, meanwhile, had recently talked about these killings in an interview and, as emphasized many times by the press, he "faced potential jail time" in Turkey as a result.

Mass killings do not amount to genocide. Such killings would not have amounted to genocide if there were no criminal intent of the Turkish Ottoman ruling elite to administer the final solution to the Armenian question. It would not have been a genocide if it was not aimed at a specific national group or parts thereof. It was most of all a genocide because there are no Armenians today in Anatolia which in itself is a proof that a successful genocide did take place. The results speak of themselves. Another important argument is to put an equivalence between Muslim and Armenian deaths in Anatolia. One has to again assess results. There are no Armenians in Anatolia today whereas there are millions of Muslims in Anatolia. How do we explain the disappearance of Armenians but not of Muslims???

This contributed to his image as a repressed writer, making him seem like a perfect participant at the Freedom to Write Literary Festival at Brown. However, unlike the festival's other participants, none of Pamuk's books have been banned, nor has he ever been imprisoned. On the contrary, he has been one of the best-selling authors in Turkey. As for "potential jail time," Pamuk was indeed charged under the controversial Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code, but his trial never started; the court dropped it under a technicality (undoubtedly a result of popular opposition.

Article 301 punishes all those who dare to insult Turkishness. The genocide of Armenians, let alone Armenians, constitute an affront to Turkishness because the very idea or concept of Armenia puts into question Turkish identity as it is known today. Armenia is arguably the only national group who has lived in Anatolia that knows how the Turkish identity came about through sheer violence. If Turkey embraces human rights and democracy, Turks would begin to ask questions about themselves and soon enough they will discover who they really are. Armenia is there to remind their real roots. This is why the very concept of Armenia is a threat to the established Turkish political order. This is why a nation of 7 million
people is seen as a major threat by a nation ten times Armenia's size. The genocide issue is just an epiphenomenon of a much more serious existential issue for Turks. Otherwise how can we explain the emotional intensity of Turks when every time the "genocide" issue is raised.

Turkey's Article 301, which is also mentioned in the slavery and justice report, is often misrepresented or misunderstood. The article does not specifically forbid talking about the Armenian killings or terming them genocide. It forbids "public denigration of Turkishness," and since it is vaguely worded, it is often misused by zealous prosecutors in cases such as Pamuk's. Criticisms of such misuses and the anti-democratic nature of the article have followed deservedly from both Turkish and international society.

However, it should be clarified that no one in Turkey has been put into prison for terming Armenian killings a "genocide" based on Article 301. On the contrary, despite Pamuk's claims that no one except him talks about the killings, the genocide claim is being debated among Turkish scholars just like it is in other countries.

Ironically, some exemplary democracies such as Switzerland and France are passing legislation specifically to ban the freedom to say that the Armenian killings were not genocide. Other countries, like Canada and Belgium, have passed resolutions to recognize the events officially as "genocide."

The authors lament that some Western democracies have passed or intend to pass legislation that would "... ban the freedom to say that the Armenian killings were not genocide." Such legislation is meant to deter those who intend to harm others through their negation. As Sévane Garibian (a bright young French jurist) said in Libération: It is not the opinion that is punished, but the harmful effect of spreading the opinion expressed in bad faith that by law needs to be proven in court. There is a difference between the act of wilfully spreading a hateful ideology and doubts expressed during historical research. The denialists should be forewarned that they will be held accountable when they put into question the reality of a crime of genocide which in itself is determined by the intent to cause harm. This is the reason why denialism and the state policy of denial of the present Turkish state is the last stage of genocide.

This political campaign is absurd given the fact that there is no consensus among historians regarding the issue. Distinguished scholars of Ottoman history like Roderic Davison, J.C. Hurewitz, Bernard Lewis and Guenter Lewy, among many others, have rejected the genocide label for the atrocities committed in Eastern Anatolia during World War I. Moreover, in the United States, historical scholars mobilized in 1985 against a similar Armenian Genocide Resolution proposed by politicians in the House of Representatives. Over 60 American academicians who specialize in Turkish, Ottoman and Middle Eastern studies from prominent universities such as Princeton, Columbia and University of California - Los Angeles wrote a letter to the House, which was simultaneously published in the New York Times:

"… As for the charge of 'genocide' no signatory of this statement wishes to minimize the scope of Armenian suffering… throughout the years in question, the (Eastern Anatolian) region was the scene of more or less continuous warfare, not unlike the tragedy which has gone on in Lebanon for the past decade. The resulting death toll among both Muslim and Christian communities of the region was immense. But much more remains to be discovered before historians will be able to sort out precisely… the (nature of) the events which resulted in the death or removal of large numbers of the eastern Anatolian population, Christian and Muslim alike."

In 28 Nov. 1995 a petition was made by more than 120 academicians in USA about "Taking A Stand Against The Turkish Government's Denial of the Armenian Genocide and Scholarly Corruption in the Academy" because of the funding by Turkey to professors including some of the signatories with intent to revise the factual history in favor of Turkey's denial of the Armenian genocide in direct contravention to academic freedom at universities.

One of the authors of this letter, Stanford Shaw, was threatened by a bomb attack to his house in 1977 by an Armenian terrorist group. Armenian fanatics did not hesitate to use terror during the 1970s and 1980s in an attempt to force Turkey to accept the term "genocide" and agree to land reparations. Unfortunately, a total of 41 people lost their lives in over 200 terrorist attacks in 20 countries as a direct result of this campaign.

Turkey came a long way from first not admitting that Armenians ever existed in Turkey to presently admitting that there was a massive massacre of Armenians and throwing the blame on its Armenian population. The harm that Turkey caused and still causes to the survivors results in desperate acts by some. Turkey needs to cross its psychological hurdle and admit that the act of the massive massacre is premeditated genocide. The massacre and eradication of Armenians was made by the Central Committee of the Committee of Union and Progress after wide-ranging and in-depth discussions. Foreign observers confirmed that the government had a fear of the Armenians that was out of all proportion to the powerless condition in which they lived. The most incriminating evidence confirming that the intention behind the deportation was genocide comes from Mordtmann, the German Consul General in Istanbul. In his report of 30 June 1915, he writes that leading unionist and Istanbul director of police Ismail Kanpolat, pointing to a map of Anatolia, said that the deportation of Armenians would extend to the whole of Anatolia. 'This cannot be explained by military exigencies,' Mordtmann wrote, recalling that Talaat had told him a few weeks earlier: 'What we are talking about is the elimination of the Armenians. The genocide was implemented through a dual mechanism. First, an official deportation order was sent to the provincial regions by the Interior Ministry, then there were separate, unofficial orders for the annihilation of the deportees, issued by the CUP Central Committee and conveyed to the provinces through party channels. Some of the governers refused to accept the Central Committee's instructions that deportation was to be understood as annihilation. In several vases , uncooperative officials were actually murdered. The documents leave no doubt that Talaat Pasha was the overall coordinator of the deportations and massacres. Many telegrams sent by Talaat about orderly deportation and humane treatment of the deportees ... were ... to appease the German ambassador in Istanbul. Talaat is mentioned in consular reports as a liar. The German ambassador described Talaat as 'ruthless' and 'two-faced'. Austrian ambassador Pallaviccini called him a person 'playing a double game.

It is naive to think that proponents of the genocide theory are engaged in a mere quest for truth, given that historical debate is being stifled and Turkey's attempts to engage in this debate are being turned down. As recently as March 2005, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan invited the Armenian government to establish a joint commission of Turkish, Armenian and international historians to investigate archives of all related countries and sort out the true nature of the events that transpired. The offer was rejected - by Armenia.

This invitation is a smokescreen to make appear to EU that Turkey is open minded regarding its recognition of the Armenian genocide. In fact with its Penal code article 301 and the closed borders with Armenia as well as lack of diplomatic relations with Armenia Turkey is holding Armenia in ransom and forcing the Diaspora to abandon its pursuit of the recognition of the Armenian genocide. Turkey's official call for a panel of historians to determine whether the Armenian Massacres constitute a Genocide or not sounds dishonest. Many such studies have already been carried by renowned historians and scholars over years and resolutions taken. One is the 2000 resolution of The International Association of Holocaust and Genocide Scholars, which said, with only 6 dissenting/abstaining votes, that it was Genocide. None other than Elie Wiesel was on the list of those signing the resolution.

Subsequently, on June 7, 2005 in an open letter to the Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan, the International Association of Genocide Scholars clearly stated the following: "We want to underscore that it is not just Armenians who are affirming the Armenian Genocide but it is the overwhelming opinion of scholars who study genocide: hundreds of independent scholars, who have no affiliations with governments, and whose work spans many countries and nationalities and the course of decades." Israel Charny is the President of the IAGS.The Center for Transitional Justice was commissioned to do a study for TARC. They did. Their report concluded that it was Genocide. The membership of TARC, the Turkish Armenian Reconciliation Commission, was half-Turkish and half-Armenian.

What's lacking is not the historical evidence, it's the absence of political will of the Turkish government to face its own past without which "the gap between the two sides" cannot be narrowed.

Ironically, the slavery and justice report dedicates a good portion of its volume to such "Truth Commissions" and counts them as a rubric of reparative justice. However, for some reason the report never mentions Turkey's invitations but claims the country is in constant denial.

It is rather disappointing that in a report prepared by academics at Brown in the name of truth and justice, the debate surrounding this issue - and Turkey's attempts to investigate it objectively - has been ignored completely.

Despite overwhelming proof that the genocide did take place, we still have to confront articles such as these. They would not have been published if it were not for the official denialism practiced by the Turkish state. Turkey escaped punishment as a result of international circumstances and was successful in reversing its defeat and since then it nurtures what Dadrian calls a truculence. And now this truculent state wants to be part of Europe where the defeat of the most truculent state (Deutschland) paved the way for the formation of the European community. It is not surprising that European states are asking Turkey to shed its Lausanne truculence as a condition to be worthy to be called a European state.

Ozge Can Ozcanli GS, Cengiz Pehlevan GS and Mert Akdere GS are members of the Brown Turkish Cultural Society.

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.