by Uluç GÜRKAN, Former Deputy of Turkish Grand Assembly
“The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn. ”
– Alvin Toffler (to the members of US Congress)
This is Part 1 of 3
US Relations with Turkey
The tragedy in Eastern Anatolia during World War I is a predominant factor in the worn-out Turkish-Americans’ relationship.
In recent years, the US Congress has blindly accepted the Armenian portrayal of the tragic war-time clashes in Eastern Anatolia from spring 1915 through autumn 1916 as the first genocide of 20th century. Although Armenian’s this version of history is one-sided and steeped in prejudice, Congress perceives it as a complete history and an undeniable reality, without fact checking.
Nevertheless, this is an issue of fundamental fairness and the most cherished of American rights – free speech. The lack of real debate in Congress, enforced with a heavy hand by Armenians, ensures that any attempt to search for the truth will utterly fail. However, the truth demands that every side of a story be told.
The US and the UK archival records, as well as the national archives of Russia, France, Germany, Iran, Syria, and Ottoman national archives, contain the documented accounts of this war-time tragedy. They provide first-hand facts, data, and evidence that officially refute Armenian genocide claims against Turkey.
To unearth the historical and judicial truth about 1915-1916 events, all these archival records must be carefully and thoughtfully examined before concluding whether genocide occurred.
Most importantly, the unedited records of the Armenian Republic in Yerevan, Armenian Revolutionary Federation in Boston, and ASALA in Yerevan, ought to be examined. However, they stay on closed.
When this official documented truth is observed and understood, the hostility and intolerance towards, and religious discrimination against Turkish people will weaken, and even be forgotten.
Take, for example, the US records contain documents depicting a war tragedy but offers no proof of Armenian genocide. They also include reports of respected envoys, who documented the Armenian Revolt to support the Russian invasion and provided evidence of mass killings by Armenians.
The US Congress regrettably overlook these US archival records.
Despite the first-hand facts, data, and evidence officially held at the US National Archives, the US Congressional genocide resolutions that have been made in 1951, 1984, and 2019 oft-cites Armenian allegations derived from dubious and prejudicial sources.
The US Congressional resolutions are habitually led by religious, racial, and surely political prejudices. The prejudices which lead the Congress are not sufficient to find where the truth lies on the Turkish-Armenian controversy over the events of 1915-1916.
Prejudices are symptoms of a diseased political culture – in fact, a political culture that threatens the very concept of politics itself. Consequently, using prejudices as a mirror for political purposes pose a grave threat to democracy.
The US Congress cannot go on like this. The lawmakers need new ways of thinking that the twenty-first century requests. In this context, religious or racial, all prejudices must be cross-examined and dismissed where found.
Every dignified member of the US Congress, in her/his capacity as a leader and influencer, has the greatest responsibility to cure the prejudicially diseased US political culture. Politicians have the power to shape the political agenda and to shift public opinion, either positively or negatively. Therefore, it is their ethical obligation to call out racism, hate, and injustice from their decisions.
This will be an educated way of thinking, inspiring a clear slogan: “21s- Century Enlightenment’, which recalls the pioneering spirit of Alfred Toffler’s message to the members of US Congress: “The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.
Alfred Toffler’s 21st Century Enlightenment message might be an crucial chance to cultivate Turkish-American relations and to overcome the present challenges. Members of the Congress can thus embark on a course of unprejudiced learning, unlearning, and relearning regarding the tragic events that took place during World War I in Eastern Anatolia.
The first part of the course is to learn that the classification a historical or current event as genocide should not be based on personal decisions but on legal evaluation. The UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines genocide as an international legal concept and establishes the legal framework for genocidal atrocities. It should neither be politicized nor popularized in non-specific terms.
Second stage of the course is to unlearn the religious, racial, and political prejudices. And consequently, to identify and eradicate discrimination, hate and injustice in Congressional decisions.
The final stage is to relearn the historical and judicial truth regarding the Armenian issue as documented in the US archival records and the UK National Archives rather than through Armenian allegations derived from dubious and prejudicial sources.
It is now time to give the US archival records a hearing:
Armenian Issue as Reflected in U.S. Archival Documents
The Report of Niles & Sutherland
U.S. National Archives Ref. 184.021/175
Constantinople, Aug. 16, 1919
“At first we were most incredulous of the stories told us, but the unanimity of the testimony of alt witnesses, the apparent eagerness with which they told of wrongs done them, their evident hatred of Armenians, and, strongest of all, the material evidence on the ground itself, have convinced us as of the general truth of the facts, first, that Armenians massacred Mussulmans on a large scale with many refinements of cruelty, and second that Armenians are responsible for most of the destruction done to towns and villages.
The Russians and Armenians occupied the country for a considerable time together in 1915…”
Congress Report 266 – American Mission to Armenia: US Congress Report 266, April 13, 1920
(approved unanimously)
“We know, however, so much to be a fact that the Armenians in the new State are carrying on operations in view of exterminating the Mussulman element in obedience to orders from the Armenian corps commander. We have had copies of their orders under our eyes.
That the Armenians of Erivan are following a policy of extermination against the Mussulman and this wave of sanguinary savagery has spread right up to our frontier is also established by the fact of the presence within our borders of numerous Mussulmen fleeing from death on the other side.
The government of Erivan has, on the other hand, resorted to direct acts of provocation such as the practice of gunfire this side of the border.”
Bristol Papers
(https://www.loc.gov/item/mm79013854/)
Rear Admiral Mark Bristol served as U. S. High Commissioner in the defeated Ottoman Empire between late 1919 and 1923. He became the first US Ambassador to the Republic of Turkey and served until 1928. Unlike Herry Morgethau who was Ambassador during 1912-1915, Admiral Bristol was the most respected and best-known U.S. official by the statesman of Europe and the Near East.
Admiral Bristol’s often-overlooked annals contain 33,000 items including eyewitness accounts and investigator reports that reveal deliberate misinformation about what happened in Eastern Anatolia between 1915 – 1920. (From Bristol’s “Report on Operations” for the week of November 7, 1920)
These post-war writings of Rear Admiral Bristol compared to the wartime writings of Morgenthau prove that there was no Genocide and Morgenthau was lying. (The letter written by Admiral Marc L. Bristol to Dr. James L. Barton , Secretary of the Foreign Department of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, March 28, 1921):
“I see that reports are being freely circulated in the United States that the Turks massacred thousands of Armenians in the Caucasus. Such reports are repeated so many times it makes my blood boil. The Near East Relief have the reports from Yarrow and our own American people which show absolutely that such Armenian reports are false.
The circulation of such false reports in the United States, without refutation, is an outrage and is certainly doing the Armenians more harm than good.
I feel that we should discourage the Armenians in this kind of work., not only because it is wrong, but because they are injuring themselves. In addition to the reports from our own American Relief Workers that were in Kars and Alexandrople, and reports from such man as Yarrow, have reports from my own Intelligence Officer and know that the Armenian reports are not true.
Is there not something that you and the Near East Committee can do to stop the circulation of such false reports?
Why not tell the truth about the Armenians in every way?
While the Dashnaks [Armenian revolutionaries] were in power they did everything in the world to keep the pot boiling by attacking Kurds, Turks and Tartars; [and] by committing outrages against the Moslems ….”
Colonel Charles Furlong
US Army Intelligence Officer & Delegate to Paris Peace Conference
In a speech (July 25, 1921) , Colonel Furlong declared, “We hear half the truth when we hear of the massacres of Armenians in Turkey; we’ll hear the other half when we hear of the massacres of Turks by Armenians and Greeks.”
Part One – To Learn:
Genocide is an international legal concept. The United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines the crime of genocide and establishes the legal framework of genocide atrocities.
Genocide Convention was unanimously adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948 and then ratified in 1951 when it went into effect to have judicial value. Since then, Genocide Convention signifies the international community’s commitment to “never again” after the atrocities committed during the Second World War.
Genocide accusations should neither be politicized nor popularized uncertainly. Cataloging a historical or current event as genocide is not something to be named through personal decisions but only through legal evaluation.
UN Genocide Convention
Genocide, to be a crime, had to be proven under strong circumstances outlined in articles 2-6 of the Convention.
Article 2 and 3 of the Convention categorize the atrocities that ought to be punished under the Convention as genocide. These atrocities of genocide are those “acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.”
Special Intent
The key element distinguishing the crime of genocide from other crimes is the “intent to destroy” a group. For genocide to have legally occurred, there must have been “intent” on the part of perpetrators to wipe out an entire ethnic group. Therefore, without proven “intent to destroy”, no act can be ticketed legally as genocide.
In the literature of law, the special intent called “dolus specialis” is necessarily sought in genocide accusations.
Articles 187, 188 and 189 of the International Court of Justice’s Bosnia ruling explicitly state that “a separate notional element must be present” to define an act as genocide. This notional element is also present in the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia’s (ICTY) Kupreskic case as “the need for the presence of intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a group.”
Individual Criminal Responsibility
Article 4 of the Convention relates the “punishable atrocities of genocides” to the individual criminal responsibility. According to this article, “genocide” is a crime that can only be committed by “real persons. Therefore, only real persons – not legal entities – can be charged with the crime of genocide.
Court Ruling
Another important element distinguishing the crime of genocide from other crimes is that, for an event to be considered genocide, there should be a court ruling. This element – court ruling – is defined in Article 6. It reads, “trial of persons charged with genocide” as “by a competent / adequate-qualified tribunal of the state in the territory of which the act was committed” and “an international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction.”
Without a fair judicial trial, characterizing a historical event as genocide through personal or legislative decisions is a highly political and politicized act. It has no value in terms of international law. This has been confirmed by international jurisprudence. The European Court of Justice, in Dec. 17, 2003 and April 17, 2004, ruled in that the recognition of the “Armenian genocide” by the European Parliament “is a political measure with no judicial value.”
– . –
– The end of Part 1 of 3