Srebrenica verdict to facilitate Turkish efforts against alleged genocide
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
Turkish Daily News
The ruling issued by the international court as a result of a trial based upon documents proves Armenian genocide allegations can be countered through arbitration, says retired Ambassador Gündüz Aktan
FULYA ÖZERKAN
ANKARA - Turkish Daily News
The latest verdict delivered by a top U.N. court clearing Serbia of direct responsibility for genocide during the Bosnian war is most likely to strengthen the hand of Turkey, a target of allegations that Armenians were subjects of a genocide at the hands of the Ottoman Empire during World War I.
“The ruling will make our position stronger except for one point, which concerns the responsibility of the state but I don't see it that much important because what matters is whether there is an intention on the part of the state [to commit a systematic genocide],” said retired Ambassador Gündüz Aktan, who is also a member of a commission that advises the government to counter genocide allegations.
Last month, the International Court of Justice in The Hague ruled that the massacre in Srebrenica was tantamount to genocide but Belgrade was not directly responsible. But it said Serbia broke international law by failing to stop the killings. The case was the first of a state being charged with genocide.
At least 100,000 people died in the 1992-1995 war, triggered by the break-up of the former Yugoslavia. Bosnia's Muslims and Croats wanted to cut ties with Belgrade, a move opposed by Bosnian Serbs.
The landmark ruling, which could serve the purpose of clarifying the definition of genocide as well as the responsibility of state to prevent it, came at a time when the Turkish government is pondering ways to take Armenian genocide claims to international arbitration.
Faced with growing international pressure to recognize the allegations, Turkey has intensified its quest for a new strategy and fresh thinking on the intractable issue that has long tied up its relations with neighboring Armenia. The move also comes as a long-term policy against influential Armenian diaspora's efforts to get international recognition for the killings between 1915 and 16.
However, it is not clear how the latest court ruling on Srebrenica would impact Turkey's efforts to counter genocide claims through the court option. According to Aktan, it would have a positive effect. “Differing from ethnic cleansing, the expulsion between 1915 and 16 is in accordance with the established legal practice.”
In his daily column today, Aktan said the Ottomans had never had an intention of wiping out the Armenians with racist hatred, while the Armenian terrorist organizations harbored racist hatred against the Turks. “Armenian [history] archives still remain closed, while Turkey has additionally opened all of its archives. This verdict issued by the international court as a result of a trial based upon documents proves Armenian genocide allegations can be countered through arbitration.”
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.
Turkish Daily News
The ruling issued by the international court as a result of a trial based upon documents proves Armenian genocide allegations can be countered through arbitration, says retired Ambassador Gündüz Aktan
FULYA ÖZERKAN
ANKARA - Turkish Daily News
The latest verdict delivered by a top U.N. court clearing Serbia of direct responsibility for genocide during the Bosnian war is most likely to strengthen the hand of Turkey, a target of allegations that Armenians were subjects of a genocide at the hands of the Ottoman Empire during World War I.
“The ruling will make our position stronger except for one point, which concerns the responsibility of the state but I don't see it that much important because what matters is whether there is an intention on the part of the state [to commit a systematic genocide],” said retired Ambassador Gündüz Aktan, who is also a member of a commission that advises the government to counter genocide allegations.
Last month, the International Court of Justice in The Hague ruled that the massacre in Srebrenica was tantamount to genocide but Belgrade was not directly responsible. But it said Serbia broke international law by failing to stop the killings. The case was the first of a state being charged with genocide.
At least 100,000 people died in the 1992-1995 war, triggered by the break-up of the former Yugoslavia. Bosnia's Muslims and Croats wanted to cut ties with Belgrade, a move opposed by Bosnian Serbs.
The landmark ruling, which could serve the purpose of clarifying the definition of genocide as well as the responsibility of state to prevent it, came at a time when the Turkish government is pondering ways to take Armenian genocide claims to international arbitration.
Faced with growing international pressure to recognize the allegations, Turkey has intensified its quest for a new strategy and fresh thinking on the intractable issue that has long tied up its relations with neighboring Armenia. The move also comes as a long-term policy against influential Armenian diaspora's efforts to get international recognition for the killings between 1915 and 16.
However, it is not clear how the latest court ruling on Srebrenica would impact Turkey's efforts to counter genocide claims through the court option. According to Aktan, it would have a positive effect. “Differing from ethnic cleansing, the expulsion between 1915 and 16 is in accordance with the established legal practice.”
In his daily column today, Aktan said the Ottomans had never had an intention of wiping out the Armenians with racist hatred, while the Armenian terrorist organizations harbored racist hatred against the Turks. “Armenian [history] archives still remain closed, while Turkey has additionally opened all of its archives. This verdict issued by the international court as a result of a trial based upon documents proves Armenian genocide allegations can be countered through arbitration.”
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.
Labels: Genocide Denial Law, ICJ
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home