TBMM eski Başkan Vekili Uluç Gürkan, Ermeni iddialarını gündemine almış bulunan İngiltere Avam Kamarası üyelerine muhatap mektuplar kaleme almakta ve bunları geniş bir dağıtıma tabi tutmaktadır. Sayın Gürkan'ın ilk dört mektubunu çok sayıda arkadaşımın e-mail adreslerine iletmiştim. Bu kez, Sayın Gürkan!ın beşinci, altıncı, yedinci ve sekizinci mektupların metinlerini takdim ediyorum.
Sekizinci mektup
Subject: Armenian so-called genocide is not established by a final decision of an any international court
Dear Honorable Members of the House of Commons,
Although Timothy Loughton MP claims that there is a general international consensus characterizing the sufferings of Armenians in Eastern Anatolia during World War I as “genocide”, he is completely mistaken. There is no such consensus which would mean “ultimate acceptance” of the Armenian allegations as ”genocide”.
The Armenian case does not constitute genocide under international law.
The decisions of international judicial authorities, such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ), European Court of Justice (ECJ), European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), and the French Constitutional Court suggest that historic and judicial realities do not confirm the Armenian allegations as ”genocide”.
In its Perincek-Switzerland decision of December 17, 2013, the ECHR ruled that “the treatment of Armenians during WWI cannot be interpreted as genocide.”
According to the ECHR, the 1915 events against Armenians are both historically and legally different from the Holocaust. No link can be established between the Ottoman Armenians and the German Jews.
There is however, ample evidence recognized by competent international courts proving that genocide was committed in Nazi Germany against Jews. Therefore, the Jewish genocide is an indisputable historical fact.
However, the “Armenian genocide” claims are open to debate and there is no court ruling on the issue. It cannot be considered in the same way as the Holocaust.
Extending the scope of genocides which is a precisely defined legal concept, to include cases recognized only in political terms in some countries’ parliaments, in fact works against freedom of speech.
On February 27, 2012, the French Constitutional Council rejected the shameful law approved by the French Senate and Chamber of Deputies that criminalized the denial of the “Armenian genocide.” In its decision, the Council also ruled that “ “No parliament can function as a court relating to a crime defined by itself.”
It has simply ruled against the amendment No 173 to the existing law on "Equality and Citizenship" which was meant to extend the scope of genocides by adding parliamentary recognitions to the list.
In 2003 and 2004, the ECJ characterized recognition of the “Armenian genocide” by the European Parliament as “a political measure with no judicial value.” It also ruled that both the “genocide” and “sustained loss” allegations were not proven.
The ICJ in The Hague – the highest judicial body of the UN, competent to hear war crime cases, including genocide – ruled on January 3, 2012: “Proceedings initiated by local courts against other countries have no judicial value; on the contrary, they are in violation of international law.”
I would hope that the members of the House of Commons bear these important facts and Court decisions in mind when considering Tim Loughton’s argument and decline to pass this meaningless bill.
Yours sincerely,
Uluc Gurkan
Lecturer in Politics
Deputy Speaker-Turkish Grand National Assembly/TGNA (1995-1999)
Vice President-Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe/PACE (2000-2002)
Vice President-Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe/OSCE-PA(1992-1995)
Head of the Turkish Delegation-Parliamentary Assembly of the Western European Union/WEU-PA (1999-2002)
Member- Turkish Grand National Assembly/TGNA (1991-2002)
Middle East Technical University and Ufuk University
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yedinci mektup
Subject: Grief of all Anatolian people; Christian, Jewish, and Muslim
Dear Honorable Members of the House of Commons,
One-sided pro-Armenian narrative claims that one and a half million Armenians were deported, massacred, or marched to their deaths in the final years of the Ottoman Empire by Turks.
Although the figures reporting the total pre-World War I Armenian population vary widely, demographic studies prove that prior to World War I, fewer than 1,5 million Armenians lived in the entire Ottoman Empire. British, French and Ottoman sources give figures of between 1,200000 to 1,5 million. Only certain American and dubious Armenian sources claim a pre-war population larger than 1.5 million. Thus, the allegations that 1,5 million Armenians from Eastern Anatolia died must be viewed as grossly exaggerated.
Moreover, the post-war figures of Armenian population also clearly prove that a great portion of the Ottoman Armenians did not die as claimed. Boghos Nubar , the President of the Armenian National Assembly and the head of the Armenian delegation at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919-1920, declared that some 600.000 to 700.000 Armenians were relocated from Anatolia. And after the war 280,000 Armenians remained in the Anatolian portion of the occupied Ottoman Empire while 100,000 of Armenians had emigrated to other countries.
Besides war related causes and intercommunal conflict perpetrated by both Christian and Muslim irregular forces, the totality of documents of the time thus far uncovered by historians verify that during the relocation of Armenians to Syria [an Ottoman province at that time] hundreds of thousands of Armenians had died on account of disease, famine and many other consequences of the war.
With these in mind, even if the fabrications about the Armenian losses are corrected, the revised numbers will not tell us the exact manner of death of the citizens of Anatolia, regardless of ethnicity. They were caught up in both an international war and an intercommunal conflict and vengeful acts instigated by the Dashnaks - the irregular group from which today’s active Armenian Revolutionary Front (ARF) was born. This group aided and abetted the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA), killing more than 42 Turkish diplomats and their families as recent as the nineteen-eighties and promotes such dastardly acts against Turks and their families even today.
Additionally, the corrected numbers will not be the complete story of the 1915 events. Truth demands every side of the story to be told. If only one side of the tragedy is to be accepted while the other side is regarded as perpetrators of the same tragedy, this leads us, without a doubt, into the realms of racial and religious discrimination and of double standards.
Each needless death, either Christian, Jewish or Muslim, is a tragedy. Equally tragic are the double standards designed to inflame discrimination and provoke hatred.
The statistical information tells us that nearly 1,1 million Anatolian Muslims (Turks, Kurds) and Jews also perished because of the same war related events, and this should equally be acknowledged as a tragedy and suffering for all the other peoples. Although the evidence for this is overwhelming and confirms the over a million of loss of life an suffering,
the actions of several countries and their Parliaments remember only the Christian deaths and suffering!
What happened during this period cannot be considered solely the grief of the Armenians who were harmed and suffered. It is the grief and suffering of all Anatolian people, Christian, Jewish and Muslim. The politicians who ignore these facts sadly display their bias and discrimination against Turks and Turkish Nation.
The events of 1914-1919 constitute a horrible “war time tragedy” for humanity. Therefore, the pain of Anatolia triggered by the World War I of that period should be shared and, when required, mourned together.
Yours sincerely,
Uluc Gurkan
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Altıncı mektup
Subject: To portray Turkish Nation as perpetrators of genocide constitutes “hate speech”
Dear Honorable Members of the House of Commons,
Timothy Loughton MP’s private members bill which will have a second reading on the 18th of March 2022 regarding the recognition of “Armenian Genocide” is not supported by history and law.
Genocide is a legal term internationally defined by the 1948 UN Genocide Convention. Article 4 of the Convention classifies crime of genocide as committed by persons, not by a state. And according to article 6, this crime must be heard and proven by a specific court.
Without a fair judicial trial, parliaments – e.g., the House of Commons - has no legal and legislative authority for characterising a historical event as genocide.
Moreover, Timothy Loughton’s bill portrays Turkish Nation as perpetrator of genocide, contrary to the framework of the Convention and sadly demonstrates the characteristics of an anti-Turkish, anti-Muslim hate speech.
Hate speech is defined by United Nation’s as "any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor."
In many instances, there can be specific negative effects of hate speech. Hate-motivated violence is the most serious effect. The Cambridge Dictionary underlines this violence effect of hate speech as follows: “Public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation."
Hate speech can spread the seeds of intolerance and anger that contribute to “hate crime”. It should not be forgotten that a total of 77 people – 58 of them Turkish nationals, including 31 diplomats and members of their families who lost their lives in attacks were carried out by Armenian terrorist groups from 1973 to 1986.
I believe, it is extremely important for the House of Commons not to promote a so-called reason for such hate crimes.
Furthermore, instead of real persons, to characterize Turkish Nation as perpetrators of genocide is a double standard - a double standard that occurs in the context of racial and religious prejudices.
For example, for war crimes in Sudan, not Sudan or Sudanese, but Al-Bashir himself has been accused. In the International Criminal Court for the former Yugoslavia under the UN Genocide Convention, only "real persons" accused of "genocide" were tried in courts. As perpetrators of the Srebrenica massacre, not the Serbian Nation, but the Serbian leaders and some of their commanders were held responsible and sentenced.
As it is a well-known fact that for the Holocaust in the Second World War Germany or the German people are not blamed on any grounds. Hitler and other Nazi leaders are accused as individuals. Also, it can be clearly seen in the recent examples of Rwanda, Sudan and Bosnia-Herzegovina that for actions which can be defined as "genocide," the criminal responsibility is directed against real persons, not on nations.
It is highly noteworthy that this important judicial clause is discounted when the debate is on the “Armenian genocide" allegations. Instead of real persons, Turkey and Turkish Nation is portrayed as the target, contrary to all the legal guidance.
Double standards should not guide and lead us. We must overcome our prejudicial double standards, especially in the context of intolerances and eliminate all our discriminatory racial hatreds.
Yours sincerely,
Uluc Gurkan
Lecturer in Politics
www.ulucgurkan.net – www.twitter.com/Uluc_Gurkan
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Beşinci mektup
Genocide is a legal term, and it can only be established legally
Dear Honorable Member of the House of Commons,
In relation to the debate (Vol. 703) brought to the session of the House on the 9th of November 2021, by Mr. Tim Loughton, it is important to remember that genocide is an internationally agreed legal term. It is not a loose and ambiguous political concept.
The United Nations 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines the crime of genocide and establishes the legal framework for genocide atrocities. This Convention was unanimously adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948 and then ratified in 1951 when it went into effect as a judicial ruling.
Since then, the UN Genocide Convention signifies the international community’s commitment to “never again” after the atrocities committed during the Second World War.
Therefore the genocide accusations should neither be politicized nor popularized loosely and ambiguously. Categorizing a historical or a current event as genocide is not something to be arrived at through the personal or legislative decisions as some country’s Parliaments seem to have done.
UN Genocide Convention
The act of genocide, to be a crime, has to be proven under defined circumstances outlined in articles 2-6 of the Convention.
Article 2 and 3 of the Convention categorize the atrocities that ought to be punished under the Convention as genocide. These atrocities of genocide are those “acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.”
Special Intent
The key element distinguishing the crime of genocide from other crimes is the “intent to destroy”. For genocide to have any legal validity, there must have been an “intent” on the part of perpetrators to wipe out an entire ethnic group. Therefore, without proven “intent to destroy”, no act can be legally valid as genocide.
In the literature of law, the special intent called “dolus specialis” is necessarily sought in all genocide accusations.
Articles 187, 188 and 189 of the International Court of Justice’s Bosnia ruling explicitly state that “a separate notional element must be present” to define an act as genocide. 1 This notional element is also present in the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia’s (ICTY) Kupreskic case as “the need for the presence of intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a group.” 2
The “note verbale” released on March 1, 1920, by Sir Eric Drummond, Secretary General of the League of Nations, confirms that there is no evidence for that in the case of the Armenians. 3
Individual Criminal Responsibility
Article 4 of the Convention relates to the “punishable atrocities of genocides” to the individual criminal responsibility. According to this article, "genocide" is a crime that can only be committed by "real persons. Therefore, only real persons – not legal entities – can be charged with the crime of genocide.
Court Ruling
Another important element distinguishing the crime of genocide from other crimes is that, for an event to be considered genocide, there should be a court ruling. This element - court ruling - is defined in Article 6. It reads, “trial of persons charged with genocide” as “by a competent / adequate-qualified tribunal of the state in the territory of which the act was committed” and “an international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction.”
Without a fair judicial trial by a defined court or tribunal, characterizing a historical event as genocide through personal or legislative decisions is a highly political and politicized act. It has no value in terms of international law. This has been confirmed by international jurisprudence. The European Court of Justice, in Dec. 17, 2003, and April 17, 2004, ruled in that the recognition of the “Armenian genocide” by the European Parliament “is a political measure with no judicial value.” 4
On the contrary, H.M. Attorney General Sir Gordon Heward’s Malta Tribunal Judgement which acquitted the Ottoman Turks who were alleged to have been responsible for the misrule of the Armenian relocation policies have its judicial value as defined by the United Nations 1948 Genocide Convention. 5
--------------------------------------------------------
1 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), 2007 I.C.J. 140 (February 26, 2007), available at http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/ibhy/ibhyjudgment/ibhy_ ijudgment_ 20070226_frame.htm (last visited Nov. 4, 2007 2 https://www.icty.org/en/case/kupreskic 3 Şükrü Server Aya, Twisted Law versus Documented History, (Belfast: Athol Books, 2013) p. 5 4 “Order Of The Court (Fifth Chamber)of 1 October 2004in Case C-379/03 P: Rafael Pérez Escolar v Commission Ofthe European Communities” (Official Journal of the European Union, January 22, 2005), 2005/C 19/19), https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2005:019:0010:0011:EN:PDF. 5 FO 371/6504/E.8745
------------------------------------------------
Yours sincerely, Uluc Gurkan Lecturer in Politics
No comments:
Post a Comment