The United Nations Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities held its thirty-eighth session at the U.N. Office in Geneva from 5 to 30 August 1985. Among others, the Sub-Commission discussed item IV, entitled "Review of Further Developments in Fields Which the Sub-Commission Has Been Concerned". [1] It is also referred to as the "Study on Genocide", prepared by the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Benjamin Whitaker (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Island). In paragraph 24, the Rapporteur also referred to the Armenian issue, on which lengthy discussions took place.

A deliberate confusion has been created by some Armenian quarters on the status of the ‘Whitaker Report’. Let us read the following lines in the Armenian paper Courier,[2] which expresses a concern on a matter of principle: "As the intensity of the dispute between the Armenians of the world and the Turks heats up, it becomes increasingly more difficult to publish newspapers for Armenians in an objective and factual way. But it is the duty of the publisher of such papers to see that our natural bias does not get in the way of our responsibility to publish the facts honestly and impartially".

The quotation above may be born in mind in connection with the debates and the voting on the Whitaker Report. After debating agenda item IV at its 12th, 17th to 22nd, 35th to 37th meetings on August 13, 15 to 17, 20 and 29, 1985, the Sub-Commission adopted a draft resolution by 14 votes to 1, with 4 abstentions. Contrary to what the Armenian Asbarez,[3] the Armenian Haratch[4] or le Journal de Genève[5] wrote, the voting does not signify approval of the Whitaker Report. Such studies are personal products; it is up to the Rapporteur to change it or leave it as it is. Other members of the Sub-Commission may, if they wish, criticize or praise it, withhold it in the Sub-Commission or transmit it to a higher U.N. body. The French expert Mr. Joinet thought that it was the rule to transmit such reports to the higher Commission. I do not think that it will be wrong to say that Mr. Whitaker was the only expert member thoroughly criticized in the whole thirty-eighth session. According to some observers, no other U.N. expert was so much examined and opposed in the history of similar sessions. Severe criticism came from those who represented different legal systems, countries and continents. With all due respect to Mr. Whitaker as an individual and an intellectual, the criticisms were politely-phrased but were nevertheless hard and searching.


1. U.N., Economic and Social Council, E/CN. 4/Sub. 2 / 1985 / 6.
2. June20,1985.
3. California, August 31, 1985.
4. Paris, 22 novembre 1985.
5. 30 aout 1985.

Although Mr. Whitaker was also criticized on a number of other points as well, most of the lengthy debates centered on paragraph 24 of the Report, especially on its reference to the Armenians.

Prof. Turkkaya Ataov, early 2000s

  It may be useful to remember at this point why a reference to the same issue was not made in the previous Reports and why Mr. Whitaker chose to reintroduce it. As members of the Sub-Commission remember, the Armenian issue had been discussed in the past, and it was decided to take it out. This removal was not accidental, but the result of discussions and a certain evolution. In explaining the reasons of this judgement, the then Special Rapporteur had said8 that in deciding whether a given situation constituted genocide, it was important “not to confuse genocide with certain other crimes”. When work had begun on the historical part of the study, some suggested that many cases ought to be reviewed. But still many others opposed the idea. Nevertheless, "a number of cases considered to be beyond doubt had been taken up". It had been decided to retain the treatment of the Jews under Nazism. But other cases had been omitted. Therefore, if the Armenian issue did not appear in the previous Report, it was not an omission — but a well -thought out conclusion reached after years of discussions.

Mr. Benjamin Whitaker was named the new Rapporteur at a meeting held in 1983. I do not think that it is an exaggeration to say that from the very beginning he seemed determined to include the Armenian issue in his personal survey. Truly, one can say much more than that. As The Armenian Reporter admitted, he "clearly sided with the Armenians".[9]

First of all, the Rapporteur had preconceptions on the issue. He said later in the discussions on August 20, 1985, that he has been studying the Armenian problem for the last eight years. But in a statement that he had made on September 9, 1975,[10] that is, ten years ago, he expressed the same views even before he "began to study" the issue. He thanked Mr. Shavarsh Toriguian (described by The Armenian Reporter [9] as the representative of the Armenian National Committee in the Sub-Commission meeting) towards the end of his Report. But Mr. Whitaker did not need to be convinced by the Armenian lobbyists. In contrast to his close association with the Armenian circles, he preferred not to have similar contacts with the Turks. Consequently, he could not have analyzed Turkish material adequately.

As the Director of the Minority Rights Group (London), Mr. Benjamin Whitaker had published a 24-page booklet, entitled The Armenians, written by David Marshall Lang (Professor of Caucasian Studies at the University of London) and Christopher J. Walker (a journalist). No militant Armenian could have produced a better booklet for the propaganda of a unilateral version of history. Mr. Whitaker’s MRG printed it five times for a world-wide Armenian propaganda. It is also translated into French and Armenian.

[Holdwater note: Translation into these three languages is exactly how Aram Andonian approached his propagandistic "Naim Bey" work!]

* * *


8. CN.4/Sub.2/SR.222 (September 15, 1978).
9. August 22, 1985.
10. E/CN.4/Sub. 2/SR. 736.
11. August 15, 1985.

 Messrs. Lang and Walker admit the obvious by stating: "...Our Turkish friends may find it too pro-Armenian". Both writers have relied on Armenian sources, not only in terms of printed material, but also of personal contacts. This is true for the booklet in question as much as for the other publications of the same authors.[12]

In a list of 57 sources added as "Bibliography" to the end of the booklet, only two Turkish works are mentioned. One is Ziya Gökalp’s The Principles of Turkism, which is not on the Armenians, and the second is Kazim Karabekir’s IstiklaI Harbimiz (Our War of Independence). One wonders whether Professor Lang, for instance, has been able to read General Karabekir’s 1171-page massive compendium in Turkish.[13] If not, was it put on the list to give the reader an unfair impression that Turkish sources were also consulted? If read, however, why were none of the Turkish author’s first-hand accounts not related? As I explain in greater detail in another research entitled General Karabekir and the Armenians, the Turkish general’s account is a remarkable compilation of documents illuminating all aspects of his service. Lang and Walker, neither in their joint publication for the MRG, nor in their other separate books treat Karabekir’s account. Walker, for instance, in his Armenia,[14] does not quote any non-Armenian source on the Turkish taking back of the city of Kars in October 1920. He, nevertheless, lists Karabekir’s memoirs perhaps as a show-piece. Messrs. Lang and Walker could have also consulted “the Bristol Papers” in the manuscript division of the U.S. Library of Congress in Washington, D.C.— before writing that General Karabekir caused "a dreadful sequel of civilian massacre". Some twenty American Near East Relief Workers refute authors Lang and Walker. For instance, Admiral Mark Lambert Bristol (the Commander of the U.S. Naval Detachment, then) writes: ".. .Armenian reports are absolutely false". The MRG authors could have also consulted the interview with Paul Grescovich, the Austrian Chief of the lzmir Fire Department from 1910 to 1922 — again before
relying on the Armenian Housepian’s presentation of the Turkish retaking of the city and the notorious fire there.


As a matter of fact, the MRG monograph makes extensive use of Armenian writers, such as Daghlian, Der Nersessian, Housepian, Hovannisian, Karapetian, Krikorian, Matossian, Movsessian, Nalbandian, Ormanian, Pasdermadjian, Sahakian, Salmaslian, Sanjian, Sarkisian, Shiragian, Surmelian, Toriguian, Totovents and Vratsian. Consequently, their presentation and analysis are totally one-sided. The MRG monograph contains many sweeping statements with no factual basis whatsoever, Lang and Walker start their manuscript with a so-called Hitler "statement" (disparaging to the Turks), without perhaps knowing that it is already proved not to have been made.[15] On page 2, column 1 of the same monography, they refer to an "agreement concluded in 1920" by Mustafa Kemal and Lenin. The agreement referred to was signed on March 16, 1921. This is how authoritative the manuscript is even when it refers to well -known factual data. The authors also state that the Selçuk Turks came from Central Asia and Iran and overran "much of Anatolia in 1064". If they mean the famous battle of Malazgirt, which widely opened the gates of Anatolia to the Turks, the correct date is 1071. (The Turks, however, came to Asia Minor, much earlier than that as shamanists, some of whom embraced Christianity.) The authors give two different figures for the Armenian population in Turkey (100,000 and 250,000) on the same page. The monograph is full of emotionally charged phrases that cannot be substantiated.

In short, the new Rapporteur had a record of having sided with one of the parties to the "Armenian conflict". But he also wanted to give a verdict as a judge in a very controversial issue and expected the United Nations to adopt it.

*  *  *

California Courier Publisher Harut Sassounian speaking at a 2002 ANC event

The Armenian Reporter stated that several Armenians arrived in Geneva "to lobby" for the Armenian views. [16] The Armenian Asbarez wrote that the “Turkish delegation was outnumbered by the ANC (Armenian National Council) delegation even if we added their body-guards"." I was told by the Armenian lobbyists that they were thirteen the first day of the meeting. They included Messrs. Shavarsh Toriguian, Hrair Balian, Harut Sassounian, Christian der Stepanian, Roberto M. Malkassaian, Varoujian Attarian, Juan Stokatlian and others. The Armenian Reporter wrote that the first three represented the ANC and the Armenian Revolutionary Federation.[18] Later, they were joined by still others, including some Swiss citizens of Armenian origin. One of the latter, Armand Gaspard, told me that the Armenian lobbyists were “more numerous than the experts of the Sub-Commission. (The Sub-Commission is composed of 26 members.) An editorial in The Armenian Reporter[19] stated that the ANC representatives sent, under the cover of various nongovernmental organizations, "did extensive work there". A group of Armenians, who had come from Latin America, claimed the same in a press conference in Argentina.

=================

12. Lang mentions in the Preface of another book entitled Armenia (London, George Allen and Unwin, 1980) that he was first influenced by the Armenian Archbishop Nerses Melik-Tangian while the author was stationed in Tabriz as British Vice-Consul. The Cultural Association of the Armenian Ladies in Paris awarded this book the “Prix Brémond” for 1972, and it was also given the 1978 special prize of the New York Archdiocese of the Armenian Apostolic Church of America. In the Preface of his other book entitled The Armenians, (London, George Allen and Unwin, 1981) Lang thanks Messrs. G. and V. Aftanbilian (Mass.), the Armenian Ladies’ Association (Teheran), the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation (Lisbon), V. Khachatourian, K.K. Mazlumian, Dr. T. Toranion (Aleppo), Reverend M. K. Krikorian (Vienna) and J.H. Tashjian (Boston) — all Armenians.

13. How much Turkish the authors know can be discerned from the wrong typing of “miifeteIIj’~ There is no such word in Turkish, If it is supposed to mean “trustees”, it should be
“rniitevelli”.

[Holdwater: in a "revised and updated" report prepared by Whitaker (which this genocide site has put up, as if the report were actually accepted by the U.N.), the Armenophile Rapporteur has made sure to include other Turkish works. Whether he has read them or not is another story. The persuasive facts of the included "The Armenian File" by Kamuran Gurun, for example, is what turned around the views of Dr. Bernard Lewis.]

15. Heath W. Lowry, “The U.S. Congress and Adolf Hitler on the Armenians”, Political Co’munications and Persuasion, Vol. 3, No. 2 (1985), pp. 111-139; Ti~rkkaya Ata~v, Hit’ and the Armenian Question... Ankara, Sistem Of set, 1984.

^16. August 8, 1985,
17. September 7,1985.
18. August 22, 1985.
19. October 17,1985.

The same article in the Asbarez also wrote that I "unashamedly introduced" myself to the Armenians in the hall, the article further relating imaginary conversations with me. It was Mr. Toriguian, who first came to our table (in a way easily noticeable by everyone) when I was about to talk to the Indian expert of the Sub-Commission. He later conversed with a member of the Turkish Mission to the U.N., and they both invited me to join them.

The same article also tried to take lightly the fact that I have translated into Turkish and published in book form My Name is Aram by the celebrated American-Armenian author William Saroyan. (For the cover and the last page of the second edition of my translation, see Annex 1. [Holdwater: Unavailable here]) It was my first published book (when I was only twenty) — and perhaps the first Turkish translation of a Saroyan work. I would only harbour feelings of respect towards an Armenian who would render a Turkish author into his mother tongue. Truly, there was no prejudice in me, in my family, in the immediate circle of friends or in the mind of the publisher, who accepted the translation and published it immediately.

I had then selected William Saroyan because he loved the friendship of small, less complicated environments. He rose to great heights, often producing masterpieces. With no social graces and not wanting any, he preferred the rough-and-ready. His first short story was published in 1933 and was reprinted in the 1934 Best Short Stories. The Daring Young Man on the Flying Trapaze, which appeared the same year as title-story of his first volume, was an instant success. In 1939 he suddenly became a playwright with My Heart’s in the Highlands. He received the Pulitzer Prize for Drama in 1940 for The Time of Your Life (but declined it). His satirical novel The Adventures of Wesley Jackson was described as the first anti-war novel of the Second World War. "Aram" was the name of his own son, but his My Name is Aram was an autobiographical collection of stories that revolve around the life of a boy in Fresno, California. All this is certainly known to the Armenian intellectuals as well.

What they may not know equally well, however, is William Saroyan’s visit to Turkey and its consequences. He came to Turkey in May 1964, visiting Bitlis and the surrounding areas. He was very well received by the Turks of all levels, the simple folk of Bitlis embracing him in the outskirts of the town with traditional music and dancing.24 And Saroyan did not participate in the April demonstrations when he went back to California.25 Moreover, in a hand-written statement that he left with Turkey’s celebrated journalist, painter and photographic artist, Fikret Otyam, he stated that he came to “know the simplicity, hospitality and dignity of the Turkish nation”. (For a photocopy of the original statement, in Saroyan’s own hand-writing see Annex 2.) It was reported later that Saroyan’s absence in the April demonstrations in the United States could not go unnoticed. (For photographs of Saroy’ Turkey, see Annex 3.[Holdwater: Annexes 2 and 3 have been reproduced on this page.])

Quite distinct from the superficial sarcasm of the youthful writer of Asbarez this is what comes to my mind when somebody mentions this warm-hearted {great?} — William Saroyan.

*  *  *

The thirty-eighth session of the Sub-Commission was opened by Mr. {?} Toshevski, the Chairman of the Sub-Commission at its last session. It was attended by members of the Sub-Commission (the experts from Colombia, Ecuador and {So}malia being absent), by observers for member states, by an observer for a{?} member state, by a representative of the Office of the U.N. High Commission{er?} Refugees and by representatives of special agencies, an intergovernmental organization, national liberation movements and non-governmental organizations.

The Sub-Commission elected Mrs. Erica-Irene A. Daes (Greece) as Chair{woman?} and four other expert members as Vice-Chairmen and Mr. C.L.C. Mubanga-C{?} ya (Zambia) as the Rapporteur for the whole session. The election of Mrs. Daes {was} viewed by Armenian quarters "as a positive development in favor of the Armenian position in as much as Greeks, in general, sympathize with the Armenian cause {and} claims, often providing welcome support".[26]

At its first meeting, the Sub-Commission adopted a provisional agen{?} which included items such as racial discrimination, gross violations of human  rights, the rights of detainees, scientific and technological developments, indigenous populations, the new international economic order, slavery, child labour, promotion of human rights at all levels and human rights and disability. The Sub-Commission discussed all these topics in their relation to human rights in general, during a {?} of thirty-nine meetings.[28] This booklet will, nevertheless, concentrate on the Whitaker Report, at times mentioning others only in terms of comparison.

Mr. Kurt Herndl, the Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights {?} made the Preliminary Statement, said that equality and non-discrimination are the two essential principles enshrined in the U.N. Charter. The U.N. had established for all time the principle that human rights were a matter of international con{trol}. There existed today an international code of human rights. Newly emerging problems were studied, and rules were established for dealing with them. The U.N. developed its advisory services and the technical assistance it offered to govern{ments?}.

24. Fikret Otyam, "Baba Ocaginda", Cumhuriyet, 31 (May) - 10 (June) 1964
25. {Missing}
26. The Armenian Reporter, August 8,1985.
27. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1985/1.
28. I spoke on behalf of EAFORD during the 9th, 20th and the 29th meetings. My first {?} was on South Africa (E/CN.4ISub.2/1985/SR.9), the second on the Whitaker Report (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1985/SR.20) and the third on the violation of human rights of the Palesti{ne -- missing document number}

Mrs. Gu Yijiye (People’s Republic of China): "it was not advisable to recall feuds and killings in other regions, or among ethnical groups or people within a particular state, whose origins lay in history." It was important to maintain world peace and stability based on mutual respect and friendly coexistence among nations. The unpleasant experiences of the past "should not be dwelt upon for their own sake."

 Mr. Jules Deschênes (Canada) said that Mr. Whitaker’s study aroused a great deal of passion and also gave rise to many difficult problems of domestic and international law. Many studies failed to lead to any specific measures. He believed that the recommendations in paragraph 33 that the definition of genocide should be broadened to include cultural genocide or ethnocide and also ecocide appeared unnecessary. On the other hand, the recommendation that acts of omission should be added was important. Mr. Deschênes also welcomed the idea of an international penal jurisdiction. However, the proliferation of separate institutions should be avoided. He would prefer the Statute of the International Court of Justice to be amended so as to cover international civil cases. He noted that prevention was the weakest point in the existing Convention. One of the last but important points that Mr. Deschênes had made does not appear in the "Summary Record of the 17th Meeting", issued by the U.N. Secretariat in Geneva. According to my personal notes, he also said that not all governments agree with Mr. Whitaker’s examples of genocide, but that history was not very important and that we should not lose sight of our main topic.

Mr. Joinet said that, in response to Mr. Deschênes’ appeal, he would refrain from prolonging the discussion on the question of examples. He was not convinced by Mr. Bossuyt’s argument which would, for example, prevent a reference to acts of genocide committed by the Nazis. The efforts made in some quarters to obliterate the memory of Nazi genocide had become a serious problem in Europe. Mr. Bossuyt said that he was not opposed to references being made elsewhere to the serious historical events to which Mr. Joinet had referred, but he considered it prudent for the Rapporteur and the Sub-Commission to refrain from making such references.

Mr. Laurin (International Federation of Human Rights) repeated the fact that genocide was the worst crime under international law. However, the assertion that the Report also "covered" the Armenians was an overstatement, in terms of various views expressed in several academic works, to which the Rapporteur made no reference at all. Mr. Laurin correctly reminded that one of the foremost tasks of the United Nations was to prevent the crime of genocide. He also noted that there was a disturbing tendency in some quarters to deny that the genocide of the Jews had taken place.

Stating that the discussions on the Report was similar to that of a journalist writing an article which had to be submitted to the scrutiny and approval of board of editors of the newspaper, Mr. John Carey (U.S.A.) thought that it might be adequate for an after-dinner chat, but not for an intellectual and scholarly w{?} that was expected. Referring especially to paragraphs 20-24, he asked why {the?} Turkish criticism of Armenian views were not adequately covered. Holding {up a} booklet entitled The Andonian "Documents" Attributed to Talat Pasha, Are Forgeries, he stated that the very title of that publication suggested a second point of view, which was very crucial to an acceptable definition. He added: “Professor Ataöv, the author of this book, is present in the meeting. His book on the so-called Talat Pasha ‘telegrams’ is not mentioned even in the footnote. Such a point of view, namely the opinion that the ‘orders’ for extermination, attributed to the Ottoman Minister of the Interior, are forgeries concerns the crux of the matter and there{fore} deserves to be summarized adequately in the text itself. This goes beyond a {mere?} mention in a footnote — but even that was not done. The Rapporteur could {have?} summarized one set of views and also offered the summary of other set of view{s of} the text and maintained his impartiality. If the Rapporteur, who happens to be a good friend of mine, still thinks that his Report is objective, he may send it {to?} scholarly review, such as The American Journal of International Law and s{ee "the} reaction to it." In spite of the fact that Mr. Carey had mentioned my name and referred to my publication, which dealt with a very crucial aspect of the question under discussion, I did not summarize the conclusions of my research when I was asked by the Chair to speak. I did not want to make such a use of my pre{sentation?} there. The publication speaks for itself. I must add, at this point, however, that I had personally given the same booklet to Mr. Whitaker myself during a very {?} meeting, in which he told me that he had no time to talk to me.

Noting that genocide was a grave violation of human rights, Mr. Dumitru {?}zilu (Romania) said that, as to the precise facts, he was not a historian and therefore not in a position to judge events of the past, nor was it up to the Sub-Commission to do so. However, the increasing capacity to kill made international preventive action more urgent than ever.

Mr. Ahmed M. Khalifa (Egypt) wondered whether it was wise to up{date} certain reports once every five years, especially when one remembers that th{ere are} other reports, presented some twenty years ago, which were not yet up-dat{ed. As} for the current Report, it was sufficient to refer to the 1948 Convention (particularly its Article II) to establish what genocide meant. Efforts should be made to abide by that legal precept "without exaggeration, deformation or dilution{, gen}ocide had to be distinguished from other forms of presecution. He begg{ed the} Rapporteur not to play with the notion of genocide. He noted that the Baha’is were mentioned, but not the Palestinians. Other cases mentioned in paragraph 24 were "not sufficiently authenticated from the historical point of view". Mr. Khalifa noted that the accusations were very serious and that the Rapporteur had even mentioned cases not generally heard of. He asked whether the Palestinians do not deserve a mention in Mr. Whitaker’s "open door policy". Stating that he had lots to say about his "method of selection", he proposed to drop history all together. He said that even if certain cases could be historically authenticated it would then be necessary to determine whether they constituted cases of genocide for the purposes of the Convention. The U.N. had been created for conciliation. The role of those who represented it was to heal the wounds of history, not to keep them open. It would be paradoxical if a U.N. report should have the effect of reviving certain forms of hatred and perhaps even further fanning the flames of terrorism. The Turks and the Armenians were proud peoples who should seek to heal the wounds of the past and make peace between themselves. Mr. Khalifa thought that “the mention of the case of the Armenians in the Report was not relevant and might even be harmful”. He also noted that the contents of the Report were the “personal responsibility” of Mr. Whitaker. It would be regrettable, however, if Mr. Whitaker should decide to retain paragraph 24 “since a study devoted to a noble cause would then be politicized”.

Mr. Antonio Martinez Baez (Mexico) agreed with the previous speaker that it would be better to avoid historical references. The experts of the Sub-Commission could not turn themselves into judges; it was not for them to pronounce harsh verdicts. He noted that "-p8the author of the Report assumed sole and personal responsibility”. Only paragraph 24 seemed to present any problem. If the Sub-Commission should decide to transmit the Report to the Commission on Human Rights, "with that contentious paragraph", it would give the impression of endorsing the author’s views and of sharing responsibility for his judgements. That would not be prudent, since the past has shown, reminded Mr. Baez, that what was called the judgement of history was often nothing more than the opinion of the victor.

Qualifying the discussion on the substance of Mr. Whitaker’s Report as a discussion about history, Mr. Joinet wondered whether the members of the Sub-Commission had sufficient data at their disposal to conclude that what were mentioned by the Rapporteur had been fully established. He noted that the U.N. had been founded to encourage understanding among peoples which meant reconciliation, implying forgetting. Nevertheless, the historian had to draw lessons from the past. The ownership of the Report "lay with its author". He added: "The Sub-Commission would have to transmit it to the Commission since that was the rule. Lastly, it was not possible to change a text which did not belong to the Sub-Commission; that was the prerogative of Mr. Whitaker."

Mr. Vsevolod N. Sofinsky (U.S.S.R.) said that he had received the impression from reading the Report that the Rapporteur had, to paraphrase a Russian proverb, "thrown the ship's compass overboard", namely, the 1948 Convention. Where {the} Sub-Commission had appointed the Rapporteur merely to examine the question of genocide, he proposed the revision or up-dating of the 1948 Convention, signed by 96 states and confirmed by forty years of experience. Mr. Sofinsky stressed {that if} the concept of genocide as understood by Mr. Whitaker were retained, “the {very} history of mankind would be nothing more than one long genocide” from the practice of slavery in ancient societies up to the political revolution which established democracy in several parts of Europe. He stated clearly that the 1948 Convention gave a good definition of genocide and that there was no reason to change it. {He} said that the historical part of the Whitaker Report "contained many imprecisions or inaccuracies and passed over a number of facts in silence". Among the {many} facts passed over in silence was the genocide of the Palestinians. There was no mention of the massacre of the Slavs in Yugoslavia, the Poles and the many millions {of} the Soviet citizens during the Second World War. Mr. Sofinsky stated that {he?} not only criticize the Report, he condemned parts of it. As his American colleague had pointed out, it was "inadequate". In his opinion, Mr. Whitaker considered {?} violence a genocide, but nevertheless selected subjectively.

Mr. MacDermot (International Commission of Jurists) said that the difference between the Tutsi and the Hutu in Burundi were not racial but linguistic and cultural. He also criticized the Report for the concept of "auto-genocide", used in connection with the events in Kampuchea; he said that the Report implied th{at?} civil war was an act of genocide.

It was at this point, on the afternoon of August 16, 1985, that the Chairman reminded the participants that respect had to be shown to the officers and men{?} of the Sub-Commission. (It was later explained in private that this reminder was in consequence to a verbally aggressive attitude exhibited by a small group of Armenian lobbyists towards an expert member whom they thought would also be c{?} of the Whitaker Report.)

Mr. Awn Shawkat AI-Khasawneh (Jordan) expressed the opinion that {Mr.} Whitaker had not adequately examined some other conventions which might serve as a model for efforts to tighten up the 1948 Convention. Pointing out that {the} works of the Sixth Committee of the U.N. General Assembly and the International
Law Commission covered the same ground, he regretted the duplication. Com{ing to} paragraph 24, he noted that it had given rise to considerable controversy an{d also} diverted attention from other areas that were more closely related to the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide. He referred to the Armenians, in particular. Quoting a historian, who said that while it was easy to predict the future, the past was impossible to ascertain, he emphasized that the Sub-Commission was {not} a body of historians” and that “attributions of guilt should therefore be mad{e?} with extreme caution and on very strong evidence”. He stressed a clear crit{eria,} taking account of the gravity of genocide and the caution that had to be exe{rcised} in attributing it. In view of all these considerations, Mr. AI-Khasawneh too {?} view that "the entire text of paragraph 24 was unnecessary both as concert {?} coherence of the Report and the concept of genocide". He referred to Mr. Baez’s observation that the existence of genocide did not depend on historical references.

Stressing that there is a precise definition of genocide, Mr. Driss Dahak (Morocco) stated that there were indications of attempted genocide against the Palestinians, not mentioned by Mr. Whitaker. Citing examples in a Report like this was very risky. He noted that negligence or inadvertent omission should not be penalized. A driver may kill a person by negligence, but it is important that he had no intention of killing. He believed that it was not within the Sub-Commission’s competence to decide whether an event is such a crime — in the past or in the present. He also said that ethnocide and ecocide were crimes against humanity but not genocide. He underlined that what was required was an overall survey of the existing situation together with proposals for future action.


Mr. Justice Abu Sayeed Chowdhury (Bangladesh) said that the Rapporteur, in discussing genocide, had stressed that this abhorrent crime was a violation of the most valuable of all human rights, namely, the right to life. He had rightly pointed out that the situation became particularly serious when the offence was committed by a government. Mr. Chowdhury welcomed the recommendation that the definition be extended to include sexual groups. However, much time was devoted to paragraph 24. He could not persuade himself that it was necessary. It distracted attention from the Rapporteur’s objective. He noted that the omissions from the earlier report had resulted, not from absent-mindedness on the part of the previous Rapporteur, but from a deliberate decision taken after the matter had been discussed at length as could be seen from the relevant Summary Record.29 He added: "Various examples of genocide had been discussed, including the alleged Armenian genocide, which, for good reasons, had not been included in the Report as approved by the Sub-Commission and the Commission on Human Rights". When the updating of the Report had come up for discussion, the Secretariat representative had stated that the Rapporteur would revise the study and up-date it" and in so doing would take into account all developments relating to the question since the study was undertaken".30 The understanding was that Mr. Whitaker would include those developments that occurred since the last Report. As the records (para. 158) show, Mr. Justice Chowdhury understood that the study would be up-dated as from the date of application of the existing version. It was on that understanding, which no one had contested, that he had supported the draft resolution which had been adopted without a vote. This was the statement that Mr. Chowdhury had made before Mr. Whitaker’s appointment as the new Rapporteur. There was no opposition to what he had said. This was the understanding of the whole Sub-Commission. "Up-dating" was the governing word in the resolution. But a paragraph 24 had been inserted, diverting attention from the vital issue of how best to ensure the prevention and punishment of genocide. Mr. Chowdhury considered that step to be in excess of the authority given to the Rapporteur. His action in going beyond his {?} of reference and including an irrelevant paragraph had led to a long debate {on un?}necessary aspects of the question. The aim should have been to prevent the occurrence of genocide. Mr. Chowdhury underlined that the Sub-Commission me{n?} were not historians and could not engage themselves with events that took {?} seventy years ago. He urged that Mr. Whitaker’s Report be kept in the Sub-Commission and not transmitted to a superior body. Further clarifying that point, he said that if it was transmitted, this might carry the implications of an appro{?} the statements made in the Report. He repeated that paragraph 24 should not have been there. The aim should be to look to the future, not the past and to s{erve} conciliation, not bitterness, to close old wounds and not to re-open them. He said that he would not vote in favour of transmitting the Report. He hoped t{he?} Rapporteur would not insist on retaining paragraph 24 in the face of so much opposition.

29. E/CN.4/Sub.2/SR.822; E/CN.4/Sub.2/416 (July 4, 1978)
30. E/CN.4/1983/SR.48/Add.1,para. 155.

 

Mr. Whitaker replied to the speakers on August 22nd.31 By listening {to his} response, one could get the impression that he was praised. But this was not the case. As to the Armenian issue, he said that he had been studying it for over {eight?} years and had discussed it with several Turkish "ambassadors"32 and research{?} The so-called consultations with Turks were limited to those the Rapporteur {had} not turned down, and they were generally casual talks. As far as I know, he h{ad not} conversed with any Turkish ambassador.

I believe that Mr. Whitaker has not properly appraised the standing of the Ottoman State in the last years of its life. Those coming from the Third World {?} sympathizers and all objective social scientists may agree that the Turks were subjected to biased judgements during the Era of Imperialism. According to Some historians, the Ottoman Empire was close to being a "semi-colony" in the last d{?} of the Nineteenth and the very beginning of the Twentieth Centuries. Rival{?} conflicts between the great powers had approached [the] breaking point at the turn of the century. Since they had already divided most of the world between them {there} was little room left for colonial expansion. A keen struggle had developed for spheres of influence. Several crises reflected mounting tension round the globe. It {?} that the Ottoman Empire was drawn into the war on the side of the Central powers led by Germany. But both camps were engaged in a keen arms race and viewed one another in the field of diplomacy to secure valuable allies. The war had i{ns}tant effects on all the colonies. The imperialist powers used them as a reserve {?} struggle against their enemy. The Triple Entente, composed of Britain, France and Tsarist Russia did t; best to discredit the enemy and win the war. The camp {of the} Triple Alliance, which was so termed when the line-up of forces took shape in {?} and included Germany and Austria-Hungary, shared the same prejudices toward the Moslem Turks. The fact that history cannot be written as based on a fe{w?} by a handful of foreign diplomats (Germans included) in the Ottoman Empire {?} be better realized when one tries to do the same in respect to other scenes {of the} war. For instance, how convincing would an African history be if based  {only on} consul reports? I would personally have more confidence in the African h{istory} books written by Africans themselves.

The depth of the prejudice against the Turks may be better understood by the following quotation. These lines were written by a certain F. Guy Talbott, the Regional Director of the Near East Relief, for The New Armenia: "Is the{re a} valid basis for believing that the Turk had suddenly become humane and ci{vil} simply because he has abolished the sultanate or discarded fezzes? Even if the leopard can change its spots, does that affect its nature? If the skin of the Ethiopian should become white, does that purify his heart? "33 This is a racist position, which is abhorred and condemned by the international community today. It reflects an attitude and expression, described as an ugly and hateful crime. No one dares to utter such phrases in our time. But the truth is that opinion-formers such as E.G. Talbott helped form dogmas about the Turks. Those ethnocentric and prejudiced individuals handed down their misinformation and misjudgements as some sort of "inheritance" to groups of new generations. Just as the history of Africa is being rewritten on a sounder basis, the history of Turkish-Armenian relations also needs to be cleared of misleading perversions, narrow misconceptions, exaggerations or outright falsifications.

Mr. Whitaker also said that he "had, in fact, gone directly to Turkish sources". He must have had his tongue in his cheek when he made that sweeping statement. I still suspect, rather strongly, that Mr. Whitaker does not know a word of Turkish and that he has not handled even a single one of the millions of primary Ottoman sources. I would indeed be surprised if I am told one day that Mr. Whitaker had worked, for instance, on the 224 volumes of the Minutes of the Ottoman Council of Ministers, that he has handled the 117 volumes of dossiers of petitions to the same Council, that he has studied the archives of the Yildiz Palace, that he has analyzed the several series of registers of the non-Moslem citizens of the Ottoman Empire, that he had read the reports of Kamil, Ahmed Cevdet, Said Sakir and Nazim Pashas. Considerable linguistic, paleographic and historical training is necessary before one can really "go directly to the Turkish sources". One can safely assume that Mr. Whitaker has not done so, as he claimed in his reply. But only through consultation of all relevant documents may a definite picture emerge.

Ambassador Yavuzalp (observer for Turkey) wished to take the floor in response to Mr. Whitaker’s comments. But the Chairman (Mrs. Daes, Greece) replied that the discussion was closed. Mr. Mubanga-Chipoya (the Rapporteur for the session) said that the observer for Turkey could submit a statement in writing. Mr. Yavuzalp complied with the Chairman's decision, but deplored the fact that he was not allowed to speak.

Ambassador Yavuzalp's letter,34 dated August 22, 1985, was distributed four days later. It was in answer to Mr. Whitaker’s reaction to the criticism levelled at his Report, and not in response to the later voting of Resolution 1985/9 — as the Armenian paper Asbarez 35 wrongly asserted. The letter stated that the Rapporteur had apparently viewed this exercise "mainly as an instrument to have his individual conclusion regarding Armenian genocide endorsed by the United Nations". The method that Mr. Whitaker had used was "the method of a propaganda book" which consisted of selecting only those quotations in support of a predetermined {?}. Even for an article one needed a more serious approach, let alone for a vvork {?} done within a United Nations framework. The letter quoted several documents from the British, French and American archives establishing that the Armenians were "everywhere in a minority", 36 that the Armenians were "reported to have taken part in the action and sustained losses as did all combatants",37 {that the} Turkish soldiers were "well disciplined" 38 and that the Armenian reports were "absolutely false".39 The letter asked why Mr. Whitaker omitted these documents {from} the list of evidence.

At its 35th meeting on August 28, 1985, the Sub-Commission had bef{?} draft resolution,40 sponsored by Mr. Deschênes and Mr. Mubanga-Chipoya {and?} another one,41 sponsored by Mr. Deschênes, Mr. Mubanga-Chipoya and Mr. {?}. The Sub-Commission first took action on the latter. In the meantime, the Rapporteur did not make any changes in his Report and bore the consequences. The Commission did indeed adopt a text by 14 votes in favour, 1 against, with 4 abstentions. It is important to observe that the adopted text is not the Whitaker Report but Resolution 1985/9. The Sub-Commission refused to receive the Report, deleting the word "receives" from the draft resolution. It merely took "note" of the study. It refused to praise it by deleting the words "the quality of" from the {?} resolution. When deleting the words "the quality of" was proposed, it was a{pproved} by 16 votes to none, (with 4 abstentions). It refused to transmit it to the Commission on Human Rights. It added the following statement to the resolution i{?} to emphasize the controversy on the Report: "Noting that divergent views w{?} pressed about the content and proposals of the report..." To stress the cont{?} further, the two statements below (paragraphs 41 and 42) were added to the{?} of the Sub-Commissions: "...Other participants felt that the Special Rapporteur should have dealt exclusively with the problem of preventing future genocides without referring to past events which were difficult or impossible to inves{tigate"} (para. 41). Various participants argued that the Armenian issue was not adequately documented and that "certain evidence had been forged" (para. 42). The {?}tion recommended that the U.N. renew its efforts to make ratification by {?} members to the 1948 Convention.

It may be noted that quite a different set of terminology was used in {?}tion with other reports, approved during the thirty-eighth session or bef{ore} instance, Resolution No. 1948/28 expressed "high appreciation to the expert for his excellent valuable report". Resolution No. 1984/35 referred to the "excellent exhaustive study", which constituted an "invaluable contribution". Resolution 1984/ 39 expressed "grateful appreciation...for excellent final and valuable report". Resolution No. 1983/35 urged "widest possible distribution" of another report. Resolution No. 1983/22 expressed "grateful appreciation" for an "excellent and valuable report"; it was described as "an indispensable work of reference". All these reports and many others were transmitted to the Commission on Human Rights and given the widest possible distribution in all the official languages of the United Nations.

As far as the thirty-eighth session is concerned, the issues referred to the Commission on Human Rights for its attention, action or consideration may be divided into (a) draft resolutions recommended by the Sub-Commission to the Commission on Human Rights for adoption and (b) Sub-Commission resolutions and decisions referring to matters which are drawn to the Commission's attention and which require consideration or action by the Commission. The draft resolutions were related to (a) assistance given to the racist regime of South Africa, (b) intersessional meetings of the Bureau elected by the Sub-Commission to review developments on violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms, (c) the situation in the Arab territories occupied by Israel, (d) child labour, (e) indigenous populations, (f) detention and imprisonment as well as (g) the study on amnesty laws.

The second category of issues referred to the Commission on Human Rights concerned resolutions on (a) international peace and security as an essential condition for the enjoyment of human rights, (b) gross violations of human rights and international peace, (c) elimination of racial discrimination, (d) human rights and scientific and technological developments, (e) review of further developments in fields with which the Sub-Commission has been concerned, (f) slavery and slavery-like practices, (g) human rights and youth, (h) the situations in Paraguay, the Islamic Republic of Iran, El Salvador, Albania, Pakistan, Chile, Guatemala, Afghanistan, South Africa and Namibia, (i) protection of children, (j) the indigenous populations, (k) the right to leave any country and the right to return to one’s own country, (I) the status of the individual and contemporary international law and (m) the rights of detainees.

The Whitaker Report, on the other hand, was not transmitted to the Commission on Human Rights. It was refused — politely. 42

31. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1985/S.22,pp.3 -5.
32. He said "ambassadors" and not "diplomats" (contrary to what is written in the Su{?} Record for the 23rd meeting.)
33. E. Guy Talbott, "The Turk Malignant", The New Armenia, Vol. XIX, No.3 (July-August-September, 1927), no page number indicated.
34. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1985/49.
35. August 31,1985.
36. Great Britain, Foreign Office, 424/106: Further Correspondence Respecting the A{?}rative Reforms in the Asiatic Provinces of Turkey, Part II, January-June 1880, {?} No. 303, printed for the use of the FO (October 1878).
37. France, Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Levant, 1918-1919 (Armenia){?} fo. 36.
38. The Bristol Papers, Washington, D.C., Edward Fox, District Commander, Kars,{?} dated October 31, 1920.
39. Bristol, General Correspondence, Container 34 (March 28, 1921).
40. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1985/1. 15.
41. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1985/1.16.

42. When le Journal de Genève by-passed the very important fact that the Whitaker Report was not transmitted to the Commission on Human Rights, I expressed my immediate reaction to this distortion in two separate interviews in the daily Cumhuriyet (8 [Sept.] 1985) and the weekly Yanki (19-20 [Oct.] 1985) of Istanbul. The reply of the Turkish Mission to the U.N. in Geneva was published in the Swiss journal however, a month and-a-half later (October 14, 1985) — a safe date to minimize its effect. (For a photocopy of the article see Annex 4.[Reproduced at right])

[Click here for the wording of the article]

Le Journal de Genève

14 octobre 1985


Une certaine réserve

Nous avons publie le 30 aout un article intitulé "Droits de l’Homme: le genocide des Arméniens est reconnu en Sous-Cornmission". La Mission permanente de Turquie Genève estime que cet article comporte des éléments erronés, et nous adresse, par Ia plume de son conseiller chargé des affaires de presse, une lettre de rectification dont nous publions I’essentiel:

LA Sous-Corninission n’a pas adopté Ie rapport, elle s’est simplement contentée d’en prendre note, en évitant scrupuleusernent des formules qui pourraient étre interprétées cornme une approbation ou un engagement de sa part. (...) Par ailieurs, mème Ia simple formule de courtoisie d’usage par Iaquelle on remercie les rapporteurs spéciaux a été limitée dans ce cas, utilisée uniquement pour une partie du rapport, a I’exclusion du paragraphe qui traite de Ia question arménienne.

D’autre part, Ie rejet par Ia Sous-Commission d’une deuxième résolution qui envisageait Ia transmission a la Commission des Droits de l’Homme uniquement des propositions contenues dans Ie rapport, visant Ia modification de Ia Convention de 1948 et l’adoption de certaines mesures préventives, a eu pour conséquence d’étendre Ie blocage a I’ensemble du rapport de M. Whitaker.

Par consequent, Ie rapport de M. Whitaker loin d’avoir reçu l’approbation et Ie soutien de Ia SousCommission reste ainsi un simple rapport sous Ia responsabilité de son auteur, bloqué a la première instance ou il avait été présenté.

D’aprés ce qui précède il nous est difficile de comprendre Ia conclusion de votre correspondant scion laquelle "Ia Sous-Commission aurait reconnu Ie génocide des Arméniens".

Naci Akinci

POOR ENGLISH (PARTIAL) TRANSLATION:

A certain reserve

We have published on 30 August an article entitled "Human rights: the genocide of the Armenians is recognized by Sub-Cornmission ". The permanent Mission of Turkey in Geneva estimates that this article comprises erroneous elements, and addresses to us, by way of its adviser in charge of press relations, a letter of correction that we publish as essential:

The Sub-Commission did not adopt the report, it was simply satisfied to take note of it...

(...)

...Remains thus a simple report under the responsibility of its author... It is difficult for us to understand the conclusion of your correspondent terming what has transpired as "the Sub-Commission has recognized the genocide of the Armenians".

[Close]

 

An Interview with Prof. Turkayya Ataov