by Uluç GÜRKAN, Former Deputy of Turkish Grand Assembly
(Part 3 of 3)
21st CENTURY ENLIGHTENMENT: On the Armenian Issue
Search in American Archives
The US archival records were the British Foreign Ministry’s big hope to trial and sentence the Turks detained in Malta.
Some British officials were believing that Americans must have been in possession of mass evidence, since at that time the American diplomatic and consular agents continued their work in Turkey. Furthermore, the American aid organization “Near East Relief Society” was allowed by Ottoman Government be in Anatolia during the relocation.
Part 2: TO UNLEARN ON ARMENIAN ALLEGATIONS
Part 1: 21st CENTURY ENLIGHTENMENT: On the Armenian Issue
On March 31, 1921 Lord Curzon, the British Foreign Minister, forwarded a telegram to Sir A. Geddes, the British Ambassador in Washington. To accuse the Turkish prisoners in Malta he askedfor assistance to the US Foreign Secretary:
“There are in the hands of His Majesty’s Government at Malta a number of Turks arrested for alleged complicity in the Armenian massacres.
There is considerably difficulty in establishing proofs of guilt…
Please ascertain if the United States Government are in possession of any evidence that would be of value for purposes of prosecution.”
There was no reply for about two months. On May 27, 1921 Lord Curzon reminded Washington:
“We would be glad to know whether there is a likelihood that evidence will be available.”
On June 2, 1921 Sir A. Geddes returned the following reply:
“I have made several enquires of State Department and today I am informed that while they are in possession of a large number of documents concerning Armenian deportations and massacres, these refer rather to events connected with perpetration of crimes than to persons implicated. Should His Majesty’s Government so desire, these documents will be at the disposal of His Majesty’s Embassy on the understanding that the source of the information will not be divulged.
From the description I am doubtful whether these documents are likely to prove useful as evidence in prosecuting Turks confined in Malta.”
On June 16, 1921 The British Foreign Office forwarded the following telegram to Washington with an attached list of 45 Turks named as “brief particulars”:
“Of the first instant, I enclose, a list of names brief particulars of the Turks who are being detained at Malta with a view to trial in connection with alleged outrages perpetrated on Armenians and other native Christians.
I shall be glad if you will ascertain as early as possible whether the United States Government can furnish evidence against any of these persons.”
For this search, a member of the British Embassy was permitted to see a selection of the US archival records.
On July 13, 1921, The British Embassy in Washington returned the following disappointing reply:
“I have the honour to inform your Lordship that a member of my staff visited the State Department yesterday, the 12th instant, in regard to the Turks who are present being detained in Malta with a view to a trial in connection with the Armenian massacres. He was permitted to see a selection of reports from United States Consuls on the subject of atrocities committed in Armenia during the recent war, the reports judged by the State Department to be the most useful for the purpose of His Majesty’s Government being chosen among several hundreds.
I regret to inform Your Lordship that there was nothing there in which could be used as evidence against the Turks who are being detained for trial in Malta. The reports seen, while furnishing full accounts of the atrocities committed, made mention, however, of only two names of the Turkish officials in question -those of Sabit Bey and Süleiman Faik Pasha- and in these cases were confined to personal opinions of these officials in the part of the writer, no concrete facts being given which could constitute satisfactory incriminating evidence.
I have the honour to add that officials of the Department of State expressed the wish, in the course of conversation, that no information supplied by them in this connection should be employed in a court of law.
Having regard to this situation and the fact thar the reports in the possession of the Department do not appear in any case to contain evidence these Turks which would be useful even for the purpose of corroborating information already in the possession of His Majesty’s Government, I fear that nothing is to be hoped from addressing any further enquires to the United States Government in this matter. I only regret that the State Department did not see their way to make the position clear at an earlier date.”
The US archival records were carefully searched. There was no evidence that a British court of law would consider sufficient proof against them was found.
Even, despite the British government’s every effort to trial and sentence the Turks detained in Malta, no statement has been taken from witnesses deposing to the truth of the charges made against the Turkish prisoners. Support of Armenian genocide allegations were laid with second or third hand illegal findings.
Reasonable Prospects
Failing the possibility of obtaining proper evidence to establish proof of guilt against Turks in Malta which would satisfy a Court of Law, the last possibility option chance of the British Foreign Ministry was to influence the Prosecutor General whether there was reasonable prospect of connecting any of the prisoners prisoned Turks charged with Armenian massacres.
Accordingly, the Ministry on behalf of Minister Lord Curzon, asked Prosecutor General to “initiate political charges” against 42 of the Turks in Malta and prosecute them “with reasonable prospects if judicial ones cannot be initiated.”
Final Judgement
This lawless political attempt of British Government to secure the prosecution of innocent persons failed in the authority of the British Prosecutor General.
On July 29, 1921, the British Prosecutor General announced to the British Government without question that with the “evidence in hand” none of the Turks in Malta could be prosecuted on the grounds of the Armenian massacre:
“… The charges made against the Turks named in the Foreign Office list are of quasi-political character”, and “no statements have been taken from witnesses who can depose to the truth of the charges made against the prisoners…
… without… the production of evidence of a character which alone could be admissible before an English Court of Justice… it seems improbable that the charges made against … the accused will be capable of legal proof in a Court of Law.”
Consequently, Malta Tribunal was closed in judgement of nulle prosequi, which amounts to a dismissal of charges by prosecution. From now on, there was no legal basis to hold the Turks in Malta as “offenders” for prosecution.
Consequently, Prosecutor Attorney General’s Law Officers wrote to Foreign Ministry of Britain that the Turks detained in Malta “are charged with political offences and their detention or release therefore involves a question of high policy and is not dependent on the legal proceedings…”
Judgement of Non-Prosecution
It goes without question that the British Prosecutor General’s ruling of July 29, 1921 to dismiss the Armenian massacre accusations for “lack of evidence” constitute a legal procedure – a legal prosecution process during which the “Armenian massacre”, or currently termed “genocide” allegations were studiously investigated.
In modern law this ruling corresponds to a “judgement of non-prosecution” which means, “ıf there is no legal evidence to support the Armenian massacre claims, there is no legal basis to file or bring a lawsuit”.
Prosecutor General also cleared the legal status of the Turkish detainers in Malta that, from now on, they were not considered as “offenders” for prosecution, but as “hostages”. Consequently, the British government used them for exchange against British prisoners in Anatolia after two years and four months of imprisonment.
As the Prosecutor General’s prosecution constitutes the first step to a court trial, Malta Tribunal is a judicial ruling announcing that there never was a Turkish policy to exterminate Armenians. Additionally, the findings of this tribunal also falsify the 32 parliaments’ genocide resolutions prompted by prejudges and by some simple cyclical political self-interests.
Malta Tribunal and Nuremberg Trials
Simultaneously, the prosecution of the British Attorney General was an antecedent to the Nurnberg Trials – the trial concerning the Holocaust after the World War II.
The prosecutorial process on Malta shared an international judicial atmosphere similar to that of the Nuremberg. The Malta prosecution was conducted to establish a court similar to the “international court” later formed in Nuremberg to put German Nazi leaders on trial for the Holocaust.
The establishment phase of the international court where the Ottoman officials and military officers were supposed to be put on trial was also discussed by the League of Nations, the post-First World War predecessor to the United Nations. During its sessions, among the topics that were discussed were the methods to use to establish a court which would carry out such prosecutions and an “Advisory Board” was formed for this purpose.
These preparations had not been realized. Because British Attorney General put no Ottoman official and military officer on trial for Armenian massacre allegations. He declared that no charges could be filed due to “lack of evidence” and made it clear that no penal action could be taken even if charges were filed.
This was the reason why no trials were held in Malta.
Discrediting Malta
The “genocide lobby” realizes that the Malta Tribunal is of the end of the beginning for the genocide allegations.
As Winston Churchil said on the victory at El Amamein, “This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But iy is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”
Consequently, the genocide lobby worried that the Malta Tribunal reality would be the end of the so-called Armenian genocide recognition process, is making great effort to discredit them. To create the illusion that Malta Tribunal did not entail actual legal proceedings. They take recourse to a series of historic and legal falsehoods:
Exchange of Captives
Allegations suggesting that the Malta Tribunals were not taken seriously by the British, as they rather considered them a “captive exchange project,” are wholly not credible.
Judicial proceedings of Malta Tribunal conducted over the “Armenian massacre” charges are documented in the British archives. Despite that, the “genocide” lobby shamelessly tries to falsify Malta Tribunal.
This lobby refers to European Court of Human Rights judge Giovanni Bonello saying that “the release of the Turkish detainees was accomplished in exchange for 22 British prisoners held by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk.”
According to judge Bonello, the Turks deported to Malta by the British during the Allied occupation of Istanbul were never actually brought to trial (there or elsewhere), because no international legal framework existed for doing so, and that in the end the situation was resolved pragmatically by an agreement with the Ankara government to exchange the remaining deportees for British prisoners of war in October-November 1921
If not ignorance, this is a big historical lie.
The Malta Tribunals did not end with an exchange of captives. On the contrary, they ended with a “judgement of non-prosecution” declared by the British Attorney General.
The exchange of captive’s issue arose thereafter.
Officers of the British Foreign Office began to think about the release of the Turkish prisoners in Malta after the British Attorney General’s July 29, 1921 decision, From now on they were not considered as “offenders” for prosecution, but rather as “hostages for exchange” against British prisoners in Anatolia.
Before any final decision, British High Commissioner at Istanbul was asked if he had any observation on the subject. A Foreign Office dispatch to High Commissioner dated August 10, 1921, said:
“In addition to the difficulty caused by the absence of evidence which would be acceptable in a court of law, there is improbability that the French and Italian Governments would agree to participate in constituting the court provided for in article 230 of the Treaty of Sérves.”
Some say that an exchange of captives’ agreement was signed in London on 16 March 1921 between the government of Britain and Bekir Sami Bey, the foreign minister of the Grand National Assembly government in Ankara which led the War of Independence in Anatolia.
However, not all the Turks held in Malta fall within the scope of this agreement. The scope of the envisaged captive exchange was the release of all British captives by the Turks in exchange for “the return of the Turks who have not harmed or abused Armenians or British captives,” by the British.
The British organized the Conference of London with their allies when they were compelled to accept the War of Independence under Mustafa Kemal’s leadership and the government of the Grand National Assembly, after the First İnönü Victory of January 1921.
The aim here was to partially soften the Sèvres agreement and convince Ankara to accept it.
It was after the Conference of London that Bekir Sami Bey signed the captive exchange agreement. The British did not include those Turks in Malta accused with the “Armenian genocide” in this exchange of captives.
On the other hand, Ankara did not ratify the softened Sèvres or the limited-scope captive exchange agreement signed by Bekir Sami Bey, who then was dismissed from his duty as foreign minister.
The detention of Turks in Malta on the grounds of an Armenian massacre ended with the Attorney Generals declaration of dismissal of “Armenian massacre” allegations due to the absence of evidence on 29 July 1921.
Therefore, the release of Turks whose “detention” turned into “political captivity” is documented in the British archives.
Upon the dismissal declaration by the Attorney General’s Office, British Foreign Minister Lord Curzon sent a memo on 10 August 1921 to Sir Horace Rumbold, Britain’s high commissioner in İstanbul, mentioning “the obligation to make a general agreement.”
The response of the high commissioner can be summarized as follows: “Since no adequate evidence was found to convince a British Court of Law, all Turks should be included in the exchange of captives to avoid losing more reputation.”
Thus, began the negotiations for exchange which ultimately led to an agreement.
The Struggle for Independence
Another falsification aimed at discrediting the Malta Tribunals suggests that British attempts to reconcile with the National Struggle movement influenced the Attorney General’s dismissal.
Such falsification does not reject the proceedings which took place on Malta but attempts to discredit them by giving them a political character, which is at odds with historical reality.
The Attorney General’s Office declared its dismissal decision regarding the “Armenian massacre” on July 29, 1921, a time when the national liberation movement was weak.
The Greek Army had captured Kütahya and Eskişehir on July 17 and 19 respectively which led to the retreat of the national liberation forces to the east of the Sakarya River. The sound of Greek shells targeting Polatlı were heard from Ankara, and there were debates over relocating the Grand National Assembly (Parliament) from Ankara to Kayseri.
Britain had no initiative for reconciling with Ankara which would affect the Attorney General. On the contrary, the British government was dreaming of dealing a deadly blow to Ankara.
The National Independence Movement’s recovery and establishing a balance with the Greek forces took place two months after the Attorney General’s dismissal decision.
Non-Established Court
Those seeking to discredit the Malta Tribunals argue that no competent international court was established as required by the Treaty of Sèvres and therefore no judicial proceedings took place in line with the UN Convention on Genocide.
They claim, the Allied administration that occupied İstanbul fell short of establishing an international tribunal to try the Turks prisoners held as captive by the British forces in Malta. In the end, no tribunals were held in Malta.
According to European Court of Human Rights judge Giovani Bonello, the suspension of prosecutions, the repatriation and release of Turkish detainees was amongst others a result of the lack of an appropriate legal framework with supranational jurisdiction, because following World War I no international norms for regulating war crimes existed.
Since there were no international laws in place under which they could be tried, the men who orchestrated the genocide escaped prosecution.
To argue that the Turkish detainees in Malta were not brought to trial because following World War I no international norms for regulating war crimes existed, due to a legal vacuum in international law; is insufficiency of knowledge, if not prejudice.
The Malta prosecution was conducted to establish a court similar to the “international court” later formed in Nuremberg to put German Nazi leaders on trial for the Holocaust. After World War I, the effort to prosecute Ottoman war criminals was taken up by the Paris Peace Conference (1919) and ultimately included in the Treaty of Sèvres (1920) with the Ottoman Empire.
The establishment phase of the international court where the Ottoman officials and military officers were supposed to be put on trial was also discussed by the League of Nations, the post-First World War predecessor to the United Nations. During its sessions, among the topics that were discussed were the methods to use to establish a court which would carry out such prosecutions and an “Advisory Board” was formed for this purpose.
These preparations had not been realized. Because British Attorney General put no Ottoman official and military officer on trial for Armenian massacre allegations. He declared that no charges could be filed due to “lack of evidence” and made it clear that no penal action could be taken even if charges were filed.
It is not that proceedings weren’t conducted on Malta due to the lack of a court. The proceedings started upon completion of the legal investigation, but no charges were filed, which means no “prosecution” before a court was initiated.
By the end of the CPS-led investigation which constituted the first phase of the judicial proceedings, no evidence suggesting “the mass killing” of Armenians and Christian Ottoman citizens was found, which would lead to “filing charges in a court of law.” Thus, the dismissal decision and dismissal of the “Armenian massacre” accusations led to the case being closed.
It is known that if any evidence capable of proof was found, charges would have been filed and a trial would have been carried out by an international court designated by the League of Nations. Therefore, the establishment of such a court was among the topics discussed by the League of Nations.
The Attorney General’s decision to dismiss the Armenian massacre accusations for “lack of evidence” corresponds in modern law to a “judgment of dismissal.” This means, there was no need for a court.
Remission by Lausanne
The Malta falsification that the “Armenian genocide” lobby relies on the most is as follows: “Since Sèvres never went into force, with the signing of Lausanne, the Malta proceedings were granted amnesty and closed.”
Saying that the Malta proceedings were granted amnesty by Lausanne is a time travel trick mocking human intelligence. It is true that Ottoman Sultan Vahdettin did not ratify the Sèvres Treaty, despite its signature by the Turkish side. However, this does not mean that it did not go into force. First, the invasion led by the British and allies was in line with Sèvres’ map. Likewise, the justification for the illegal invasion of Istanbul came from Sèvres.
The Malta proceedings came to an end on July 29, 1921, and Lausanne was signed two years later, on July 24, 1923. At that time, no proceeding existed that could be linked to Malta. The files were closed and archived.
The most important agent of this time travel between Lausanne and Malta is renowned British genocide law specialist Geoffrey Robertson. In a report entitled “Was there an Armenian genocide?” presented to the British Parliament in October 2009, Robertson writes that the British Attorney General’s investigation initiated on Malta after WWI into the “Armenian massacre” “was closed with the establishment of the new Turkish Republic under the leadership of Ataturk, and therefore is of no judicial value.”
Written by Robertson in exchange for money from the Armenian diaspora, this report aims to make the British Parliament accept the “genocide” allegations.
Believing that the failure of British governments and Parliament to make a move in this regard is due to their sensitivity to the Malta Tribunals, the “genocide” lobby attempted to overcome this problem through Robertson’s work. But they forgot that the Malta proceedings came to an end on July 29, 1921, and Lausanne was signed two years later, on July 24, 1923.
Reference to Genocide
The last falsification of the “Armenian genocide” lobby targeting Malta suggests, “The Malta proceedings did not include genocide, as at that time such a crime had not yet been defined. Therefore, the Attorney General’s decision cannot constitute a judicial reference today as to the nullity of the Armenian genocide claims.”
Such an allegation is contradictory.
If the Malta proceedings are to be declared null and void on the grounds that no such “genocide” definition existed at that time, such an accusation also cannot be done today using the contemporary notion of “genocide,” for the events took place at a time when no such notion existed.
It means practicing double standards to reject the Malta Tribunals’ judicial findings today and attempting to apply the contemporary crime of “genocide” to the past. This is the result of a sick political culture.
Besides, no matter what theoretical judicial reasons are used to defend it, it is not in line with the realities of life.
In its Perinçek-Switzerland decision of December 17, 2013, the ECtHR ruled that the condemnation of Doğu Perinçek by Swiss courts on the grounds of his remarks suggesting that “the treatment of Armenians during WWI cannot be interpreted as genocide” violated Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights on freedom of expression.
The clear meaning of this ruling is that “expressing that the 1915 Armenian deportation is not genocide cannot and will not constitute a basis for condemnation.”
This ECtHR decision is a clear shield protecting freedom of expression against the insistence that “the Armenian genocide is an undeniable historical fact,” thus paving the way for free debate.
However, it should not be viewed only within the limited context of freedom of expression. Its meaning and importance go beyond that.
- The widespread impression created by the “Armenian genocide” lobby that “there is a general international consensus characterizing the 1915 events as genocide” is not true. There is no such consensus which would mean “ultimate acceptance” of the “genocide” allegations. Out of a total of 190 states, there are only 32that recognize the “Armenian genocide.” Besides, those “recognitions” were made by parliaments, and as the French Constitutional Council ruled on 8 January 2016, “ Parliaments and governments cannot act as substitutes for judicial organs,” and more specifically, reaffirmed its earlier decision that a crime against humanity or genocide must be established by a competent court, not by the legislature.
- The 1915 events against Armenians are both historically and legally different from the Holocaust. No link can be established between the Ottoman Armenians and German Jews. There is ample evidence recognized by competent international courts proving that genocide was committed in Nazi Germany against Jews. Therefore, the Jewish genocide is an undisputable historical fact. However, the “Armenian genocide” claims are open to debate, and there is no court ruling on the issue. It cannot be considered the same way as the Holocaust.
Remembering Malta Tribuna
The Malta Tribunal constitutes an important milestone of Turkish history. However, we have forgotten and indeed were made to forget it.
Remembering Malta Tribunal and embracing its reality will make the Armenian genocide lobby, which at every turn calls on us to “face our history,” face the documented realities of history.
The Malta Tribunal, with its judicial and historical firsthand findings proves that there never was a Turkish policy to exterminate Armenians. Besides, the findings of this tribunal falsify nearly 32 parliament’s non historical based political support of Armenian genocide allegations with second, if not third- or fourth-hand illegal findings, which amount to no more than hearsay or just an opinion.
It goes without saying that the judicial conclusions of the Malta Tribunals completely refute the “Armenian genocide” allegations. According to UN’s 1948 Genocide Convention, for an incident to be considered genocide, a court ruling is required.
Malta Tribunal is the key to overcome the prejudices and face the historical facts. As Thomas Cooper, an Anglo-American 19th century economist, college president and political philosopher said, “Fraud and falsehood only dread examination. Truth invites it”.
#End of Part 3 of 3#
About Author: ULUÇ GÜRKAN
Editor and Chief of ANKA News Agency (1983-1989)
Editor and Chief of Daily Güneş (1990-1991)
Member- Turkish Grand National Assembly/TGNA (1991-2002)Vice President–Parliamentery Assebly oy the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe/OSCE-PA(1992-1995)
Deputy Speaker-Turkish Grand National Assembly/TGNA (1995-1999)
Head of the Turkish Delegation-Parliamentary Assembly of the Western European Union/WEU-PA (1999-2002)
Vice President-Parliamentary Assembly of the Conncil of Europr/PACE (2000-2002)
- Vice President–Parliamentery Assebly oy the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe/OSCE-PA(1992-1995)
- Deputy Speaker-Turkish Grand National Assembly/TGNA (1995-1999)
- Head of the Turkish Delegation-Parliamentary Assembly of the Western European Union/WEU-PA (1999-2002)
- Vice President-Parliamentary Assembly of the Conncil of Europr/PACE (2000-2002)
• Lecturer at METU & Ufuk University (2003- ……)