White Paper: The Armenian Issue

1. Introduction
Statesmen and politicians in Western countries are often besieged by representatives of Armenian groups that have huge voting blocs demanding resolutions entailing defamation of Turkish heritage in connection with events that occurred in Eastern Anatolia in late 19th and early 20th centuries. Legislators usually feel obliged to hear these people out and feel somewhat obliged to address their concerns.
      
The historical events in question, however, are extremely complex. Not only did they occur in a Moslem culture - which is seldom studied in sufficient detail in Western universities - but the particular events in question occurred at the center of an extremely complex web of relationships between nations of widely diverse cultural and religious backgrounds. 

Legislators that are approached with these demands:

• Are not elected to legislate events that occurred a century ago.
• Are not  equipped to evaluate the veracity of allegations in question.

The legislators, therefore, have been increasingly subscribing to the views presented to them by their Armenian constituents, without asking probing questions, or turning to the views of a group of so-called “genocide scholars" that suddenly appeared in roughly the same timeframe (in the 60's) that the Armenians started voicing their demands loudly.

American citizens of Turkish ancestry report many incidents of ethnic prejudice in their daily lives as a result of these campaigns. But they are almost everywhere vastly outnumbered by constituents of Armenian origin, and refrain reporting prejudices they suffer. The same situation is true for persons of Turkish ancestry in other Western countries.

The Armenian groups have been widely successful in representing their ideological opponents as "Genocide Deniers," comparing them to David Irving (“Holocaust Denier”) and others, who go so far as to claim that there are "unanswered questions about the Nazi Gas Chambers." This slander has been so successful that representatives from the Turkish side are rarely allowed to make their case, and when allowed, the opportunity is very brief, and only in a poisoned,  prejudicial atmosphere.

Due process, the freedom of speech, and presumption of innocence until proven guilty, are the foremost values of democracy and civilized jurisprudence. Yet, time and again, while Armenian genocide proponents are given a free rein to convince an unknowing public - and legislators - that Turkey and Turks are guilty of a horrible crime of humanity, the accused Turkish side has been typically denied its right to self-defense. The legislative bodies have tended to act as both the prosecutor and the judge.

Turks and Turkey have repeatedly argued that the proper forum to discuss and resolve disagreements of historical nature is an international commission of scholars representing Armenia, Turkey and other nations. Turkey has proposed that conclusions reached by such a commission be binding on both sides. The Armenian side, however, has consistently refused to participate in such a commission, calling the Turks, instead, “Genocide Deniers.”

It is also noteworthy that, “genocide” being a special crime subject to strict judicial criteria, the Armenian side has refrained from taking its case to an international court of jurisprudence, such as the International Court of Justice in The Hague – the only competent body to rule on genocide allegations. The reason for such avoidance is clear: The Armenian side would rather rely on propaganda and ethnic politics than take risk in a court of law, where due process is the rule, and where both sides are given an equal opportunity to make their cases.

The purpose of this White Paper is to present the facts: Incidents leading to the decision of the Ottoman authorities to relocate Armenians living in Eastern Anatolia during WWI, the war-time conditions prevailing during relocation, and the aftermath of relocation, to explain why the events did not amount to "genocide."

2. Movement aligned with terrorism
The Armenian Movement for the recognition of a genocide label has not been peaceful. Although many of the participants in the Movement are law-abiding citizens, the Movement in general gave its silent assent and financial support to a series of criminal acts perpetrated by the terrorist organization ASALA against Turkish civil servants in the period 1973-1991. A total of 110 acts of terror were carried out by Armenian terrorists in 38 cities of 21 countries, including the U.S. Thirty nine of these acts were armed attacks, 70 of them bomb attacks, and one was an occupation. Forty two Turkish diplomats and 4 foreign nationals were assassinated in these attacks, while 15 Turks and 66 foreign nationals were wounded.

One planned act of terrorism was by Murat Topalian, the ex-Chairman of ANCA, the prominent arm of the Armenian lobby in the USA. Topalian was sentenced to a 3-year prison term by an Ohio court in 2001.

These acts were not openly condemned by the Movement, which raised funds for legal defense of some of the perpetrators and openly treated others as heroes. One ASALA terrorist, Varadian Garabedian, received a warm hero’s welcome in Yerevan upon his release from a French prison in 2001. The anti-Turkish Government propaganda preceding the ASALA violence afforded the terrorists some level of face-saving and bought them much needed time and cover. It also enabled them to intimidate dissenters - all in an era when the West's approach to terrorism was characterized by the naïveté of the pre-9/11 world.

In 1977 the campus home of UCLA history professor Stanford Shaw – who, after studying the Turkish archives, had taken the position that there was no genocidal attempt on the Armenians - was bombed by Armenian extremists.

3. The “Genocide Scholar” factor
The rise of the “Genocide Scholar" movement on the Armenian issue coincided roughly with the virulent rise of Armenian Diaspora demands in the West. The movement came into being largely through the efforts of individuals rather than through a combined effort by established academic institutions. Moreover, unlike the conventional meetings in established academic institutions, the proceedings of the “Genocide Scholars" are conducted behind closed doors. Individuals who disagree with their thesis are not welcome. Their process is not transparent, and they do not uniformly enforce recognized standards of academic rigor.

The movement's habit of attacking the integrity and character of their ideological opponents as "Genocide Deniers" does not conform to academic standards, whereby documentary evidence and objectivity, not personal attacks on the integrity of their opponents, play a central role in argumentation. Furthermore their castigation of their ideological opponents as "Genocide Deniers" amounts to a condemnation of practically all Turkish scholars, since the overwhelming majority of Turks feel very strongly that the events in question cannot rightly be labeled "genocide."

To date the "Genocide Scholar" movement has attempted to avoid the stigma of being racist by pursuing a 3-pronged strategy:

• All rhetoric is directed at the Turkish Government, arguing that it is not the Turkish People but the Turkish Government that is guilty of "Genocide Denial." Care is taken to portray Turks as people brainwashed by their government. In reality, of course, Turks as a race are depicted as the perpetrator of the crime.
• It is claimed that the perpetrators of “genocide” were the Ottoman Turks, not the present Turkish government. – which need not take offense.
• The "Innocent Deniers" theory developed by the movement’s spokesman Israel Charny. According to this theory, huge groups of people can fall under this category by not being aware that they are covering up “genocide.” Using such an argument, Charny would have us believe that he is not condemning an entire ethnic group, i.e. people of Turkish ancestry, and thus escape the ‘racist” epithet. The last time we saw people talk about an entire race like this was during World War II, when the Nazis argued that, although some Jews appeared to be good, and tried to be good, they could not help being evil nonetheless. After all, the Nazis argued, it was in their blood to do evil.

The “Genocide Scholar” movement's response to the Statement of 69 American academicians published in several leading newspapers in 1985 is most telling of their modus operandi. Major advertisements appeared in New York Times, Washington Post and Washington Times on May 19, 1985, signed by 69 American scholars specializing in Turkish, Ottoman and Middle Eastern Studies, objecting to the use of "genocide" label in a House Joint Resolution then before the U.S. Congress. Instead of openly debating the issue, the “Genocide Scholar” movement immediately embarked on an effort to discredit these academics on various grounds, insinuating that some of them may have been corrupted by having received research grants from the Turkish Government, etc. Absent any academic debate, the signatories were  collectively denigrated as "Genocide Deniers,”  violating all norms of academic discourse and etiquette. Many of the signatories were subsequently intimidated, and some lost their academic positions. (The Statement by the 69 American academicians were subsequently supported in a Declaration signed by 120 Turkish academicians on April 23, 2001).

This constant pattern of relentless personal attacks by the “Genocide Scholars” on the integrity and professional qualifications of their ideological opponents cannot be tolerated any longer.

Disregarding Turkish scholars, eminent foreign scholars and intellectuals who take exception to “genocide” label, and hence denigrated as “Denialists" by genocide proponents include, in part, Bernard Lewis and Norman Itzkowitz of Princeton University, Stanford Shaw, formerly of University of California, Justin McCarthy of Louisville University, Guenter Lewy and Brian Williams of Massachusetts University, David Fromkin of Boston University, Avigdor Levy of Brandeis University, Michael Gunter of Tennessee Tech University, Pierre Oberling of Hunter College, City University of New York, Roderic Davidson, formerly of George Washington University, Michael Radu of Foreign Policy Research Institute,  Philadelphia, military historians Edward J. Erickson and Gwynne Dyer, Gilles Veinstein of College de France, Paul Dumont of Strasbourg University, Robert Mantran (RIP), formerly of Aix-Marseille University, Stefano Trinchese of Chieti University, Augusto Sinagra of Roma-Sapienza University, authors Erich Fiegl (now deceased) and Andrew Mango, Jeremy Salt of Melbourne University, and Norman Stone of Bilkent University.

4. Allegations lacking proof
The Andonian fakery
Morgenthau vs. Adm. Bristol
The infamous Blue Book
Malta Tribunals
European Court of Justice rulings against “Euro-Armenia” and Gregoire and Suzan Krikorian

5. Who are the Armenians?
The Armenians are a Christian People whose history goes back as far as the earliest centuries of Christianity. Of all the ancient patriarchates of Christianity, the Armenians have the distinction of being the only Patriarchate to have developed and evolved outside the ancient Roman Empire. All the other ancient patriarchates, the Alexandrian, the Roman, the Greek, the Jerusalem and the Syrian, evolved and flourished - until the rise of the Arab Empire - within the boundaries of the Roman Empire. It is worth noting that the adoption of Christianity as the state religion under Constantine in 325 AD was preceded by a similar event - devoid of any political or social connections - in Armenia, where the monarch, Triadates, had converted just two decades earlier, effectively bringing with him practically the entire population of the country.

Though the Armenians from time to time were part of the Roman Empire, there was no prolonged period in the pre-Arab era during which they were full subjects of the Roman Empire. Thus, the political forces and social climate which sometimes influenced the development of church doctrine were different in the Armenian church. Armenian bishops were present, however, at most major Church councils as far back as the Nicene, and participated with their peers in the deliberations. The Great Church Controversies of the 5th century resulted in the Armenians permanently rejecting Ecclesiastical control from both Rome or Constantinople.

Though Christians, the Armenians remained in many ways separated from the West for over a thousand years, well beyond the Middle Ages. They were a protected minority when the Ottoman Empire was at its height, and Europe was trembling at the advance of the Ottoman armies. As the Ottoman Empire began to decline in the 18th-19th centuries, however, and the "Great Powers" of Europe and "Holy Russia" foresaw the impending collapse of the "Sick man of Europe," the Armenians were re-discovered by the Christian West, not only as long-lost fellow Christians, but as potential friendly contacts in a territory which they aspired to split among themselves.

This re-discovery, with the accompanying mixed motives, was to have unfortunate consequences for the Armenians when the hour of final collapse of the Ottoman Empire came in the war we now call the "Great War." 

These newly discovered Christians were viewed not only as future allies to aid territorial ambitions, but also as potential proselytes. Protestant missionaries were sent in, wherever possible, to win over new converts from the long-separated Armenian fold to the doctrines of the Protestant Reformers that had so changed the texture of Western Christianity during the interval of separation. These were soon followed by Roman Catholic Missionaries - all of whose efforts were to be backed by a conspicuously high level of support from their respective governments.

But although the Armenians were very accepting of new Western ideologies - particularly nationalism - the assiduous efforts of the missionaries did not result in nearly as many conversions as they had hoped for. Most Armenians remained attached to the "Orthodox Armenian" Church.

In the 19th century there were nearly 2,000 foreign religious missions in Anatolia, hailing from the United states, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Austria, Italy, etc.  Although they established educational institutions, they involved themselves in the lives of the Armenians, and had the effect of separating them from the Turks. Documentary evidence shows that the Missionary Schools ultimately had a role in the Armenian revolutionary activity.

6. The problems and issues
The Rebellion: The Armenian insistence on “genocide” label distinctly ignores the very serious role of the Armenian Revolt and the accompanying provocation in the hour of Peril. Unlike the American Experience in WWII, in which civilians were not the targets of violence, Armenian Revolutionary Activity in the years leading up to 1915 involved many instances of deliberate killings of Moslem (and some Jewish) civilians. The Armenian military leaders, emboldened by the support they were receiving from the Western powers and Russia, were even reckless to the point of informing the Turks that they would not side with them in the impending war, but would instead side with the enemy (Imperial Russia). Such betrayal was directed at the very state (Ottoman Empire) where the Armenians had lived peacefully for centuries, rising to prominent (including ministerial) positions in government and commerce.

The armed struggle of Armenian militants against Turks was confessed by none other than the first prime minister of Armenia, and the primary Dashnak leader at that time, Hovhannes Katchaznouni, in a manifesto delivered at an Armenian convention held in April 1923 in Bucharest, Romania.

The allegation of "genocide" manifestly ignores the rebellion, betrayal and provocation of  Armenian militants that took up arms to collude with powerful enemies that were invading the Ottoman territory. Such collusion posed a great military danger to the Ottoman armies in the eastern and southern fronts.

Archives also show unequivocally that nearly 524,000 Turks (and some Jews) were massacred by armed Armenian rebels in the eastern provinces of the Ottoman Empire during 1910-1922. The gangs also massacred local Armenian civilians that did not cooperate.

The word "genocide": In the words of one recent author, this word "evokes implicit comparisons with the Nazi past," and this imagery in popular usage inescapably enters into the deliberations of civic and political institutions on the question of “genocide”.  Ironically, Armenians lived peacefully for centuries with Turks while the European Jews lived an atmosphere of animosity in their communities. Turks also welcomed Sephardic Jews that were persecuted in Spain in the 15th century. This is precisely what makes the accusation of “genocide,” when originating from the West toward Turks, so insulting and intolerable.

As pointed above, the Armenian problem started when revolutionary elements among the Armenians - encouraged by Christian powers with territorial ambitions on the collapsing Ottoman Empire - embarked on a path that threw the entire region into turmoil. This sparked a conflict that quickly grew out of control, gravely endangering a large sector of the Armenian population, precipitating the Great Armenian Tragedy of 1915. Moslems in great numbers suffered as well. Massacres of Moslems by Armenian gangs, which started well before the 1915 events, amounted to ethnic cleansing.

Because Jews did not do what the Armenian militant elements did in their communities, it is utterly dishonest to directly or indirectly compare the Holocaust with the Armenian Tragedy of 1915.

Intolerance and hatred: “Genocide” allegations by Armenians, and their reckless campaign against Turkey, have fostered in the West an atmosphere of prejudice and animosity toward present-day Turks. Turks often feel discriminated against, and some feel unwanted. They are vastly outnumbered, and are made the objects of slander and calumny. As such, Turks are loath to defend themselves against charges which they view as patently biased and unjust.

Turks, however, have recently started to speak out. All of us, whether Americans or Europeans, must refuse to allow this manifest injustice to persist in our midst. We in the West have determined to take a stand against bigotry and hatred in all forms. Yet, it is on our soil and in our legislatures that this hate campaign is being allowed to flourish. If we fail to act, we cannot escape the onus of complicity in such a campaign.

History becomes political: Because Turks are almost never heard in the West, pronouncements as to what happened before, during and after World War I do not in any way amount to a debate. Most people, and legislative bodies, simply assume that Armenians were victims of genocide. To Armenians, this is quite convenient, but the reality is that the historians are generally much more circumspect in their judgments. Politicians, under pressure from powerful constituencies, introduce bills that recognize “Armenian 'genocide,” while many knowledgeable scholars do not share such conclusion.

Equally disturbing, when legislative bodies pass such resolutions, the Turkish side is not granted the right of self-defense.

History should normally be left to historians. But on the Armenian issue history is turned into a political tool, and the accompanying slander campaign has the effect of bullying opposing historians into silence. As a result, the truth - and history itself - suffers.

7. Conclusion: Call for action
Clearly, the government’s decision to relocate the Armenians in the waning days of the Ottoman Empire was undertaken in the hour of extreme danger, desperation and chaos bordering on anarchy. It was a decision in response to Armenian Revolt, dictated by national security concerns in perilous times. There was no malice intended for the Armenian populace because of their ethnicity or religion. Except for select leaders in Istanbul, the Armenians in the Western part of Anatolia were largely exempted from the relocation orders. The vast majority of relocated Armenians died as a result of depravation, hunger and disease in time of war, and the killings and sufferings on the Moslem side were equally harrowing.

No court has endorsed a “genocide” label for the 1915 events, and in fact, the Armenian side has not dared to take its claims to an international court. There is also no UN resolution that  recognizes the 1915 events as genocide. When the historical evidence is examined, it is clear that Armenian Revolutionary activity, or the Armenian Revolt, is what prompted the 1915 relocation orders. The movement started decades before the 1915 relocation, and stemmed from a desire to “take back” lands which Armenians considered to be their own – where, however, they were always a minority.

An impartial observer of events would admit that the present-day movement for recognition of a "genocide" label for the Armenian Tragedy is not at all the humanitarian movement that its promoters would have us believe. Instead, it is a deliberate distortion of historical facts, carrying with it the malignant fruits of ethnic animosity, terrorism, defamation, intimidation, and disruption of legitimate political processes in Western societies.

We call upon the recipients of this document to take all steps in their power to ensure that no further support is given to such a harmful and deceitful movement.

Epilogue
The majority of Armenians, at least those in living the Diaspora, live today in a Kafkaesque world of distrust, animosity and even hatred directed against Turks. Indoctrinated to be anti-Turkish from childhood onward in their families, churches and close-knit communities, they become bigoted citizens in the society. Such bigotry is anathema to racial and ethnic harmony. No nation in history has escaped traumatic experiences, some impinging on life and death. But most nations leave historical grievances, justified or otherwise, behind, and look forward for fruitful and peaceful existence with other nations.

The world history is fraught with tragic conflicts. World War I consumed the lives of more than 15 million people, and World War II, more than 70 million people. Likewise, apart from death, destruction and military defeat, Moslem civilians were forced to migrate and suffered untold cruelty during the 1912-1913 Balkan Wars. Yet, most nations, including Turks, embroiled in trans-national conflicts have chosen to live in peace with their former adversaries. Some have forged trusted treaties and alliances. A world at peace requires such perseverance and attitude.

The question the Armenians should ask themselves is: Why can’t they leave history behind and look forward to amicable relations with their historical adversaries? The alleged Armenian “genocide” happened nearly a century ago, but the Armenians, in a sense, are still living in the past. They follow their smear campaign with a vengeance. Turks are prepared to face their history, as long as the Armenians face their own. Turks are prepared to let a joint commission of historians to study and judge the past, if the Armenians also wish the same. Propaganda efforts “banking on” religious and ethnic sympathies and one-sided resolutions in legislative bodies, however, will not resolve historical disputes.

Apart from Turkish citizens of Armenian origin, who enjoy full citizenship rights, there are roughly 100,000 illegal Armenians living and working in Turkey. They are free to practice their faith. That says much about Turks’ tolerance, and their outlook on history. Yet, one would be hard put to find a single Turkish family now living in Armenia. Nor, for that matter, a single standing mosque in all of Armenia. 

Concerned People to set the Record Straight