...The authors completely adopted the Armenian Nationalists' view of history.

 

Beyond the fact that the UN definition is meaningless there are some extremely troubling facets to the ICTJ analysis: They state, "This memorandum is a legal, not a factual or historical analysis." How, one might ask, can anyone make a decision on the events of World War I without an historical analysis? Of course, ICTJ does make an historical analysis. Indeed, they also make a "factual analysis," using a very selected group of facts. While a number of what may be called the standard works of the Armenian Cause are cited, only one brief book published by Turkish Government and some Government web sites are cited (thus reinforcing the erroneous view that only the Turkish Government objects to the Armenian version of history.) Reading the text, it is obvious that the authors completely adopted the Armenian Nationalists' view of history. They do not seem to have attempted to consider the other side. Had they done so, they would have seen that applying the word "genocide" only to the Turks was anything but a neutral statement of fact.

If one only utilizes the fabrications in sources such as the Bryce
Report or the missionary reports, then "genocide" is a foregone conclusion. Those books contain few dead Turks. The only suffering mentioned is Armenian suffering. Using only such sources results in a complete distortion of history. World War I propaganda becomes modern propaganda, dressed in a
legalistic package.

I have no idea of the process used in naming the ICTJ to make this decision. Nor do I know how the ICTJ went about making their decision. Perhaps their good will was wrongly assumed. More likely, they simply did not know what they were doing. They may have believed they were making a simple legal statement that needed little historical analysis. That is a sure path to error, because those who believe they do not need to study history all too often accept what they have always been told without examining the facts, exactly what happened here.

I have supported and still support the concept of a Turkish Armenian Reconciliation Commission. Anything that brings contending sides together to discuss their differences is good. But the TARC made a false step in asking the ICTJ for their opinion. I have never agreed with the idea of submitting historical questions to lawyers for final answers. What is needed is a commission of historians, not a commission of lawyers.

--Justin McCarthy

 

Armenians perpetuate deceitful arguments  

Wednesday, April 6, 2005
Gündüz AKTAN

The weakest point of the reply given by the International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ) to an “unasked question” was that by putting forth the thesis “If the Genocide Convention were to be applied retroactively, the Armenian incidents could have been considered a genocide” is related to the “motive” behind the “intent to destroy.”

Perpetration of any crime involves a specific “act.” When a criminal act, for example a murder, is committed, the reason for the crime, that is, the motive that led to the crime, is of secondary importance. In a sudden fit of anger a person may kill another person who has insulted him. Another person may attempt to commit robbery and kill the victim when the victim resists that attempt. The difference (in the former's favor) between these two cases would be taken into consideration by a judge, albeit only as a mitigating circumstance.

However, in cases of genocide the “motive” is much more important. The Nuremberg court's charter took the “motive” into account, and the court considered that factor when meting out their sentences. In that case the motive was anti-Semitism, that is, racism. Without anti-Semitism the Holocaust could never have happened. The Ottomans, however, did not harbor any such racist hatred towards the Armenians, hence the absence of motive for the intent to destroy.

At the end of paragraph two of the convention is the phrase, “as such.” That phrase is highly important on issues pertaining to genocide because in that paragraph that particular phrase means annihilation of a given group merely because of its identity. The ICTJ document quotes the Siamese delegate's interpretation of that phrase (p. 17). That interpretation can hardly be understandable and it is interesting that this interpretation was obtained from a delegate who had not played a significant part in the negotiations. Maybe the ICTJ's legal "expert" was the Siamese twin of that person!

Those who would like to have more information on this issue can read pages 245-256 of the book “Genocide in International Law” by William A. Shabas. The writer recounts that the motive of racism was upheld by many delegates including those from Lebanon, the Soviet Union, Poland, China, the Philippines and New Zealand and further notes that when the phrase “as such” was proposed by the Venezuelan delegate the United States accepted it.

According to that formula, genocide is the killing of the members of a group not because they have done something (for example, rebelling or aiding the foreign armies etc.) but merely because they are members of that group (that is, because they are considered members of a dehumanized race such as the Jews had been).

In his interpretation the Siamese delegate cites the “political group” as one of the groups that would be the target of a genocidal attempt to destroy. However, the drafting committee did not include the “political group” among the four groups (national, racial, religious and ethnic) that would be protected by the convention.

This is the crucial point. Political group means a group that engages in a struggle with political aims. The Armenians fighting to set up their own independent state on a piece of land made a political group par excellence. But then the other side, the Turks in this case, had the right to struggle in order to retain that piece of land they also deemed to be their homeland and on which their members constituted by far the majority of the population.

In this context one side can rebel and the other side can quell the rebellion; there can be mutual killings between the civilians; one side can join hands with the foreigners and thus commit high treason; the other side can attempt a relocation of the former while crimes may be committed in the course of that relocation, etc. Crimes thus committed against civilians would not come under the category of genocide. Hence the Armenians were subjected to that kind of treatment not because they were Armenians but because they had engaged in armed struggle to attain their political aims. Besides, many more Turks and/or Muslims were also subjected to that same kind of treatment by the Armenians.

The “legal” study made by the ICTJ distorts these facts. If, because of that study, the Armenians really believe that they are “in the right” from a legal standpoint (in other words, if they believe there had been a genocide from a legal standpoint), they can invite Turkey to adjudication or to arbitration immediately. It is because they know they cannot take that path that they elicit such deceitful documents as the ICTJ study. Look at the Armenians' well-known ANI Web site and you will see that all the documents are fakes. The ”Talat Pasha telegrams” were also bogus.

Armenians believe the Turks had so grossly victimized them they think they are entitled to engage in any kind of fraud in self-defense. David Phillips should have acted with the awareness of this fact. On the contrary, by supporting that weakness of the Armenians he actually pushed the Turkish Armenian Reconciliation Commission (TARC) into failure. He doesn't know about the Armenian incidents and hasn't even read the convention. When I asked him why he did not study these subjects, he said if he learned about them he might become biased. However, his ignorance has not made him more impartial.

The results wouldn't have been like these if there were a more mature, more emotionally balanced and more ethical person in David Phillips's place.