‘THERE WAS NO ARMENIAN GENOCIDE’
Orhan Tung, Press Counsellor, Turkish embassy in London

New Statesman, UK

Oct 23 2007

The Turkish Embassy’s Orhan Tung responds to the Armenian ambassador
on the question of the 1915 genocide

Contrary to the Armenian allegations, in fact, there is no consensus
among the historians and legal experts to qualify the events of 1915 as
"genocide".

There is a legitimate historical controversy concerning the
interpretation of the events in question and most of the scholars
who have propounded a contra genocide viewpoint are of the highest
calibre and repute, including Bernard Lewis, Stanford Shaw, David
Fromkin, Justin McCarthy, Guenther Lewy, Norman Stone, Kamuran Gurun,
Michael Gunter, Gilles Veinstein, Andrew Mango, Roderic Davidson,
J.C. Hurwitz, William Batkay, Edward J. Erickson and Steven Katz.

This is by no means an exhaustive list. A good number of well-respected
scholars recognize the deportation decision in 1915, taken under
World War I conditions, as a security measure to stop the Armenians
from co-operating with the foreign forces invading Anatolia.

On the legal aspect, the elements of the genocide crime are strictly
defined and codified by the UN Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Genocide, adopted by the General Assembly on 9
December 1948. However, Armenians, claiming that "the evidence is so
overwhelming", so far have failed to submit even one credible evidence
of genocide.

While the position of the British Government is clear on the issue
– that the evidence is not sufficiently unequivocal to persuade us
that these events should be categorised as genocide as defined by the
1948 UN Convention on Genocide – the attempt to present some British
documents, particularly the infamous Blue Book, as they are confirming
"genocide" is a typical example of the Armenian way of misleading
the international community.

The following quotation from Arnold Toynbee, British historian and
co-author of the Blue Book, which is claimed to "leave no doubt about
what was taking place", clearly shows the extent of Armenian false
propaganda and how they come up with fabricated evidence:

"…Yet at the very time when the agreement (Sykes-Picot Agreement)
was being made, I was being employed by His Majesty’s Government
in a ‘Blue Book’, which was duly published and distributed as war
propaganda. The French Government made use of the Armenians in a
different way. They promised to erect an autonomous Armenian state,
under their aegis, in the Cilician part of their Anatolian Zone and
the promise brought them several thousand Armenian volunteers, most
of whom were enrolled in the Legion d’Orient and served for the rest
of the War" (Toynbee, Arnold J., The Western Question in Greece and
Turkey, Howard Fertig, Inc. Edition, New York, 1970).

Hovhannes Katchaznouni’s (The First Prime Minister of the independent
Armenian Republic) remarks in his report entitled "Dashnagtzoutiun
Has Nothing To Do Anymore" submitted to the 1923 Dashnagtzoutiun
Party Convention, gives an idea about the truth:

"…Are we not capable of doing in the Soviet Armenia what we did in
the Turkish Armenia, for tens of years? We certainly are. We might
establish a base in the Iranian Qaradað and send people and arms
to the other side of Araxe, (just as we did in Salmas once). We
might establish the necessary secret relations and armed "humbas"
in the Sunik and Dereleghez mountains just as we did in the Sasun
mountains and the Chataq stream (in eastern Turkey). We might provoke
the peasants in some far off regions to rise and then we might expel
the communists there or destroy them. Later we might create great
commotion even in Yerevan and occupy a state building at least for
a few hours just as we occupied the Ottoman Bank or we might explode
any building. We could plan assassinations and execute them just as we
killed the officials of the Tsar and the Sultan…; in the same way,
just as we did to Sultan Abdulhamid, we could plant a bomb under
Myasnikov’s or Lukashin’s feet. …when we created a great hubbub
in Turkey, we thought we would attract the attention of the great
powers to the Armenian cause and would force them to mediate for us,
but now we know what such mediation is worth and do not need to repeat
such endeavours…"

After the World War I, the Armenian allegations were investigated
between 1919-1922 as part of a legal process against the Ottoman
Officials. 144 high ranking officials were accused of "massacres" and
deported for trial by Britain to the island of Malta. The information
which led to the trial was mainly given by the local Armenians and the
Armenian Patriarchate. While the deportees were interned on Malta,
The British occupation forces in Istanbul, with absolute power and
authority, looked everywhere to find evidence in order to incriminate
the deportees. At the conclusion of the investigation, no evidence
was found that could corroborate the Armenian claims.

Turkey is of the view that parliaments and other political institutions
are not the appropriate forums to debate and pass judgments on disputed
periods of history. Taking one-sided and biased decisions on this
disputed period of the history can not be considered as a right and
ethical approach. Also, such kind of issues should not be abused for
the sake of the internal political concerns.

Past events and controversial periods of history should be left to the
historians. In order to shed light on such a disputed historical issue,
the Turkish Government has opened all its archives, including military
records to all researchers. On the other hand, Armenian state archives
in Yerevan and archives in some third countries including the Dashnak
Party archive in Boston are still being kept behind the closed doors.

In 2005, Turkey proposed to Armenia the establishment of a Joint
History Commission, which will be composed of historians and experts
from both sides and third parties in order to study the events of
1915 in their historical context and share the findings with the
international public. The fact that this proposal is yet to receive
a positive answer from the Armenian authorities, when considered
together with their rejection to open all the relevant archives to
the historians, gives a clear idea about their confidence in what
they claim. On the contrary, Turkey has no reason to be afraid of its
past and is ready to accept whatever the findings of this proposed
commission will be.

It should be emphasized that Turkey has always been keen to normalize
its relations with Armenia. In line with its vision towards Southern
Caucasus, Turkey, recognised Armenia on 16 December 1991 and has
produced a consistent policy of efforts to develop good-neighbourly
relations with this country. Due to the difficult economic conditions
it encountered after its independence, Turkey has extended humanitarian
aid to Armenia. Turkey has also facilitated the transit of humanitarian
aid to this country through its territory. Turkey supported Armenia’s
integration with the regional organisations, international community
and the western institutions, and invited Armenia to the Black Sea
Economic Cooperation Organization as a founding state. Additionally,
Turkey took a series of unilateral steps that would help creating a
favourable climate in the region. In this regard, some of Turkey’s
recent unilateral gestures towards Armenia are as follows:

Armenian citizens are welcome to visit Turkey through visas issued
at the entry points valid for 30 days. In stark contrast, this is not
the case for Turkish citizens who intend to visit Armenia. Thousands
of Armenian citizens reside primarily for employment in Turkey.

Turkey opened two air corridors for facilitating the international
flights, which amount in excess of hundred over-flights every month
and Turkish and Armenian air charter companies operate between Istanbul
and Yerevan on a regular basis, up to 4 times a week.

Transit trade towards Armenia or from Armenia towards abroad,
via Turkey is not subjected to any restriction or hindering. These
unilateral steps clearly show Turkey’s will for the normalization of
Turkish-Armenian relations.

However, these good-will gestures are not reciprocated by Armenia.

Instead, Armenia, passed a new bill on 4 October 2006, which makes
it impossible for any Armenian citizen, or third party in Armenia,
to voice dissent about the "genocide"; refused to issue visa for
the Turkish election observation team comprising eight academics,
who were to be deployed at the Election Observation Mission (EOM) set
up by the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights
(ODIHR) prior to the Armenian parliamentary elections scheduled for
12th May 2007; rejected the inclusion of a Turkish officer to the
NATO/PfP team that would conduct a working visit on border security
in Armenia in July 2007.

Finally, I want to draw your attention to the desperate plight of the
people of Armenia, suffering from the dire economic conditions in
the country which is self-isolated as a result of the intransigent
attitude of the wealthy diaspora. I believe that the Armenians
have become captive to their own lie of "genocide" and every single
support to the baseless Armenian allegations from the third parties
will further cut their connection with the truth and prevent their
integration to the West.

–Boundary_(ID_8uZ6SPN0jxJuITc719XNBA)–