TURKEY PLANS TO COMBAT ARMENIAN GENOCIDE ISSUE AT THE HAGUE

Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Eurasia Daily Monitor, DC
By John C. K. Daly

This exactly what Turkey needs. I welcome any steps taken in this regard. I hope Turkey will abide with whatever decision the ICJ comes up with. A similar attempt to convince another court see Swiss convict Turk of denying Armenian genocide and Turkish politician loses final appeal against Swiss racism conviction, high court says and IP Leader Perincek To Apply To ECJ Regarding Decision Of Swiss FSC .

The tragic events in eastern Anatolia in 1915 continue to roil not only Turkish-Armenian relations, but the international community and Turkish-American relations as well.

For more than 25 years, Yerevan and the Armenian diaspora have lobbied to have the events in the wartime Ottoman Empire labeled as the 20th century’s first case of genocide, a definition that successive Turkish governments have furiously lobbied against. Now the issue seems set to appear before The Hague’s International Court of Justice and Permanent Court of Arbitration.

At issue is the February 2001 genocide resolution adopted by France, which concisely states: “France publicly recognizes the Armenian genocide of 1915.” It was a largely symbolic act, since it did not allow for the prosecution of those who deny that the 1915 massacre was genocide. At the time Ankara was furious, but despite the dispute, trade between France and Turkey grew 22% in 2002 and by 2006 had increased 131% (Wall Street Journal, March 12, 2007).

The issue has never really gone away, however. Last week veteran Turkish diplomat Sukru Elekdag, from the opposition Republican People's Party (CHP), brought up the issue following talks at the French parliament, where he was part of a Turkish Grand National Assembly delegation. Elekdag suggested that France should reconsider its legislation under the terms of the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. “We can go to the Internal Court of Justice with France and ask whether the law adopted in France in 2001 is in compliance with the agreement in 1948 and whether the 1915 incidents constitute genocide.”

Speaking to Today's Zaman, Elekdag expanded on his observations, saying, “What would the authorized court rule if we assume that the UN Convention could be implemented retrospectively? … It is obvious that the court will rule that the French parliament is not authorized to make such a decision, and it will also have to announce that the UN Convention cannot be implemented retrospectively due to the principle of legality. This means that the 1915 incidents cannot be described as genocide. If the ICJ makes such a ruling, then Armenia's genocide allegation will entirely collapse” (Today's Zaman, February 5).

Elekdag, a former foreign ministry undersecretary and former ambassador to the United States, has a history of opposing international efforts to label the events of 1915 as genocide. Speaking at the “Turkish-Armenian Relations and 1915 Incidents” symposium at Ankara's Gazi University in 2005, he declared, “The Armenian diaspora's accusing Turkey of genocide is a legal crime” (Anatolian Times, November 25, 2005).

Having attempted to battle the decision in the media, the Turkish government is now set to take its case to The Hague. Ankara will argue that since France's genocide resolution was not based on any French court decision, then the French National Assembly’s decision should be based on a prior ruling by an international court. Elekdag told Hurriyet, “There is no international court ruling on the Armenian so-called genocide allegations. Is the French parliament a court? France is thus in the position of having disregarded the 1948 UN Convention” (Hurriyet, February 4).

Turkey will propose that Ankara and Yerevan each select three judges, who in turn will select a chairman. The panel will review Turkish archival material as well as the Dashnak (Armenian Revolutionary Federation) Party archives in Boston, Armenian Patriarchate archives, and those of foreign missions in the Ottoman Empire at the time to determine the validity of their documents. The survey will be followed by an extensive forensic survey of possible contributory factors such as demographics and disease, ending with testimony from relevant parties.

Even if Turkey succeeds in its Hague appeal the issue is hardly likely to go away for Ankara, as many EU politicians insist that Turkey must recognize the Armenian genocide before it can join the European Union.

The issue has also crossed the Atlantic. On January 30, 2007, U.S. Congressmen Adam Schiff (D-CA), George Radanovich (R-CA), and the co-chairs of the Congressional Armenian Caucus, Frank Pallone (D-NJ) and Joe Knollenberg (R-MI) introduced a resolution to recognize the Armenian genocide, which was only tabled in October after furious lobbying by the Bush administration (see EDM January 23, October 12, 17, 2007). Undeterred, Congressional critics in the House of Representatives recently introduced a new resolution condemning the January 19, 2007, murder of ethnic Armenian journalist Hrant Dink (Panarmenian.net, February 5). Furthermore, Democratic presidential candidates Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton have both stated that, if elected, they will recognize the Armenian genocide.

The imbroglio seems to be a classic case of political posturing versus historical reality, and the only certainty is that the issue seems unlikely to be resolved anytime soon.

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.

Can Srebrenica ruling benefit Turkey on Armenian issue?

28.02.2007
Today's Zaman
E.BARIŞ ALTINTAŞ

The article below states that Armenians are accusing the Turkish state of the genocide of Armenians. Nothing is further from the truth. Armenians are accusing Turkey of denying the genocide committed by the predecessor Ottoman Empire. So if Turkey goes to the ICJ it will defend its predecessor, the Ottoman Empire. I think this is a very strange situation. As the article here says "There is no logical reason why a new republican administration, established in October 1923 in an act of revolutionary defiance of Ottoman power, should consider itself responsible for things done under the previous regime.

In fact, when the nationalist movement was founded in 1919, the climate of revulsion over the sufferings of the Armenians was so general that even the neo-nationalists were keen to distinguish themselves from the CUP.

Some see significance in the fact that the nationalist movement chose to rally round an army officer, Mustafa Kemal, who had never been anywhere near the places where the Armenians met their fate.". Soon after that time, Turkey embarked on a course of denial which now has become an act of faith by politicians in Turkey. However in the face of the recent resurgence of genocides Turkey has now the moral obligation to correct this oversight.

The acquittal of Serbia on a charge of genocide was not easy for Turkey, while it was unacceptable for the Bosnians who were direct subjects of the worst massacre on European soil since World War II. However, the judgment is still considered an important landmark in international law.

The ruling of the UN International Court of Justice (ICJ) is significant for it confirmed that a genocide had taken place in Srebrenica and also that Serbia had the power to foresee and prevent the slaughter, but had failed to use it. Moreover, the judges found that Serbia failed to comply with its obligations to punish those who carried out the genocide. All in all, however imperfect Monday's decision was, it might serve to clarify the definition of genocide and the responsibility of states to prevent it in terms of international law, which is very important for Turkey, a target of claims that mass deportation of Armenians in 1915 at the hands of the Ottomans was tantamount to genocide.

The decision also came at a time when the Turkish Foreign Ministry is considering taking the case to the Court of International Justice, and put an end to Armenian allegations.

Analysts underline that the law of the ICJ, founded in 1945, might not prosecute crimes committed before 1948, when the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was adopted by the UN General Assembly. Most say that although an acquittal decision might be positive, ideally, the decision of an international judicial body should not recognize the deportation as genocide. In a way, it remains unclear whether the court ruling on Srebrenica is encouraging or discouraging for Turkey to take the case to the Hague.

For Professor Hüseyin Pazarcı from Ankara University's Political Science Department, the author of international law textbooks that prepare Turkey's future diplomats, it is hard to say whether the decision was good or bad for Serbia. However, he believes that any application to the ICJ regarding the Armenian genocide claims would fall out of the scope of the 1948 UN convention on genocide, the document which was the basis for the Srebrenica ruling.

"Normally, at least initially, on the principle of the non-retroactive application of laws, Turkey's case is outside the scope of the 1948 convention," Pazarcı explained, since the incidents resulting in genocide claims happened in 1915.

Some experts, including political analyst Professor Hüseyin Bağcı from Middle East Technical University (ODTÜ) Department of International Relations, said that the court ruling that what happened in Srebrenica was genocide without holding Serbia directly responsible could signal that in the event Turkey's case were taken to the ICJ, the outcome could be similar in terms of not attaching any retroactive political or financial responsibility to Turkey.

Retired Ambassador Ömer Engin Lütem, who currently heads the Crimes against Humanity Department of the Eurasian Research Center (ASAM), is also of the same opinion. In an interview with the ANKA news agency, Lütem said the Armenians pursued putting the blame on Turkey, insisting that Turkey was the successor of the Ottoman government. "However, this ruling accuses the individuals involved, rather than the state. This might mean that it has the potential to serve our interest," Lütem said, adding that the case was likely to set up an example ruling for future similar cases.

All experts emphasize that there is always the possibility of the ICJ refusing to hear the Armenian genocide, since incidents before 1948 fall outside its scope.

"Normally, it shouldn't be taking up such a suit," Lütem said. However, Lütem expressed that a decision to acquit Turkey of a genocide, but recognizing the forced deportation of Armenians at the hands of Ottomans in 1915 could create a backlash.

"The legal statements should express that forced deportation was essentially not genocide," he explained. In order to explain his interpretation that the ruling does and cannot have any significance on Turkey's Armenian question, Sabah columnist Erdal Şafak points out to two crucial points in how the ICJ works. He notes, in contentious cases, the ICJ produces a binding ruling between states that agree to submit to the ruling of the court. In other words, Turkey would need consent of the other party, Armenia, to apply. If the court, based on the 1948 convention, rules that the application is valid, then the party where the genocide claims originate has to document concrete proof of systemic, organized and planned action to eradicate an ethnic group, which is where Bosnia was weak in the current case, Şafak notes.

In a case between Turkey and Armenia, it would be the job of Armenia to prove that the deportations were genocide, which would not be easy. In addition, for an international court ruling to set a precedent, at least two or three similar rulings should come out. At the end of day, it is almost impossible to express that the ruling has any significance for Turkey's case at all. The ruling is certainly a disappointment to the Bosnian people -- and to the Serbs to a certain extent -- and confusing for Turkey as its relevance to Turkey's concerns about the future of the Armenian question remains open to debate.

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.

Turkey going to appeal to the International Court concerning the so-called Armenian genocide

15 Nov. 2006
APA

“Turkey may appeal to the International court concerning the so-called Armenian genocide,” Turkish Prime Minister Abdullah Gul announced, APA reports, during the discussions of draft state budget for 2007 in the Turkish Parliament former diplomat, Shukru Elekdag made a new proposal to prevent international recognition of Armenians’ genocide claims.

He wanted Ankara to appeal to the Hague Court.

“Turkey has to propose the investigation of the events of 1915 according to the requirements of UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Even if the Armenians don’t accept the proposal, it will show Turkey’s moral and legal rightness and undermine political misuse of this issue,” he said. Highly appreciating his thoughts, Abdullah Gul estimated the Armenians’ claims and their influence on Turkey’s relations with other countries as one of the most important problems of the forthcoming 10 years. He said they do their best to uncover historical truth and mentioned that they proposed to form a commission with Armenians consisting of historians.

“Most countries supported us. Now we are trying to take other steps. We also think of appealing to the International Court. We consult both with local and foreign lawyers,” he said.

Shukru Elekdag said that if the issue is investigated in the International Court, the Armenians will have to prove the genocide, but they have no historical documents to prove it.

Elekdag also explained how the issue will be investigated. He said that both sides Turkey and Armenia (of course in case Yerevan agrees to the investigation) will choose three judges, the head of the panel will be a neutral judge. The panel of judges to be composed of 7 judges will make a decision if the events happened in the Ottoman Empire in 1915 are genocide or not.

17 states have recognized the so-called Armenian genocide up to now. After the democrats, close to the Armenian lobby, won in the Congress elections Turkey is concerned about the probability of recognition of the so-called genocide by the US. /APA/

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.