30.9.06

1059) The Letter of a Turkish Author to an Armenian Newspaper

The Letter of a Turkish Author to an Armenian Newspaper
Dr. Mehmet Perinçek

Oskan Efendi
The idea of Turkish-Armenian rapprochment also appeared on the agenda after the cost of the First World War and the Tashnak government, which was established in Armenia after that in the National Struggle period, became too heavy.

The letter that Turkish journalist-writer Osman Sadik Bey sent to an Armenian newspaper during the years of the War of Liberation is one of the unknown examples of this. The newspaper Slovo (Word) was published in Tbilisi in Russian in the Menshevik Georgia period and it is known as the publishing organ of the Armenian bourgeoisie of the city.

“The Most Important Tasks of the Ottomans Were Given to the Armenians”
The letter was published in the 1 December 1920 issue of the newspaper with the heading “Turkey and Armenia.” Osman Sadik started his letter as follows:

“One of the difficult problems that are related to the Eastern Question is important and it has not been solved yet completely. This is the Armenian Question, of which the Armenian-Turkish relations are the darkest aspectt

“Before reviewing this deadlock and addressing how this spool, which had become almost impossible to unfold, manifested itself, I would like to remind some attempts of general and personal intitiatives. Unfortunately, these attempts remained fruitless because of the unwarranted disagreements of some young representatives of the Armenian intellectuals, who had a narrow nationalist point of view that reached up to the most extreme ends of chauvenism.”

Oskan Efendi Servet-i Fünun No 1217
Oskan Efendi Servet-i Fünun No 1217
The author notes at this point that the cabinets were almost not established without the Armenians, who had been promoted to top level positions, after the collapse of the Abdulhamid regime. According to Osman Sadik Bey, it is not possible to deny the fact that Armenian ministers, who had provided great services to Turkey, were appointed to the most significant posts of the imperial administration. Gabriel Noradunkyan managed foreign policy in two different cabinets and determined the fate of the empire in foreign relations. Or Hallachyan Effendi was at the head of Finance for a long time during the Union and Progress period. Oskan Effendi remained for a long time at the post of minister, where he administered the Ottoman post.

As the author put it, the most important matters of this big Muslim state were therefore at the hands of the Armenians. Apart from this, there was a considerable number of Armenian civil servants in different ministeries. Armenian MPs were always in the parliament, Armenian officers served in the Turkish army until the first battles of the First World War. After these examples, which were not products of dreams, the author points out that it is difficult to understand how the oppression of Armenians could be explained.

The Right to Use Coercion Against the Internal Threat that Allies with the Enemy
After these assessments, Osman Sadik Bey addresses the process of the First World War:

“The war was declared. You cannot find a single Armenian who would deny that the Armenians in Turkey openly sided with the Allied Powers, that they served them until today, that they revolted with weapons against the Turks, and that they resorted to bloody acts with weapons as soon as the weapons were fired. In addition, can it be denied that a state that is in a struggle of life and death at the war arena on the one hand has the right to take the most effective measures to prevent its rebelling subjects from backstabbing it?

“There were bloody and brutal pressures. Each Turk accepts this undoubtedly, but many Turks acted rather than just talking, protected and hid Armenian families. However, one should not forget that the pressures were not only caused by the Turks. Thousands of types of pressures can be seen everywhere in the world and even in countries that are more develoepd than Turkey. As a Turk, I do not reject the right of Armenians to have sympathy or antipathy and to resort to all sorts of means in order to protect their interests. However, I think that it is very difficult to reject the right of Turks to use coercion to confront all kinds of destructive internal attempts, which allied with the annihilating external threat at a critical time.”

The Inıtıatives of Osman Sadık
Then Osman Sadik talked about the Armistice period. After the Allied Powers entered Istanbul, the Turks could never escape the insults written in the Pera newspapers (newspapers owned by non-Muslims) or on the streets. Three elements of the four that had lived peacefully in the country for centuries (Armenians, Greeks and Jews) insulted the honor of the fourth (Turks) constantly by relying on the protection of the armies of the Allied Powers. According to the author, this picture of the country is very sad.

Osman Sadik also says that he tried to make an agreement among the intellecturals of these elements. He had made a call to the Greeks, Armenians, Jews, and Arabs in the pages of Le Stamboul newspaper and suggested organizing a meeting. What was planned for this meeting was everyone keeping their cool and expressing the demands of their own environment. Osman Sadik pointed out the irrationality of these elements, which lived together, breaking off their relations.

However, nobody responded to this suggestion with a rational approach. Only an engineer named Leon Hadiryan published an article on this subject in the newspaper Le Stamboul. This article absoluteley rejected Osman Sadik Bey’s suggestion. Although Hadiryan saw the suggestion as sincere, he did not accept the right of Turks to discuss these topics while reserving the right to speak on behalf of Armenia for the Paris Conference.

“The Armenian Side Did Not Help”
Osman Sadık Bey noted the following developments as follows:

“As you see, this initiative remained fruitless. I also tried to fulfill this mission when I was the head columnist at the newspaper Le Courrier de Turquie and then I called on the Armenian intellectuals to give up their non-compromising attitude in the name of good feelings. Nobody helped me.”

According to the Turkish journalist-writer Osman Sadik, it is clear that it is not easy to speak about a past, which was experienced with conflicts for the Armenians and Turks and in which they hurt each other for a long time and could not reach an agreement. However, the constant rejection of the peace efforts of the Turks by the Armenians is equally sad.

The author points out that it is not possible to remember the past without pain and states that his goal in these initiatives was to provide Turkish-Armenian rapprochment and peace between the two nations. Feelings must be put aside and the issue of establishing good neighborly relations and providing peace between Turkey and Armenia must be addressed in all of its aspects.

On the very same days when Osman Sadik’s letter was published in the newspaper Slovo, the imperialist collaborator and chauvenist Tashnak regime collapsed and the Soviet government was established instead. In a short amount of time, the common interests against imperialism thawed the ice between Ankara and Yerivan and brought the two countries closer.

Bibliography

Perinçek, Mehmet (2011), Türk-Rus Diplomasisinden Gizli Sayfalar, Kaynak Yayınları, İstanbul.

Russian Military State Archive (RGVA) fond 7717, list 1, file 174, folio 380, 380 back, 381.

Read The Full Post by Clicking Here Read Full Post !

29.9.06

1058) Leader of Turkish Armenian community writes Erdogan about concerns

The leader of the Armenian Orthodox community in Turkey, Patriarch Mesrob II, has written a letter to Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan expressing discomfort with what he called the "indexing of the Armenian communities' concerns on those of the Greek Orthodox community." Mesrob II's letter comes following a week . . in which the subject of "reciprocity" between Turkey and Greece on the subject of the internal treatment of eachothers' ethnic minorities has been a focus of parliamentary debate.

In his letter to Erdogan, Mesrob II expressed the following: "The Armenian community is seriously concerned that its matters are being indexed on those of the Greek Orthodox community.....We think that we are being victimized on account of struggles between Turkey and Greece."

Mesrob II also touched on the question of education for children of Armenian citizenship living in Turkey, noting that due to tolerance displayed by the leaders of the Turkish Republic, there are currently 30 to 40 thousand Armenian citizens living here. The religious leader pushed Erdogan to allow the children of Armenian citizens to be allowed to study in Armenian schools under the provision of the National Education Ministry, which are currently only for citizens of the Turkish Republic.


Read The Full Post by Clicking Here Read Full Post !

1057) My Journey From Hate To Hope By Line Abrahamian

My Journey From Hate To Hope
By Line Abrahamian

Reader's Digest, Canada Edition October 2006

The Armenian Genocide almost annihilated my ancestors. How could I not hate Turks?


When I heard in April that Turkey threatened economic sanctions against Canada and recalled its ambassador because Prime Minister Stephen Harper publicly recognized the Armenian Genocide, all the anger I've felt towards Turks came rushing back. Why do they use scare tactics on anyone who acknowledges that, between 1915 and 1923, the Ottoman Turks killed 1.5 million Armenians in the first genocide of the 20th century? Twenty-one countries have recognized it, and the European Union has been urging Turkey to face up to its past if it wants to join. I know you should never hate, but how else am I supposed to feel about a nation that tried to annihilate my ancestors-and is still denying it?

Read The Full Post by Clicking Here Read Full Post !

1056) The Armenian Question And The European Parliament

. .
The European Parliament’s (EP) Turkey report was adopted this Wednesday after long debates and certain amendments.

The main controversy surrounding the draft report broke out over the article providing that Turkish accession to the EU would not be possible unless Turkey recognized the Armenian “genocide”. This section of the draft report was omitted by 320 votes to 282. On the other hand, the report incorporated expressions denoting Turkey’s recognition of the Armenian “genocide” as a mandatory requirement.There is a great discrepancy between these two expressions which, at first glance, appear to have the same meaning. The first conveys how recognition of the Armenian “genocide” is a precondition for EU membership. The second indicates how Turkish recognition of the Armenian “genocide” is a necessity, but that the lack of such recognition can not impede Turkey’s accession to the EU.

Rather vague expressions in the draft report making references to the Pontus and Assyrian genocides were retained. The reporter Eurlings, stated that these expressions did not denote recognizing the genocides in question, but that they aimed at making Turkey probe her past. In the light of how the proposal advanced by Greek and Greek Cypriot parliamentarians requesting Turkish recognition of the Pontus “genocide” was rejected by a large margin, Eurling’s statements should be regarded as being accurate. However, this does not mean this topic will fade into the woodwork. As expressions referring to the Pontus and Assyrian “genocides” were incorporated into the report, addressing this issue in subsequent reports shall be of greater ease.

Why were the statements made at the EP Foreign Affairs Committee denoting the recognition of the Armenian genocide as a precondition for Turkey’s EU membership not adopted by the plenary of the European Parliament?

The differing opinions regarding Turkish accession prevalent among the members of the EP provides for the answer to this question. Conservative circles, in particular the Christian Democrats, oppose Turkey’s membership due to a variety of reasons spanning from it not being a Christian country and not having a European culture to plain racism. On the other hand, the Socialists, Liberals, and Greens, are of the view that, should the necessary requirements be fulfilled, foremost the Copenhagen criteria, Turkey should accede to the EU. It is to be noted that a great majority of the members of this group subscribe to Armenian genocide allegations and have cast votes in the past falling in line with this disposition. However, they do not view the recognition of these allegations as a precondition for Turkey’s EU membership.
When it became apparent that the conservative group was trying to exploit the Armenian “genocide” with the aim of dissuading Turkey from EU membership, the Socialists, Liberals, and Greens intervened to have this article removed from the draft report.

Yet, they did not object to statements requesting Turkey’s recognition of the Armenian “genocide” which were dissociated from the issue of membership.
Turkey has not won, nor has it lost, the ongoing battle in the European Parliament waged over Armenian genocide allegations. Yet, during these times when Turkey’s membership remains a matter of great controversy this can be viewed as an accomplishment.

In the final count, it should be noted that at some time in the future, perhaps next year during the negotiations of the upcoming Progress Report, the Armenian, Pontus and Assyrian genocide allegations might very well come to the fore once again and engender the same controversies though with a differing scale of vigor.

Omer Engin LUTEM
29 September 2006
IKSAREN




Turkey must face up to past, says EU
THE European Parliament voted yesterday to tell Turkey it must "face up to its past'', in the context of the alleged genocide of Armenians during the First World War, if it wanted EU membership.

MEPs meeting in Strasbourg also agreed to warn Ankara that talks on EU membership could be frozen unless it opens its ports to Cypriot ships.

Armenians say that as many as 1.5 million of their ancestors were killed in a campaign by Ottoman Turks. Turkey disputes the figure by 1.2 million, and says a combination of war, disease, famine and ethnic conflict were responsible.

The report "stresses that although the recognition of the Armenian genocide as such is formally not one of the Copenhagen criteria [setting out conditions for EU membership] it is indispensable for a country on the road to membership to come to terms with and recognise its past''.

"Lack of progress'' on Turkey opening its ports would have "serious implications concerning the negotiation process and could even stop it,'' the report said.

The report's author, Camiel Eurlings, a centre-Right Dutch MEP, said the Turkish government was heading "toward a cliff''.

The report was immediately rejected by Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish prime minister, who said it was "unacceptable'' for any extra conditions to be attached to Turkey's EU entry.

"You cannot change the rules halfway through the match,'' Mr Erdogan said. "The game has started and the rules are there.''

Earlier this week there was an angry reaction in Turkey to comments from José Manuel Barroso, the European Commission president, saying that further enlargement of the EU should wait until member states agreed to revive major changes to the internal power structures of the EU, originally contained in the now defunct EU constitution.

The Daily Telegraph (LONDON)
September 28, 2006
David Rennie in Strasbourg

Read The Full Post by Clicking Here Read Full Post !

1055) The Establishment of the Armenian Protestant Community, Saro Dadyan

The Establishment of the Armenian Protestant Community
Saro Dadyan

Armenian-Gedikpasa Protestant Church in the old heart of istanbul
The biggest intra-community conflicts and problems in the history of the Ottoman Armenians were experienced because of the conversions to other denominations. The first thing that comes to mind when one mentions converting to a different denomination wihtin the Armenian community is the acceptance of the Catholic faith and the conflicts that were experienced because of that. Many bloody incidents, executions, and exiles were experienced during these conflicts, which spread over a time period of more than two centuries. The peak of the events was reached during the reign of Sultan Mahmud II and many notable Armenians were exiled because of the conflict between those Armenians who converted to the Catholic faith and did not give up their faiths and the Armenians who were affiliated with the main church. All of the Catholic Armenians were exiled to Anatolia and rebellions and executions were experienced.

Before the solution of this problem and the recognition of the Catholic Armenians as a separate community, a new conversion movement, namely the process of converting to the Protestant faith started. The meeting of the Armenians with Protestant missonaries and the Protestant faith started in the 1820s. An American Protestant missionary named Parsan, who started making propaganda among the Christians in the Middle East, was partially successful and after a short while, one started to come across Protestant Armenians in the Middle East. Even a bishop named Agapos of Kırshehir, who was one of the clerics who was afiliated with the Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem, and a priest named Dionisios Garabedyan went to Beirut, accepted the Protestant faith and got married there in contradiction with the traditions of the Armenian Church (Tuğlacı, 313).

The beginning of the systemic protestant missionary activities took place in 1831. The prioritized objective of names such as William Goodell, Emil Smith and Dwight, who came to Istanbul with their families and settled there, was to engage in activities among the Armenians and Greeks in the city. However, later on, they saw that the Armenians were more inclined and prone to convert to the Protestant faith and they carried out their work mostly in this area (Arpee, 93). In 1832, a Jewish misson was established under the leadership of William Schauffler. By 1856, the Protestant missions had to be divided into two parts, North and South, because the mission work had expanded (Artinian, 54).

The work area in which the Protestant missionary activities were most successful was education. In 1834, a missionary school was established in Beyoğlu. Since education at this school was free, it turned into a center which the Armenian students who were affiliated with the main church preferred as well. In 1840, the school that was administered by Cyrus Hamlin was moved to Bebek and continued its work. Among the goals of the missionary school was to educate local clerics and new missonaries in addition to general education. Furthermore, a Protestant Armenian girls’ boarding school was established in Haskoy, which was one of the neighborhoods where the Armenian community was most dense and where the community life was experienced most intensely. In this school a strict religious education was provided, the girls were educated according to Protestant morality and the girls were educated to be religious, well-mannered, and educated spouses for the clerics, teachers, and civilians of the future to help them in their missions. As a matter of fact, three fourths of the girls who were affiliated with the main church and educated at this school converted to the Protestant faith (Artinian, 54).

In addition to the schools in Istanbul, the Protestants built schools in various cities of Anatolia in a short amount of time. The Getronagan high school in Antep, the Yeprad school in Harput, the Anatolia high school in Merzifon, and the schools of higher education in Tarsus were only some of these. They had literacy books and lessons that they had others prepare and they also published many books on various subjects. In addition, in 1839 they published a newspaper named Isdemaran Bidani Kidelyats, i.e. The Warehouse of Necessary Information, and they published a weekly journal named Avedaper, i.e. Harbinger, in 1885 (Tuğlacı, 315).

The Protestants played a really significant role in the cultural and educational life of the Armenians. William Goodell, who knew both Armenian and Turkish very well, translated the Bible into Turkish so that it could be more understandable and could spread to larger masses, and it was published in Turkish with Armenian letters in 1858 (Tuğlacı, 313). These works of Goodell and the modern education that was provided at the Protestant schools started a trend of simplification of the language and the spreading of modern education among the Armenians who were affiliated with the main church. However, the religious education that was provided at the Protestant schools was contrary to the doctrines that were taught in the Armenian Church. The Protestant doctrine clearly viewed the rites of the church that had been continuing for centuries, its belief in the saints and its doctrines as false and they made propaganda to the Armenian students accordingly (Berberyan, 296-297).

Therefore, the Armenian Church and the Armenian clerics were against the Protestant missionaries and their work from the very beginning. In 1837, Patriarch Isdepanos Aghavni Zakaryan ordered those Armenians who sent their children to Protestant schools to remove them from those schools. In 1839, again Patriarch Isdepanos issued a written order and banned participating in any Protestant activity in any form and having relations with the Protestants. After this written order, those who kept secrets about the Protestants and those who helped them were punished in various ways. Many tradesmen were evicted from their homes and dismissed from their professions (Berberyan, 265-269). The subsequent Patriarch Hagapos also pursued the same policy vis-à-vis the Protestants. He banned converting to another denomination and he exiled those clerics, whom he thought to be inclined to Protestanism, to Kayseri. Matteos Chuhajiyan, who was the Istanbul Armenian Patriarch between the years 1844-1848, had research conducted when he became the Patriarch and he saw that hundreds of people were living as secret Protestants in Istanbul. He tried to give them advice first to make them return to the main church. He had discussions that were open to the public organized between the Armenian clerics and the Protestant Missionaries. He sent the Armenian clerics who were preaching the Protestant faith written advice for them to return to the main church (Tuğlacı, 314-316). However, Patriarch Matteos failed in this path and he started to adopt a harsher attitude because of the impact of the high ranking Armenian clerics. In 1846, the Patriarch demanded from the Protestants to sign a written declaration of faith composed of nine articles to announce that they had returned to the main church. Those who refused to sign this declaration were excommunicated by the Patriarchate and all of their property was confiscated. The debts of those who owed money to the Protestants were erased by the Patriarchate. The debts of those who had receivables from the Protestans were collected rapidly (Artinian, 55). Those clerics who were preaching the Protestant faith in the provinces were dismissed by the Patriarchate. This reaction by the Patriarchate was protested swiftly by the British envoy Sir Canning, American envoy B. Cary, and Prussian envoy Baron le Coque. Even a special meeting was organized between the Patriarch and the British envoy (Tuğlacı, 316).

Despite all of this pressure from the Patriarchate, the Protestant community continued its activities and continued to expand. Forty Armenian Protestants, who got together in 1846, established the first Protestant Armenian Church in Istanbul. In addition, Armenian Protestant churches started to be established in Izmit, Adapazarı, and Trabzon as well. In 1846, when the Patriarch Matteos issued a written excommunication, the Armenian Protestant population was more than a thousand (Arpee, 269). The Protestant community, which was expanding rapidly, established its churches in Erzurum in 1847 and in Antep and Bursa in 1848. In addition to the work of the community and the pressures from the Armenian Patriarchate, the British Empire and America also made attempts at the Ottoman palace so that the Protestant community would be officially recognized and would be accepted as a separate community and they applied various pressures. Especially the British Envoy Sir Stratford Canning, who was known to be influential on the Sultan Abdulmajid and who was among the prominent names of the period, made attempts to convince the sultan using all of his influence (Artinian, 55) .

Finally, in November 1859, Sultan Abdulmajid issued an edict regarding the Protestant Armenian community being recognized as an independent community that is free with regards to its internal affairs like the other communities (For the whole text of the edict see Tuğlacı, 371-372). However, there was no heavy influence and leadership of the clerics in the Protestant Armenian community as there was in the other communities. A civilian name undertook the leadership of the community. After Sultan Abdulmajid recognized the Protestants as a separate community, the leadership of the community was undertaken firstly by Isdepan Agha Seropyan, who was the brother of Patriarch Hagapos Seropyan of Balat, who had banned converting to a different denomination and exiled those clerics who had preached the Protestant faith (Tuğlacı, 315).

The Protestants, whose population reached eight thousand in the whole of the Empire, were able to continue their education in European and American universities and they could be protected by the diplomatic immunity of those countries through the embassies that protected them (Bournoutian, 148). After it was recognized, the Protestant community developed quickly and while they had fifteen churches in 1854, they doubled that number in a short amount of time, by the year 1859.

In 1854, the American Foreign Missions Board sent a short but effective regulation, which was a summary of the American Protestant Church by-law in order to organize the administration of the Protestants in the Ottoman Empire, to organize the publication and education activities and the financial administration of the comunity (For the text of this regulation see Artinian, 142-44). The Armenian Protestant community obtained permission to establish an executive committee and a people’s committee to administer the community. After the government gave a positive response to this request, they started to ensure the administration of the community within the framework of this regulation and through an assembly (Artinian, 56).

The administration of the Protestant church by civilians and according to certain rules affected the other Armenian churches to a large extent. As a result of this, the Catholic Armenian community prepared a regulation composed of twelve articles and issued it. Especially, this situation became an inspiration for the Young Armenians, who wanted to do something to transform the community in the main church. Hagop Girjikyan, who was the advisor of Mustafa Rashid Pasha, indicated the Protestants as an example to the prominent members of the Young Armenians and advised them to prepare a constitution for the administration of the community and the path that led to “Nizamname-i Millet-i Ermenyan” (Regulation of the Armenian Nation) in 1863 started in this way (Davison, 128-129).

The Protestant Armenian community, which had five churches in Istanbul throughout history, used the Latin Cemetery in Pangalti as their cemetery. Until the declaration the Republic, the community was represented by a total of seven leaders and after the declaration of the Republic, it also lost this quality of symbolic representation (Tuğlacı, 315).

Bibliography

Arpee, Leon. (1909). The Armenian Awakening: A History of the Armenian Church. Chicago.Artinian, Vartan. (2004). Osmanlı Devleti’nde Ermeni Anayasası’nın Doğuşu. İstanbul: Aras Yay.

Berberyan, Avedis. (1871). Badmutyun Hayots. İstanbul.

Bournoutian, George A. (2011). Ermeni Tarihi. Enver Abadoğlu, Ohannes Kılıçdağı (Çev.). İstanbul: Aras Yay.

Davison, Roderic H. (2005). Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda Reform. Osman Akınhay. (Çev.) 2005: Agora Kitaplığı.

Tuğlacı, Pars. (1991). İstanbul Ermeni Kiliseleri. İstanbul.

Read The Full Post by Clicking Here Read Full Post !

1054) The Settlement of Armenians in the Ottoman Period, Saro Dadyan

The Settlement of Armenians in the Ottoman Period
Saro Dadyan

Armenian Cemetary in Beyoglu
Istanbul, which was built between the years 325-330, has always been an important center for the Armenians because it was the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire. When the Armenian Catholicos of the period, i.e. the head bishop Surp Sahag, who came to Istanbul to obtain ratification from the Empire at the beginning of the years of the Eastern Roman Empire, together with Surp Mesrob and his students, they stayed at the Agomidian Monastery. The group studied theology and philosophy in the capital, they succeeded in their purpose for coming to the city, and they managed to develop an alphabet that was suitable for the sound system of the Armenian in the years 404-405. That is, the Armenian alpahabet that is also used today was developed in Istanbul and it was taken to Armenia from there (Grousset, 2005, s.166-169)

Since the geography in which the Armenians lived was between the Eastern Roman Empire and the Sasani Empire, the Armenians were affected the most by the wars and conflicts between the two states. Especially in the fifth century a large Armenian population, most important of which were the aristocrats, moved to Istanbul during the long war that was aged between the Armenians and Sassanians in the fifth century (Grousset, 2005, p. 185 ?vd.). The Eastern Roman Empire welcomed these new immigrants in a nice manner because the existence of Goths and Jews in the army had been ended and there was an attempt to fill the void that was left with the Armenians (Mango, 2008, s. 33). The migrations that continued in the fifth and sixth centuries reached such a stage that by the year 572, it was possible to speak of a crowded and organized Armenian community in Istanbul (Pamukciyan, 2002, p.1).

According to what Assyrian Mikhael wrote in his Vekayiname, the Armenians, who were able to organize as a separate community in Istanbul, had a church named Armenion within the city. This church was administered by the notable Armenian civilians of the city and they were headed by a priest. However, Emperor Alxios I (1081-1118), who got angry because the Armenians collaborated with the Turks, who were attacking the imperial territories, had this church destroyed and had all of the sacred properties of the Armenians burned in the squares of the city (Assyrian Mikhael). After this date, the Armenians could not have a church in Istanbul again when it was under Byzantine rule. However, they were able to establish a church and episcopate in Galata, which was under the Genoese rule (Tuğlacı, 1984, p.194).

When Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror conquered Istanbul, the city, which had not erased the traces of the Latin invasion period, had turned into ruins completely under the seige. The population of Istanbul is estimated to be between thirty thousand and fifty thousand when the Ottomans conquered it. Sultan Mehmed, who was determined to return the city to its former majesty, started a big movement for building development. New shopping centers were built in the city center and the city walls were fortified (İnalcık, 54). In addition, Subashi (Municipal official) Suleiman Bey was appointed to increase the population of the city and families were brought to the city from Anatolia – at first on a voluntary basis and then in compulsory manner- and there were also Armenians among those who came to the city (Aşıkpaşazade, 157).

Thanks to this, it became possible to create an Armenian community in Istanbul in a short amount of time. There were Armenians also among those families who were brought to the city by force. Nerses, who was an Armenian merchant from Amasya, accused Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror in his poem that he wrote in 1480 of starting storms among people by dragging his people and the Christians from place to place and he stated that he was brought to Istanbul against his will (Mansel, 15). The population of Istanbul in 1478 reached 14,803 households including the ones who came voluntarily and those who were brought by force, and 817 of those households were Armenian (İnalcık, 54). Since a large movement for building development was experienced in Istanbul in the Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror period, having mostly architects, foremen, and workers among those who were broght to the city was emphasized. While those who were tradesmen, merchants, and professionals among those who came to the city were settled in the city, others were settled in the villages around the city and artists, carpenters, ship builders, architects, and foremen were directly commissioned to work for the Sultan (İnalcık, 2000, p. 54; Karaca, 2008, p. 28).

The first big convoy of Armenians who were brought to the city by Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror were the Armenians of Bursa, who came to the city under the leadership of the Bursa head bishop in 1461. So the Armenian Episcopate, which had been in Bursa since the time of Orhan Gazi, moved to Istanbul as well. This was so important that many researchers, among whom Chamchiyan was a pioneer, deemed this migration in 1461 as the establishment of the Istanbul Armenian Patriarchate (Çamiçyan, 1776, s. 500). Among the first Armenians who came to the city were clerics, artists, architects, tradesmen, merchants, farmers, and workers. These people were mainly settled in houses and rooms in the following neighborhoods: Samatya, Kumkapı, Narlıkapı, Beyoğlu, Gedikpaşa, and Galata. Since the Armenians were mainly settled in six neighborhoods when they were first brought to Istanbul, they were called the “Six Communities” in the city until the middle of the 1800s. This expression was used not only among the people, but also in the official documents (Tuğlacı, 1984, s. 5; Pamukciyan, 2002, s. 4).

The second large-scale collective migration of the Armenians into the city during the Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror period took place in 1475 after the conquest of Crimea. The Genoese who were brought from Kaffa and who were mostly working in trade and the Armenians were settled mostly in two neighborhoods: Galata and Karagumruk. Therefore, the already high Armenian population in Galata increased and the Armenians were able to have a neighborhood for themselves apart from the mixed neighborhoods. The Galata Armenians, who constituted the wealthiest and most cultured group, also used Turkish names of Tatar origin such as Orhan, Tanrıvermish, Eyne Bey, Shadi Bey, Shirin Hatun and Melek Hatun, in addition to Armenian names, because they were from Crimea originally (Kuban, 2004, s. 217).

The second neighborhood in which the Armenians from Kaffa were settled was Karagumruk. The neighborhood started to be called “Kaffali” (i.e. from Kaffa) because mostly the Genoese and Armenians who were brought from Kaffa were settled here and it still has this name today. The two abandoned Greek churches in the area were given to be controlled by the Dominican priests who came from Kaffa. The first of these churches was named Santa Maria (Odalar Masjid) and the second one was named Saint Nicola (Kaffali Mosque). Therefore, all the church records were kept in Latin and Armenian and these books are preserved at the Saint Paul Dominican Church archives in Galata today. Later on, the right to use Saint Nicola was taken from the Armenians and the community was allocated an abandoned Greek church in Balat instead. This church is currently used by the Armenian community under the name Surp Hreshdagabed (Frazee, 16; İncicyan, 38).

The neighborhood in which the Armenian population in the city was most dense was Samatya. Most of the Armenians who were brought to the city in 1461 were brought here, and after 1470 and the conquest of Karaman, the Armenians in Anatolia were brought to Istanbul, and settled in this neighborhood. Therefore, the Armenian population in this neighborhood is generally from Anatolia. Until 1478, the Armenian population in Konya, Karaman, Aksaray, and Eregli continued to be brought to Istanbul and settled in Samatya. In addition, the Peribletoptos Monastery in Samatya, which was one of the most magnificent and sacred places of worship in the city, was allocated for the use of the Armenians and this sanctuary was the venue for the Istanbul Armenian Patriarchate until 1641. As a matter of fact, this sanctuary is still being used by the Armenian community under the name Surp Kevork (Kuban, 2004, s. 188; Eremya Çelebi, 3).

The forced relocation of the Armenians to Istanbul continued also during the reigns of the sultans that came to power after Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror. During the Iran campaign of Sultan Yavuz Selim in 1514, many Armenian families around Tabriz, Erzurum, Kemah, Muş, Sivas, and Erzincan were forced to relocate to Istanbul. In addition, many Armenian families around Ankara, Sivas, Tokat, Bayburt, and Adana were also forced to relocate to Istanbul in the same period and they were settled in various neighborhoods. Sultan Yavuz Selim had 200 Armenian trademen families brought from Tabriz to Istanbul during the Iran campaigns and he had 500 Armenian tradesmen families from Cairo brought to Istanbul and he used them in various services (İnalcık, 200, p. 67).

Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent also had Armenians brought to Istanbul in the campaigns he organized in the east and he had them settled. However, the most notable ones of the Armeinan families who were brought during the reign of the Sultan Suleiman were the goldsmiths who were brought from Eghin. These Armenian aristocrats, who traced their lienage to the Vaspuragan Armenian Kingdom because they were from Eghin and who considered themselves a remnant of that kingdom, were settled in Haskoy. These people, who took over the administration of the Armenian community in Istanbul in a short amount of time and who raised to the position of the civilan leaders of the community, maintained the administration of the community in their hands until the middle of the 1800s because they established close relations with the Ottoman palace. During the reign of Sultan Murad III many artists, farmers, workers, foremen, and architects of Armeinan origin were brought to Istanbul from Tabriz, Georgia, and Nakhchivan and they were employed by the palace and they worked in the building development activities in Istanbul (İnalcık, 2000, s. 69; Pamukciyan, 5).

The rise of the Armenian population in the city rapidly and its reaching a high number took place as a result of the Jalali rebellions, which occurred at the beginning of the seventeenth century. The rebellious movements, which took place between the years 1596-1610, started a migration movement, which was named as “The Big Escape” in Anatolia. Peoples came from not only Anatolia, but also from the different corners of the empire such as Thrace, Crimea, and Syria and there were also Armenian families among those who fled. Especially the Armenians in the Caucasus fled to Istanbul in large convoys. The Ottoman administration did not want to accept them at first, but they had to accept them after the eruption of the rebellion movements in 1612. According to what was recorded by the Simeon of Poland in his Travel Book, while there was a small Armenian population in Istanbul before, this population reached forty thousand households with those who fled the Jalali rebellions (İnalcık, 2000, s. 69; Pamukciyan, 5).

The Armenians were generally settled in the neighborhoods around the city gates. For example, Armenian gypsies called Posha used to live in Topkapi. Most of these Poshas, who generally made a living as sieve masters, converted to Islam during the reign of Ahmed III and the rest assimilated within the Armenian people (Kömürcüyan, 23). Another neighborhood in which the Armenians had a population density was Yenikapi. Before the Imperial Edict of Gulhane, the size, architectural plans and exterior fronts of the houses of non-Muslims were subject to certain rules and restrictions. Nevertheless, the neighborhood in which the Armenians were most free was Yenikapi, because this area used to be a bay before and there used to be a marble tower which was left from the Byzantine period in the middle of the sea. The stones and rubbles that emerged during the construction of the Laleli Mosque were poured into the sea, this bay was filled and this new area that was gained was sold to the non-Muslims. Generally Armenians lived here together with a small number of Greeks (İncicyan, 1976, p. 4 vd.)


When we look outside the city walls, the Armenians generally had a population density in the Haskoy, Kasimpasha, Beyoglu, and Galata neighborhoods. In addition, the neighborhood in which they lived generally indicated the profession in which they worked. For example, Haskoy Armenians were generally goldsmiths, Beyoglu Armenians were millers or bakers, Galata Armenians were merhcants, and Kasimpasha Armenians were mostly dock workers or sailors. Furthermore, especially wealthy Armenians started to live in the villages at the Bosphorus as summer houses and places of entertainment starting in the eighteenth century. On the other side of the Bosphorus, there was generally a dense population of Armenians in the neighborhoods of Beykoz and Uskudar. Especially Uskudar was an important center in which a close-knit community life was lived together with deep-rooted institutions such as churches, monasteries, schools, and clerical schools, which had continued their existence since the sixteenth century (Dadyan, 71 vd.).

After the Big Beyoglu Fire in 1870, the Armenians who had lived around Beyoglu and Galata started to spread mostly to the Pangalti and Kurtuluş areas and this is one of the neighborhoods in which the community is mostly concentrated today. Today the Armenian community in Istanbul is estimated to be between fifty thousand and sixty thousand, and most of this population lives in neighborhoods that are linked with the counties of Şişli, Bakirkoy, Kadikoy, and Adalar (Prince Islands).



Bibliography

Aşıkpaşazade. 1970. Tarih. Yay. Haz. Nihal Atsız.

Çamiçyan, M. (1786). Badmutyun Hayots. Venedik.

Çark, Y. G. (1953). Türk Devleti Hizmeti’nde Ermeniler.

Dadyan, Saro. (2011). Osmanlı’da Ermeni Aristokrasisi. İstanbul: Everest Yay.

Grousset, Réne. (2005). Başlangıçtan 1071’e Ermenilerin Tarihi. Çev. Sosi Dolanoğlu. İstanbul: Aras Yay.

Frazee, Charles A. (2009). Katolikler ve Sultanlar. Çev. Cemile Erdek. İstanbul: Küre Yay.

İnalcık, Halil. (2000). Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun Ekonomik ve Sosyal Tarihi. İstanbul: Eren Yay.

İncicyan, Ğugas. (1976). XVIII. Asırda İstanbul. Çev. Hrand Der Andreasyan.

Karaca, Zafer. (2008). İstanbul’da Tanzimat Öncesi Rum Ortodoks Kiliseleri. İstanbul: YKY

Kömürcüyan, Eremya Çelebi. (1952). İstanbul Tarihi. Çev. Hrand Der Andreasyan.

Kuban, Doğan. (2004). İstanbul Bir Kent Tarihi. İstanbul Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yay.

Mango, Cyril. (2008). Bizans Yeni Roma İmparatorluğu. Çev. Gül Çağalı Güven. İstanbul: YKY.

Mansel, Phillip. (2008). Konstantininyye. Çev. Şerif Erol. İstanbul: Everest Yay.

Pamukciyan, Kevork. (2002). İstanbul Yazıları. İstanbul: Aras Yay.

Polonyalı Simeon. (1964). Seyahatname. Çev. Hrand Der Andreasyan.

Süryani Mikhael. Vekayiname. (This work was translated by Hrand Der Andreasyan, it has not been published and the text of the unpublished translation is kept at the TTK Library with classification number T/44 today).

Tuğlacı, Pars. (1991). İstanbul Ermeni Kiliseleri. İstanbul.

Read The Full Post by Clicking Here Read Full Post !

28.9.06

1053) Al-Jazeera Interview with President of Armenia, Robert Kocharian

. .
ARMENIA: ACHIEVEMENTS AND FAILURES

SHOJ: I would like to thank you Mr. President for giving Al-Jazeera News Network the opportunity to talk with you. Let me start with my first question: For 15 years, Armenia has been an independent state. What are the major achievements and failures of that period?

KOCHARIAN: First, we were able to form a country with an efficient government. The most important achievement at the time was the transition period during which we needed to develop a system for market economy and government administration. After the fall of the Soviet Union, Armenia faced difficulties as it had to immediately form all the requirements of an independent state, from governmental bodies to the military and economy. At the same time, Armenia suffered from regional problems that raised a lot of challenges. Therefore, for the past 15 years, Armenia has been trying to find its place, drawing up its new foreign policies that would help establish its existence according to the new realities and circumstances.This was the main mission, and I believe the country has succeeded in accomplishing this task. The numbers we have today on economic stability and growth indicate that we have completed the transition period successfully. However, the most difficult problem that Armenia faces now is without doubt the problem of Nagorno Karabakh.

SHOJ: What steps are you taking to solve the energy problem that Armenia faces, especially that your country does not have the natural resources such as oil and gas?

KOCHARIAN: We cannot describe the energy situation in Armenia as critical. We do have efficient energy, which means that although we do not have the resources, we still export electricity to the neighboring countries. We have completed the necessary changes in the energy sector, and today we have no fuel or gas debts, and all the power plants are making profit. At present, we are building about 50 hydroelectric plants, and we have restored and upgraded the nuclear power plant which was shut down during the Soviet era and is now working at full capacity. Without doubt we are seriously thinking about securing energy; thus, we are building a second gas pipeline from Iran which will provide Armenia with natural gas without any interruptions. It is possible that Armenia will become a center for energy distribution in South Caucasus providing electricity to the other countries.

SHOJ: Mr. President, the Nagorno Karabakh conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan is considered the first bloody ethnic conflict in the ex-Soviet republics. 12 years after the ceasefire, what peaceful steps are being taken to settle the Karabakh problem?

KOCHARIAN: I would like to clarify that the conflict is between Azerbaijan and Nagorno Karabakh, and Armenia was drawn into it - that is the precise description of the conflict. Without doubt, the conflict started between Karabakh and Azerbaijan. When the Soviet Union collapsed, two independent republics came into existence: the Republic of Azerbaijan and the Republic of Nagorno Karabakh. No one should doubt that the existence of the independent Republic of Nagorno Karabakh is legal according to international law. There were attempts to subjugate Karabakh and force it to become part of Azerbaijan. That is the reason why the war broke out.

SHOJ: At present, about 20% of Azerbaijan territory is under the control of the Karabakh forces. Is there any progress in the negotiations with Azerbaijan regarding the Nagorno Karabakh conflict?

KOCHARIAN: The main problem lies in the fact that Azerbaijan insists on keeping its territorial integrity, and it considers Karabakh to be part of the Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan. The fall of the Soviet Union resulted in radical changes. The whole map of Europe changed. Look at what happened in the Balkans and the ex-Soviet Union during these fundamental changes. Talking about territorial unity in this context, about any territory, has no legal standing. We have never been against any country's territorial unity and integrity because we also have a country. However, we believe that Azerbaijan and Nagorno Karabakh each have equal rights for territorial integrity. Both are countries with the right to exist independently. This is the obstacle that the negotiations have been facing for the past 15 years. Nagorno Karabakh is an independent state. It was never a part of the independent Republic of Azerbaijan. I was born in Karabakh, and at one point I also led the freedom movement. We were never part of independent Azerbaijan. Today, a generation has emerged that does not relate to Azerbaijan and cannot even imagine living under another country's rule.

SHOJ: Is Armenia, or more specifically Nagorno Karabakh, demanding only the administrative borders of Karabakh or does the demand include the 20% of Azerbaijan territories that is under Armenian control?

KOCHARIAN: There exist two lies. The first is that 20% of Azerbaijan territory is occupied, and the second is that there are one million Azeri refugees. The true numbers are totally different. However, the numbers made up by Azerbaijan have been repeated so many times that it is now believed to be the reality. The number of refugees actually includes people from both sides: Armenians and Azeris. During Soviet rule, there lived half a million Armenians in Soviet Azerbaijan, excluding those living in Karabakh. Where are they now? Part of those Armenians are now in Armenia, another part are living in Russia, and a third group are scattered around the world. Regarding the occupied lands, it does not constitute 20% of Azerbaijan. It is much less than that. Regardless, there are lands outside the administrative borders of Karabakh which are now occupied by the Armenian forces. We have repeatedly stated that, except for the narrow strip of land (Lachin) between Karabakh and Armenia, we are prepared to negotiate the terms of returning territories to Azerbaijan. If Azerbaijan truly cared about its refugees and the situation in those lands outside the administrative borders of Azerbaijan, it could have restored them a long time ago if the Azeri president had signed the agreement in Minsk and which was drawn up by the OSCE Minsk Group.

SHOJ: For a long time, you were the head of what could be called the Liberation Movement in Nagorno Karabakh. Today, what are the political aims of Karabakh? Is it striving to become an independent state or to become part of the Republic of Armenia?

KOCHARIAN: Legally, Karabakh today is an independent state, and the government there is striving to strengthen the governmental institutions. For Armenia, both possibilities are suitable. I think in the future, relations between both countries - Armenia and Karabakh -will develop and form a federation. The future will decide what will come after that. The future generations will decide on the kind of relation the two countries shall have.

SHOJ: In your opinion, will the international community recognize the independence of Nagorno Karabakh.

KOCHARIAN: I do not recall any similar situation which resulted in recognition that came easily. Decades of hard work are needed for a young nation to get that recognition. There are factors. One important factor is for the world to see that an independent state has proven itself as an efficient state, capable of performing the tasks that any independent country can perform on its territories. I believe that Nagorno Karabakh has proven that it is a nation that can rely on itself and is capable of developing as a nation. Therefore, I am optimistic about the recognition. In fact, the Republic of Armenia and the Armenian Diaspora around the world are actively working on gaining this recognition soon so that Nagorno Karabakh can join the international community. In order to achieve this, Karabakh is making the necessary changes to build better social institutions and to achieve effective democracy.

SHOJ: Mr. President, at the beginning of the 20th century, the Armenian people were subjected to wholesale massacres perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire. Today, there is an ongoing debate regarding this issue. What are your basic demands from the government of Turkey: do you want them to admit and apologize for those massacres or are you demanding compensation for the descendants and relatives of the victims of that period?

KOCHARIAN: Compensation can be demanded by those who suffered because of those massacres. I think that a lot of the Armenian Diasporans in the world have the legal right to demand compensations. The Republic of Armenia does have many demands also. There should be diplomatic relations with neighboring Turkey. There should be normal neighborly relations rather than the blockade that Turkey has imposed to paralyze Armenia. In addition, there is also Turkey's stance regarding the Nagorno Karabakh settlement. Turkey is occupying northern Cyprus and has regular military bases there, yet it demands that Armenia take certain steps regarding Karabakh. This only shows the hypocrisy of Ankara and it raises a lot of questions regarding Turkey's policies. Thus, our position is strongly connected to the current situation and with Turkey's reactions towards the general mood of the Armenians around the world. We have a very long and heavy history, and we inherited a burdensome relationship with Turkey. We cannot forget our past, but there should be a natural way to reconciliation between the two peoples. Reconciliation can start with the acknowledgment of guilt by those who committed the wrongs or crimes - call it whichever. But at present Turkey does not have the will to admit the crime, and this is causing the current situation.

SHOJ: There is the opinion that the Armenian Genocide recognition was lately brought up at a time when Turkey is negotiating its entrance to the European Union.

KOCHARIAN: The issue of the Armenian Genocide recognition has existed for a long time, but lately, it is being discussed in wider circles. Armenia, as an independent republic, announced its position at the United Nations in 1998. I have discussed it at the OSCE meetings in Istanbul, as well as during our meeting with the Turkish president at the time Suleiman Demirel and his Foreign Minister. This was long before negotiations began between the EU and Turkey regarding the latter's membership. That is why I would not relate the two. However, the EU is asking Turkey to reconsider its history and review its past, and this raises our hopes that Turkey will come to terms with its past and admit the Armenian Genocide. It is important that past actions be recognized in order to avoid similar crimes from occurring in the future.

SHOJ: Do you think this is enough to start normal relations with Turkey? How do you evaluate the relations with Ankara?

KOCHARIAN: Today, there is no relation with Turkey. Our position is clear. We are prepared to build diplomatic ties with Turkey without any pre-conditions. In our opinion, cooperation is the best method to resolve the conflict, a way in which all sides will save face. This cooperation could take place through continuous search for the best solutions. But Turkey, at present, puts pre-conditions that it has agreed upon with Azerbaijan regarding Nagorno Karabakh. Their condition is that the Armenians pull out their forces from Karabakh and only then will the borders between Turkey and Armenia be opened. These conditions are not acceptable by Armenia. The Greeks could do the same and refuse trade with Turkey until the Northern Cyprus issue is resolved. World experience has shown that trade, normal relations and continuous cooperation have always helped overcome obstacles. For example, there is a territorial conflict between Russia and Japan regarding the Kuril Islands, but neither side is making this problem a pre-condition for trade relations.

SHOJ: Armenia has difficult relations with its neighbors, with Azerbaijan over Karabakh and with Turkey as you explained now. But there are problems with Georgia as well. The Armenian community in Georgia has its own problems with the Georgian government. But there is a neighbor with whom you have excellent relations, and that is Iran. What is your country's position on Iran's rights to develop its nuclear program? And what do you think about the international pressure that Iran is subjected to regarding this issue?

KOCHARIAN: Our relation with Iran is developing dynamically, and there exist no disagreements between the two countries. We have a large trade agreement. We are undertaking huge energy projects - huge regarding the size of Armenia - such as the gas pipeline and a third electricity line. We are also planning to build a large Hydroelectric plant on the Arax River to generate electricity, in addition to other projects in the energy sector. There is a very wide cooperation between Armenia and Iran; therefore, any problems between Iran and the West would definitely have negative effects on our projects. For us, Iran is a very important country in the region with which we have had historical relations. I consider the Iranians to be the heirs of a very old civilization, and we respect their culture. The Iranian nuclear program is a very sensitive issue between Iran and the West, particularly the USA. We hope and believe that a diplomatic solution to this problem will be found. We also believe that implementing any kind of sanctions against Iran will not be practical; any military action against Iran will be catastrophic for the whole region. We hope that this problem will be resolved peacefully. The suggestions made by the Six countries provides optimism. As we understood, the Iranian position is very positive regarding these suggestions. This problem needs patience, continuous work and compromise from all sides to solve this issue. Armenia is one of the countries that will benefit most from a peaceful solution to this problem.

SHOJ: Armenia is considered the main ally of Russia in the South Caucasus. What is the secret for this good relation between Russia and Armenia?

KOCHARIAN: We inherited quite a rich and historical relation and cultural exchange, in addition to the common interests that have improved for decades, or even for hundreds of years. Today, we are preserving this inheritance and using it to further our common interests. Until today, we have succeeded in maintaining this relation. After the fall of the Soviet Union, some countries in South Caucasus gained independence and began drawing their own policies based on their own interests. Similarly, Armenia also took its interests into consideration and was successful in keeping whatever potential it had, benefiting from past experience, and applying what could be beneficial for Armenia and Russia. We have excellent relations with Russia in the economic and military sectors, as we have very good relations with Iran. We are also developing our relations with the European Union since we were admitted to the EU Neighborhood program and now we are trying to implement the requirements of that program. In addition, our relations with the USA are very special especially because of the aide that Armenia receives from the USA and we were included in the 3rd Millennium Program, which is helping Armenia develop economically. We maintained the relations we already had and developed them without creating any disagreement between the nations and their interests. We work with the belief that all the interests of the powerful countries meet in Armenia, rather than clash, and we try to avoid any step that could be considered a danger to the security of our partners.

SHOJ: Mr. President, in the Middle East, there exist a large Armenian Diaspora. What is the nature of the relations between Armenia and the Arab countries? And what's the position of the Arab world regarding Armenia's foreign policy?

KOCHARIAN: In general, Armenia has good relations with the Arab countries, and these relations developed as a result of the bloody events that befell the Armenians in 1915. The Arabs welcomed the Armenians and helped them get back on their feet. For this reason, we have great respect towards the Arabs. For many years, the Armenians and the Arabs had lived under the oppressive Ottoman rule. This historical period is reflected in the literature and the art of the Arabs and the Armenians. The long and special relation between the two peoples provides the conditions that could be developed at the state level. We have very good relations with the Arab countries where there are Armenian communities who have lived and worked for generations, proving that the Armenians are hardworking, loyal people. Their positive stance has influenced the natural development of the relations between the two peoples. We appreciate and assess very highly this relation; therefore, we will stay very good friends with the Arab world. This relation is not based on the interests of the two peoples; in fact, it is based on the long experience of many generations of both peoples.

SHOJ: Mr. President, at the end of this interview, allow me to thank you for giving the Al-Jazeera News Network the opportunity to talk with you. We wish you and the people of Armenia peace and progress.

KOCHARIAN: Thank you and good luck.


Al-Jazeera News Network, Qatar Sept 28, 2006
Translated from Arabic by Katia M. Peltekian exclusively for the Armenian News Network/Groong

Program: Liqa' Khass (Exclusive Interview)
Host: Zawer Shoj
Guest: Robert Kocharian, President of the Republic of Armenia
Date of Prgm: September 17, 2006




Comment: Omer Engin LUTEM - PRESIDENT KOCHARIAN'S VIEWS

President Kocharian is a political figure who does not talk much. Therefore when he does, what he has to say attracts a lot of attention even if his remarks are bereft of anything new. His interview with Qatar’s El-Cezire News Agency on September 28th , during which he discussed Armenia’s international relations, is of significance particularly due to it having verified Armenia’s policies vis-à-vis Azerbaijan and Turkey which are not subject to changeƒx.

President Kocharian began his interview by stating that persons who suffered damage by the “genocide” were entitled to receive compensation from Turkey. Regarding this issue two points draw attention. Firstly only those persons who suffered damage can demand compensation. In other words, it is possible to derive that the Armenian government shall not pursue such a claim. President Kocharian had touched upon this topic during an interview with Mehmet Ali Birand in the year 2001 as well asserting that as a state they could not demand compensation because the Armenian State was non-existent during the period in question (1915-1916).

However, on account of having said this he was subject to sharp criticisms from the Dashnaks. Now he suffices to say that a claim for compensation can be made on the part of those who suffered damage without making any reference to the “Armenian State”.

Coming to the topic of whether or not those persons who suffered damage are legally entitled to receive compensation, as there does not exist a provision dealing with compensation in any of the agreements that resolved the problems pertaining to the First World War, in particular the Lausanne Agreement, it is not possible for Armenians to demand compensation on an individual basis. If a claim for compensation could be made, this right would have been exercised long ago and national as well as international courts would have been flooded with such cases.

At a later phase of the interview, President Kocharian, touching upon the existing problems between Turkey and Armenia listed the following issues: the non-existence of diplomatic between the two countries, the blockade (with which he is referring to how border gates are currently closed), and the position Turkey took on the Karabagh problem in support of Azerbaijan. He also stated that they would not forget the past; however he mentioned that the two peoples should be reconciled and that this could only begin “with the acknowledgment of guilt by those who committed the wrongs or crimes-call it whichever”. This line of thought infers that the normalization of relations between the two countries is contingent upon Turkey’s acceptance of the Armenian genocide allegations.

However, stating that they would like to establish diplomatic relations with Turkey, Kocharian also asserted that they would not wait for Turkey to recognize the genocide allegations to accomplish this. The contradictory aspect of this statement points to Kocharian’s need to satiate the obsession of the Diaspora with the so called ‘genocide’ whilst offering Turkey Armenia’s readiness to establish normalized political relations. He also points out that Turkey has been adamant about the precondition of the withdrawal of Armenian forces from Karabagh to which Kocharian says Armenia is not willing to comply.

It is true that Turkey has set forth pre-conditions for the normalization of relations with Armenia. This is because Armenia has not recognized Turkey’s current borders, has exerted efforts for the recognition of genocide allegations on the part of Turkey and other countries and has occupied Karabagh (legally bound to Azerbaijan) and the other Azeri lands.

If relations with Armenia were to be established devoid of any pre-conditions, as a result, Armenia would continue to not recognize Turkey’s territorial integrity, to propagate genocide allegations and occupy Karabagh and other Azeri territories. As such, Armenia would have obtained its will without paying a price.

03 October 2006
IKSAREN

Read The Full Post by Clicking Here Read Full Post !

1052) Child Pornography and Armenian Issue in the Netherlands Politics

. .
It is really strange. The Armenian issue has become an issue in the run up to the Dutch elections. The two leading Dutch parties in the opinion polls have kicked out prospective Turkish MPs because they do not accept the Armenian claims are true. The candidates, one from the opposition Labor Party and two from the biggest coalition party - the Christian Democrat CDA - are Dutch/Turkish politicians who have worked for integration of the Turkish and Muslims in the country.

There are strong Armenian communities and lobbies in many countries including Armenia. Armenians are actually a nation of diaspora. The diaspora population of the Armenians is higher than the population of motherland. The diaspora Armenians are very keen on to make all world governments to recognize the so-called Armenian genocide.

The Armenians believe in that the 1915 Events Under the Ottoman Rule was a genocide although even the term of ‘genocide’ was unknown at that time. Turkey has never accepted the Armenian claims and accused the Armenians of massacring more than 520.000 Muslim Ottoman citizens, namely Turkish and Kurdish people. Turkey’s so-called ‘deny’ made the nationalist Armenians crazy and they started a revenge campaign. The Armenian fanatics murdered many former Ottoman ministers after the First World War and made great pressure on the parliaments where they live in against the Turkish interests. In 1970s, the Armenian reaction against Turkey transformed into Armenian terrorism. ASALA and other Armenian terrorist organizations assassinated more than 40 Turkish diplomats and civilians. The Armenian terrorists made armed operations in many countries, including France, Greece, United States, United Kingdom, Austria, Spain, Iran, Switzerland etc.

Many people were also wounded. The bombs were put in the Turkish bank branches, airway offices and embassies. The Armenian terrorist organizations were backed by the Communist intelligence services and Palestinian terrorist organizations. They were trained in Lebanon and Syria. The most dramatic fact for Turkey was that the military alliances in NATO, notably France and Greece, ignored the Armenian terrorists. The terrorists even found safe haven in Greece and Greek Cyprus.

When the terrorist attacks hit Western targets and killed some Western citizens, the United States and Western European states put great pressure on the Armenian groups and the Armenian terrorist organization strangely vanished. Some of the Turkish academicians argue that the Armenian groups handed their arms and terrorism facilities to the Kurdish separatist terrorist organization PKK. The PKK and ASALA made agreements in London and Beirut. The end of the terrorist attacks was actually a fresh start for the parliament lobbying for the Armenian communities. The Armenian Church and Armenian extremist groups aimed to persuade at least 100 foreign parliaments to recognize the Armenian historical claims as truth.

The Armenian activists never applied a court for their cause although they claimed that more than 1,5 million Armenians were massacred by the Ottomans. Strangely the Armenian figure has changed a lot:

Some Armenian books claimed about 750.000 Armenians were killed, while some others were speaking about 1,5 million. Even some Armenian activists in Wales argued more than 2,5 million Armenians were slaughtered by the Turks. According to the Ottoman archives the total Armenian population was less than 1,5 million.

Armenians started campaigns and lobbied to issue Armenian bills against Turkey in almost all countries in the world. They focused on the North American and Western European parliaments. The Armenians hoped that if the West recognize the Armenian claims, they would force Turkey recognize the Armenian cause. But they were simply wrong. Turkey has never been persuaded in any issue like this. How Armenians harmed Turkish interests abroad, Turkey became more hostile towards the Armenians. The Armenian attacks abroad made the Turkish people crazy.

Netherlands was not an exception. The Armenian lobbying has always been strong in this country. Armenian community concentrated in Amsterdam during the 17th and 18th centuries, and the Armenian Dutch citizens became very influential despite their relatively small population. The exact number of Armenians in the country now is unknown, but it is unofficially estimated that about 4,000 to 6,000 Armenians live in the Netherlands. However the Armenian influence on Dutch politics is still strong, particularly on the Turkish issues. One of the reasons for this is the Armenian global solidarity. The Armenian lobbying parties in Western Europe unite in each cases and make lobbies. For example, about 300.000 Armenians live in France and they have MPs, businessmen, authors etc. in France and all these strong people join in any lobbying activities in EU countries.

Thus the Armenian cause become strong in the countries where the Armenian population is really small, like United Kingdom, Netherlands and Belgium. Second reason is the strong anti-Turkish circles in these countries. Many in the Netherlands believe that the Turkish people are not European and Turkey’s EU membership must be prevented. The EU summits however confirmed that Turkey’s EU membership cannot be stopped in terms of economic and political criteria. Turkish economy is better than Bulgaria’s, Romania’s, even some of the EU members right now. Under these circumstances, the Armenian issue with the Cyprus issue provide perfect tools to keep the Turks outside. Third, there are traditional anti-Turkey groups in the Western European countries like the Greeks, Greek Cypriots, racist and religionist European groups, Marxist Turks and PKK supporters.

All are natural partners for the Armenian lobbying groups against Turkey. None of these groups lose any opportunity in damaging Turkish interests in Europe. Thus an anti-Turkish coalition emerged, and when the Armenians attempted to push the Dutch or any other parliament to accept the Armenian claims as truth, all the mentioned anti-Turkey groups unite behind the Armenians. It was the case when the Dutch Parliament accepted the Armenian 1915 allegations. The Dutch Parliament adopted a resolution recognizing the 1915 events as genocide in 2004. According to the accepted resolution the Dutch government had to push for recognition of the so-called genocide as part of the negotiations for Turkey's desired accession to the EU. Tineke Huizinga from the Christian explains the official Dutch position:

"More than one and a half million people were murdered during the time of World War I by Turkey and this was a genocide and you can absolutely compare this with the Holocaust."

It is really strange and non-based because there was no country named Turkey in 1915. Turkey was established in 1923. The country at that time on Anatolian territory was the Ottoman Empire. Dutch politicians compare the 1915 Events with the Holocaust but Israel reject any comparison between Holocaust and 1915 Events. The following quotation from a Nobel Prize winning Israeli statesman, Shimon Peres, closes the discussion:

“We reject attempts to create a similarity between the Holocaust and the Armenian allegations. Nothing similar to the Holocaust occurred. It is a tragedy what the Armenians went through but not a genocide... Israel should not determine a historical or philosophical position on the Armenian issue. If we have to determine a position, it should be done with great care not to distort the historical realities.” (Peres: Armenian Allegations are Meaningless’, Turkish Daily News, 10 April 2001; Haig Boyadjian, ‘Peres Claims Armenians Did Not Experience Genocide’, Asbarez, 10 April 2001).

Turkey has rejected all accusations and blamed the Dutch politicians of undermining Turkish-Armenian reconciliation. Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan call the Armenian side to establish a joint commission to discuss the historical disputes instead of foreign involvements. However the Armenians rejected all good will offers and continued to their anti-Turkish efforts in the Western parliaments. Strangely Armenia does not recognize Turkey’s eastern borders despite the written agreements, like Kars Agreement. Second, Armenia has occupied 20 percent of Azerbaijan and about 1 million Azeris have been refugees since the occupation.

The genocide-like massacres in Hocali town (Azerbaijan) was pictured and documented well by the Western media. However none of the European or North American Parliaments mentioned all these issues but discussed the disputes happened almost a century ago. I personally do not believe that the Western parliaments love the Armenians and give great importance to history. If so, they should first recognize the Algerian genocide committed by France after the Second World War. Genocides committed by the Belgium, Germans or Russians should have been on the list. If these parliaments give so importance to the massacres and genocides, they should have mention the war crimes and massacres committed by the Armenians during the Ottoman time, after the First World War and Karabakh War. All of us know that all these things are dirty politics. The Armenian issue is being abused, and the Armenians are happy with abused by the Western politicians.

DUTCH POLITICAL PARTIES AND RACIST DISCRIMINATION
Armenians saw the Ducth elections as another opportunity to raise their arguments and to harm the Turkish interests in this country in 2006. It made the headlines after questions were raised by the Armenian community in the Netherlands when the names of the candidates were made public on the party lists for the November elections, and a heated discussion soon followed.

The Turkish-Dutch candidates in question had clearly stated in the past that, in their view, the 1915 events were not genocide but communal calashes. They said the so-called genocide not taken place. This view is contrary to the official policy of some of the Dutch political parties.

It was a clash with this position that brought the CDA candidates Ayhan Tonca, Osman Elamci and Labour Party candidate Erdinc Sacan into problems with their parties. Ayhan Tonca has constantly denied the genocide occurred: "The genocide that people talk about never took place" he said.

Although Mr. Tonca doesn't deny that hundreds of thousands of people died, he argues that there needs to be further investigation to see if the killings were consciously carried out by the Ottoman government at that time. Many Turkish people and even the current Turkish Government think in this way. Turkey accepts that thousands of people were killed and died during the 1915 Relocation. Turkey says that it was difficult times, and the war circumstances with poor economic conditions caused epidemics and famines in Anatolia. According to the Turkish historians many Armenians died due to the famine, bad weather conditions, epidemics and lack of health etc. facilities. Turks also accept that many more Armenians were killed by the armed gangs, mostly Kurdish.

The previous Armenian attacks against the Kurdish tribes caused revenge attacks and some Kurdish gangs also attacked the Armenian immigrants hoping to get their valuables. What is obvious that the Ottoman soldiers could not protect the Armenian civilians and thousands of Armenians were killed or died due to the ‘natural reasons’.

Turkish candidates explanation was not in line with the CDA’s and Labour Party’s official policy, and events that followed the initial uproar made things even harder for the CDA to accept. As a matter of fact that these Turkish candidates do not accept some other CDA policies, like Turkey’s full EU membership. The Armenian and anti-Turkey lobbies’ pressure left the CDA with little choice but to remove them from the list of candidates. The Dutch Labour Party decided to scrap its candidate from the list after the Turkish-Dutch candidate refused to stand by the so-called official party policy recognizing the Armenian claims. According to the candidates removed from the list, this was unacceptable, because the political parties are known as the symbol of different ideas and freedom of speech. If a politician cannot think in different ways in political parties, where does he/she can do so?

The Netherlands has been known for its liberal laws and political system. Dutch even allow paedophile group. A Dutch court turned down a request to ban a political party (the Brotherly Love, Freedom and Diversity Party, PNVD) with a paedophile agenda. Dutch PNVD seeks to lower the age of sexual consent from 16 to 12 and legalize child pornography and sex with animals. "Freedom of expression...including the freedom to set up a political party can be seen as the basis for a democratic society," Judge Hofhuis told the journalist after the verdict.

As a result, you can defend child pornography and sex with animals in the Netherlands but you cannot have different opinion on Armenian issue.

If you are Turkish you have to obey what the imposed on you. Shut up, and accept it!

You have no choice but recognition of what you did not commit.

Thanks God, the Netherlands is a liberal and democratic country.

slaciner@gmail.com
28 September 2006
Sedat Laciner is the Director of the Ankara-based think tank U.S.A.K. & Davos Economic Forum Young Global Leader 2006

Copyright © 2005
Journal of Turkish Weekly

Read The Full Post by Clicking Here Read Full Post !

1051) "Turkish people will never accept false "Armenian genocide" Gulsun Bilgehan

"Turkey will face pressures for the false "Armenian genocide" till Armenia gives up its groundless claims. The main thing here is Turkey's demonstrating decisiveness and rejecting the baseless claims once and for all," member of Turkish parliamentary delegation to PACE, CHP parliamentarian Gulsun Bilgehan told.

The parliamentarian said there some shortfalls in the work to prove groundlessness of the false claims of "Armenian genocide". . .

“Despite certain measures, the report of the European Parliament showed there still some shortfalls in this field. This is due to the unstable activity of the authorities.

The French experience showed that pretenders go back when they encounter a severe reaction. For instance, France rejected its bill on recognition of the false.

"Armenian genocide. We'll continue our struggle if the similar bill is on the agenda. I think the authorities make some mistakes and do not work efficiently regarding this matter," she said.

Ms.Bilgehan stressed that the Turkish people will never accept the false "genocide" claims.

"The Turkish people will never accept these claims. All must know this. We are not going to enter the European Union by accepting a false claim," she stressed.

Gulsun Bilgehan is Turkey's second President Ismet Inonu's granddaughter, APA reports.

27 September 2006
Today.Az

Read The Full Post by Clicking Here Read Full Post !

27.9.06

1050) Dutch political parties scrap candidates who deny WWI massacre of Armenians was genocide

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands The two largest Dutch political parties have scrapped ethnic Turkish parliamentary candidates who refuse to acknowledge the mass killings of Armenians during World War I amounted to genocide.

The candidates include Ayhan Tonca of the governing Christian Democrat Party. Tonca is one of the country's most prominent Muslim politicians and is chairman of an umbrella organization of Islamic groups known as CMO.

The Christian Democrats also retracted the candidacy of Osman Elmaci, and the opposition Labor Party ended the candidacy of Erdinc Sacan. . .

In their platforms ahead of next month's election, both parties have staked out positions on Turkey's possible entry into the European Union, a divisive issue around the continent.

The Labor Party has adopted a view shared by others in Europe that Turkey should be required to recognize the killings as genocide before it can be allowed to join the EU.

Whether the mass killings of a million or more Armenians in the last years of the Ottoman Empire nearly a century ago constituted a genocide has been the subject of academic and political debate.

The Netherlands and most European governments consider it a genocide. Turkey and many Turkish scholars, and others, vehemently deny the deaths resulted from systematic slaughter, saying the death toll of 1.5 million is wildly inflated and that both Armenians and Turks were killed in fighting during the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.

The U.S. government has shied away from using the word "genocide" to define the killings.

Earlier this month the European Parliament voted for the inclusion of a clause requiring Turkey "to recognize the Armenian genocide as a condition for its EU accession."

Though their parliamentary runs were ended, the three politicians were not expelled from their parties. None could immediately be reached for comment Wednesday.

Tonca and Elmaci had initially said they would assent to the Christian Democrat Party's official position acknowledging the killings as genocide, but both later denied they shared that view in an interview with a Turkish newspaper.

"As a result of an interview in the Turkish paper Sabah, a discussion took place between the party and Mr. Elmaci and Mr. Tonca," the CDA said in a statement. "In this discussion it was determined that there is a structural difference of opinion over recognition of the Armenian Genocide."

It said the men would not be candidates and thanked them for their services.

Labor's Sacan had never accepted his party's position accepting the genocide as a fact.

The Associated Press
September 27, 2006




Turkish candidate penalized for refusing to support Armenian claims

In the Netherlands, a Turkish candidate for MP status in the Social Democrat Workers' Party has been removed from the party's candidate list following his refusal to acknowledge Armenian claims of genocide by Turkey.

Ethnically Turkish Dutch citizen Erdinc Sacan was previously on the list for the upcoming November 22 elections in the Netherlands, this after being elected to a leadership position in 2003 in the Netherland's Brabant State. The leader of the Dutch Social Democrat Workers' Party commented on the situation, saying "It was a difficult decision. But there cannot be any ambiguity within our party with regards to our stance on this question. The fact that Sacan was not giving his support clearly to the party on this position left us with no other choice."

© Copyright 2006 Hürriyet




Armenian Genocide’ Hinders Turkish-Dutch Candidates
As the European Union presses Ankara for a revision of Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code that limits free speech, Turks are facing their own difficulties in the Netherlands.

Three Turkish-origin candidates were removed from their party lists in the Netherlands for the Nov. 22 early parliamentary elections on the pretext that they did not acknowledge the purported Armenian genocide.

Removing the Turkish-origin candidates from party lists was a result of efforts of the Armenian lobby in the Netherlands, and the move provoked angry responses from Turkish-origin citizens and Turks in the country.

The Christian Democrat Party received a letter last week from the Armenian lobby that said there was a strong connection between the ideas of the Turkish candidates and the policies of Turkish officials in Ankara.

The three Turkish candidates were expected to win seats in the parliament, but they were removed from their party lists because they did not want to acknowledge that there was an Armenian genocide, reporters said.

Leaders of the Turkish society in the Netherlands categorized the decision to remove the three Turkish candidates from the election as “‘a shame” and “racist.”

“Some of the young Turks wanting to be involved in politics here faced a choice between politics and acknowledgment of the Armenian genocide. This means that the notions of democracy and freedom of thought are applicable only to the kind of people who are born European; in other words, this is without doubt a double standard and discrimination. What’s more, this is racism,” said Kasim Akdemir, chairman of the Turkish Islamic Cultural Association Federation.

Officials from the parties that removed the Turkish candidates from their candidate lists argue that the Dutch government officially acknowledges the purported Armenian genocide, an argument based on a recommendation that the Christian Union Party offered on Dec 21, 2004 for parliamentary discussions, and which also received complete approval from other political parties.

Removal of the three Turkish candidates drew attention to other Turkish-origin candidates.

The Social Democrat Labor Party has Nebahat Albayrak placed second on its list, along with three more candidates on the list.

These three other candidates are Keklik Yucel, placed 48th, Ali Sarac, placed 61st, and Huri Sahin, placed 76th.

Coskun Coruz is another Turkish candidate that the Christian Democrat Party put on its list, placed 19th.

Derya Bulduk, a Belgian politician of Turkish origin, had to bow to pressure from her own party when she “denied” the existence of the Armenian genocide.

“This Incident Violates Freedom of Speech”

Some members from the European Parliament (EP) characterized the removal of the three Turkish candidates as a violation of the freedom of expression.

Vural Oger, a Turkish member of the EP, sharply condemned the decision to stop the three Turks from running for elections. Joost Lagendijk, chair of the Joint Parliamentary Committee with Turkey, expressed unease with the kind of things happening in the Netherlands and further said that denial of the right to run for elections because of different ideas was a clear infringement of the freedom of expression.

Cem Ozdemir, another EP member, found neither the Turkish nor the European approaches correct to the matter at hand and defied the argument that prohibitions would not work.

News of the three Turkish candidates excluded from their party lists came when the EP voted on a report regarding Turkey.

The EP has a report on Turkey that sharply criticizes the Turkish government for allowing the freedom of expression to be violated by keeping Article 301 in its Penal Code.

“Did the Netherlands account for what it did in Indonesia, Italy in Libya, France in Algeria, and Spain in South America? Why is it only Turkey that is pressed to account for what it did in the past?” asked Oger.

Shocked, Lagendijk said that he had his own system of thinking about this issue that neither went with Turkey nor Armenia, and backed up Erdogan’s recommendation to set up a joint commission.

By Emre Demir, Basri Doğan, Strasbourg, Amsterdam
September 28, 2006
zaman.com

Read The Full Post by Clicking Here Read Full Post !

1049) Did Talat Pasha Send Secret Telegrammes Ordering Genocide?

Baseless Armenian propaganda claiming that so-called genocide was an Ottoman government policy requires proof that such a decision was in fact made. For this purpose the Armenians produced a number of telegrams attributed to Talat Pasha supposedly found by British forces commanded by General Allenby when they seized Aleppo in 1918.

It was claimed that they were found in the office of an Ottoman official named Naim Bey, and that they could be destroyed only because the British occupation came with unexpected speed. Samples of these telegrams were published in Paris in 1920 by an Armenian author named Aram Andonian, (38) and they also were presented at the Berlin trial of the Armenian terrorist Tehlirian, who killed Talat Pasha. Nevertheless, the court neither considered these documents as "evidence" nor was involved in any decision claiming the authenticity of them. . .

These documents were, however, entirely fabricated, and the claims deriving from them therefore cannot be sustained. They were in fact published by the Daily Telegraph of London in 1922, (39) which also attributed them to a discovery made by Allenby's army. But when the British Foreign Office enquired about them at the War Office, and with Allenby himself, it was discovered that they had not been discovered by the British army but, rather, had been produced by an Armenian group in Paris. In addition, examination of the photographs provided in the Andonian volume shows clearly that neither in form, script or phraseology did they resemble normal Ottoman administrative documents, and that they were, therefore, rather crude forgeries.

Following the Entente occupation of Istanbul, the British and the French arrested a number of Ottoman political and military figures and some intellectuals on charges of war crimes. In this they were given substantial assistance by the Ottoman Liberal Union Party, which had been placed in power by the Sultan after the war, and which was anxious to do anything it could to definitively destroy the Union and Progress Party and its leaders, who had long been political enemies. Most of the prisoners were sent off to imprisonment in Malta, but the four Union and Progress leaders who had fled from the country just before the occupation were tried and sentenced to death in absentia in Istanbul. Three other Government officials were sentenced to death and executed, but it was discovered later that the evidence on which the convictions had been based was false.

In the meantime, the British looked everywhere to find evidence against those who had been sent to Malta. Despite the complete cooperation of wome enthusraztic supporters such as the Ottoman Liberal Union (38) ANDONIAN, Aram, Documents Qfficiels concernant les Massacres Armmiens, Paris, Armenian National Delegation, 1920. (39) Daily Telegraph, 29 May 1922. government, nothing incriminating could be found among the Ottoman government documents. Similar searches in the British archives were fruitless. Finally, in desperation, the British Foreign Office turned to the American archives in Washington, but in reply, one of their representatives, R. C. Craigie, wrote to Lord Curzon:

"I regret to inform your Lordship that there was nothing therein which could be used as evidence against the Turks who are at present being detained at Malta ...no concrete facts being given which could constitute satisfactory incriminating evidence.... The reports in question do not appear in any case to contain evidence against these Turks which would be useful even for the purpose of corroborating information already in the possession of His Majesty's Government.''(40)

Uncertain as to what should be done with prisoners, who already had been held for two years, without trial and without even any charges being filed or evidence produced, the Foreign Office applied for advice to the Law Officers of the Crown in London, who concluded on 29 July, 1921:

"Up to the present no statements have been taken from witnesses who can depose to the truth of the charges made against the prisoners. It is indeed uncertain whether any witnesses can be found." (41)

At this time the "documents" produced by Andonian were available, but despite their desperate search for evidence, which could be presented in a court of law, the British, never used them because it was evident that they were forgeries. As a result, the prisoners were quietly released in 1921, without charges ever having been filed or evidence produced.

It is useful to reiterate that the main elements in the chain of evidence constructed in proving that Andonian's "documents" were all patent forgeries:

1. To show that his forgeries were in fact "authentic Ottoman documents" Andonian relied on the signature of the Governor of Aleppo, Mustafa Abdiilhalik Bey, which he claimed was appended to several of the "documents" in question. By examining several actual specimens of Mustafa Abdülhalik Bey's signature as preserved on contemporary official documents, it is established that the alleged signatures appended to Andonian's "documents" were forgeries.

2. In one of his forged documents, Andonian dated the note and signature attributed to Mustafa Abdülhalik Bey. Again, by a comparison with authentic correspondence between the Governor (40) 13 July 1921; British Foreign Office Archives 371/6504/8519 (41) British Foreign Office Archives 371/6504/E8745

Aleppo and the Ministry of the Interior in Istanbul, on the date in question, it is proven that the Governor of Aleppo on that date was Bekir Sami Bey, not Mustafa Abdulhalik Bey.

3. Consistently, Andonian's forgeries attest to the fact that he was either totally unaware of, or carelessly neglected to account for, the differences between the Muslim Rumi and Christian calendars. The numerous errors he made as a result of this oversight are, in and of themselves, sufficient to prove the fabricated nature of his "documents". Among other things, the errors Andonian made in this respect served to destroy the system of reference numbers and dates that he concocted for his "documents".

4. By way of a detailed comparison of the entries made in the Ministry of the Interior's Registers of outgoing Ciphers, wherein are recorded the date and reference number of every ciphered communication sent out by the Ministry, with the dates and reference numbers placed by Andonian on his forgeries, it is proven that his so-called "ciphered, telegrams" bear no relationship whatsoever to the actual ciphers sent by the Ministry to Aleppo in the period in question.

5. Again, by comparing the Turkish "originals" of Andonian's " ciphered telegrams" with actual examples of contemporary Ottoman ciphered messages, it is shown that the number groupings he employed bear no relationship to the actual ciphers the Ottomans were using in that period. Thus, in his attempt to make his forgeries appear credible, he created a whole series of unusable, non-existent ciphers. Further, from the dates he affixed to his forgeries in this category, the Ottomans would have had to use the same ciphers over a six-month period which was impossible. By publishing a series of documents instructing officials to change the ciphers they were using, it is shown that, in fact, the Ottomans were changing their cipher codes on average once every two months during the war years.

6. By comparing the manner in which the common Islamic injunction, Besmele, was written on Andonian's two forged letters with numerous examples of the way in which it appears on authentic contemporary Ottoman documents, it is suggested that Andonian's clumsy forgery of this term may well have stemmed from the fact that non-Muslims, even those who knew Ottoman Turkish, did not employ this injunction.

7. A number of examples from Andonian's forgeries show that it is simply inconceivable that any Ottoman official could have used such sentence structures and make such grammatical errors. In the same vein, a host of expressions; allegedly uttered by prominent Ottoman officials are used, which no Ottoman Turk would ever have used. Andonian's intention in these instances was clear: he wanted nothing less than the Turks themselves to be seeming to confess to crimes which he had manufactured for them.

8. The forged documents, with two exceptions, were written on plain paper with none of the usual signs found on the official paper used by the Ottoman bureaucracy in this period. The fact that one of the forged Turkish originals was written on a double-lined paper, which the Ottomans did not even use for private correspondence, constitutes an even more serious error on Andonian's part. Even the two forgeries which appear at first glance to have been written on some kind of official Ottoman stationery are actually written on blank telegraph forms, which anyone wishing to send a telegram could pick up in any Ottoman post office.

9. At a time when the British were frantically searching the world's archives for anything to be used as "evidence" against the group of Ottoman officials whom they were holding for trial as being "responsible for the Armenian incidents", their failure to utilize Andonian's "documents" which were readily available in their English edition, strongly suggests that the British Government was fully aware of the nature of these forgeries.

10. Had documents of the nature of those concocted by Andonian ever actually existed, their confidential nature would have dictated that they be sent by courier for security reasons; rather than through the easily breachable public telegraph system. Likewise, had such documents really ever been written; it is inconceivable that they could have lain around in a file for three years, instead of being destroyed as soon as they had been read.

11. There are also numerous differences between the French and English editions of Andonian's book. Indeed, these variations are of such significance that it is absolutely impossible to ascribe them to printing errors, or errors in translation.

12. Finally, the fact that even some authors with close links to Armenian circles, who serve as spokesmen for Armenian causes, have indicated their own doubt as to the veracity of Andonian's "documents" should not be overlooked. In short, from start to finish the so-called "Talat Pasha Telegrams" are nothing more than crude forgeries, concocted by Andonian and his associates. Moreover the Ottoman archives contain a number of orders; whose authenticity can definitely be substantiated, issued on the same dates, in which Talat Pasha ordered investigations to be made to find and punish those responsible for the attacks which were being made on the deportation caravans. It is hardly likely that he would have been ordering massacres on one hand and investigations and punishments for such crimes on the other.

A letter forged by Aram Andonian with the date, February 18, 1331 (March 2,1916) opens with a "bismillah" (blessing), which would never have been written by a Moslem. The forger, Andonian, made his most fatal mistake with the date, however. He was obviously not well enough versed in the tricks of converting to the Rumi year of the Ottomans, where a difference of thirteen days between the Rumi and Gregorian calendars must be taken into account.

The date he put on the letter was off by a full year. Instead of 1330 (1915), he wrote 1331 (1916). The contents of the letter are supposed to be evidence of the long advance planning of the resettlement operation of 1915.(42) (42) Feigl, Erich. A Myth of Terror, 1991, Edition zeitgeschichten-Freilassing- Salzburg, p. 85

An American aid organization called "the Near East Relief Society" was allowed by the Ottoman Government to stay and fulfill its functions in Anatolia during the deportations. Even following the entry of U.S.A. into war on the side of Entente powers against Ottoman Empire, the same organization was permitted to remain in Anatolia. This was dealt in the reports of the American Ambassador Elkus in Istanbul.

In this case, if an order for "massacring Armenians" had been given, would the Ottoman Government have allowed to an American organization to be witness to the "massacres". In other words, it is ridiculous to suppose that the Ottomans said to America: "We are massacring Armenians. Why don't you have a look at it." Such an allegation could never be a logical explanation of historic facts. Finally, and in the end most important, when the war came to an end, the Armenian population still was substantially in place in Western Anatolia, Thrace and Istanbul. Had the Ottoman government ordered massacres, evidently they too would have been killed. And for that matter, had the Ottoman government wanted to eliminate all the Armenians in the Empire, it could have done so far more easily by killing and disposing of them where they lived, rather than undertaking a large-scale deportation of those in the Eastern war zones under the eyes of foreign observers.

The claim, thus, that the Ottoman government ordered and carried out a general massacre of Armenians in the Empire cannot be sustained and is disproved by the facts.

(An Editorial)
Mahmut Esat Ozan
Chairman-Editorial Board
Turkish Forum-USA

Read The Full Post by Clicking Here Read Full Post !