TURKEY TO BE BROUGHT TO JUSTICE?

[MosJan]

TURKEY TO BE BROUGHT TO JUSTICE?

• http://www.armtown.com/img/photo/a1p_en_67135.jpgSixty years ago today, the United Nations adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

   

  “The Convention was a direct outcome of the attempted extermination of the Jewish people during the Holocaust, and ever since has embodied the aspiration of the United Nations to prevent such a horror from occurring again,” as stated in the message of the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon.

   

  The UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon released a message on the 60th anniversary of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

   

  “The Convention compels signatory States “to prevent and to punish” the crime of genocide – to act against those who kill or commit other grave acts “with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such”. Under the Convention, attempts to commit genocide and public incitement to genocide are punishable acts.

   

  The work of the United Nations to prevent genocide encompasses a wide range of activities. In the broadest sense, we promote human rights, the rule of law and the fundamental equality of all people. Through its global presence, the Organization provides practical assistance to States in building democratic institutions and resolving disputes through peaceful means. We have established an office dedicated to genocide prevention. And in 2005, Member States agreed unanimously on a new, groundbreaking global norm, the responsibility to protect, which aims to keep national leaders from hiding abuses behind the false cloak of sovereignty.

   

  The United Nations also seeks to ensure that perpetrators of genocide are brought to justice promptly. The crime of genocide is included in the Statutes of the International Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, in the Law on the Establishment of the Extra-ordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, and in the Statute of the International Criminal Court. Justice is not only one of our main goals; it is itself an important means of prevention.

   

  Despite these efforts, the world has continued to witness appalling acts that violate human dignity. Too often, the international response has been inadequate. Far from being consigned to history, genocide and its ilk remain a serious threat. Not just vigilance but a willingness to act are as important today as ever.

   

  On this anniversary, I call on those States that have not already done so to accede to the Convention. I urge all States to implement the Convention, and to support our efforts to prevent genocide and other serious human rights violations that may degenerate into genocide. Preventing genocide is a collective and individual responsibility. We must do everything in our power to ensure that our children may live free from the fear of being killed because they belong to an ethnic, national, religious or racial group,” as stated in the message.

[Yervant1]

CONVINCE RAPHAEL LEMKIN OTHERWISE!

 

HYE-TERT

Dec 10 2008

Turkey

 

The Armenian Genocide has been officially recognized by Turkey,

United States, Great Britain, Israel and many more countries, but we

just couldn't see it.

 

By Vicken Babkenian, an independent researcher for the Australian

Institute for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Sydney, Australia,

3 December 2008

 

It all began when I was cutting an Orange for my niece when she asked

me why the name Orange is both a color and a fruit. After doing some

research, I discovered that the root of the word Orange in the English

language is derived from the fruit. In other words the Etymology of

the color and the fruit is interconnected. No one can argue that the

fruit Orange is not Orange.

 

As someone who has studied the Armenian Genocide over a number of

years, I could not help but familiarize myself with the etymology of

the word Genocide. I discovered that the word genocide is from the

roots genos (Greek for family, tribe, race, a people, a nation) and

-cide (Latin - occidere or cideo - to Massacre, Kill, exterminate). I

looked up the word in the Oxford dictionary and found the definition to

be "the extermination of a race". I then recalled that this definition

of the word 'genocide' had been used by contemporary eyewitnesses,

diplomats, historians, journalists to describe what was happening to

the Armenians during WWI. Lord James Bryce in 1915 called it "the

Extermination of a Race" in a New York Times article. If the word

'genocide' had been coined before WWI, then that one word would have

been used, instead of the five words which mean the same thing.

 

I then conducted some research on Raphael Lemkin, "The founder of the

genocide convention" and on the genesis of the word 'genocide' which

he coined in 1944. In his manuscript titled "Totally unofficial",

Lemkin wrote:

 

"In 1915 . . . I began . . . to read more history to study whether

national, religious, or racial groups as such were being destroyed. The

truth came out after the war. In Turkey, more than 1,200,000 Armenians

were put to death . . . After the end of the war, some 150 Turkish

war criminals were arrested and interned by the British Government

on the island of Malta . . . Then one day, I read in the newspapers

that all Turkish war criminals were to be released. I was shocked. A

nation that killed and the guilty persons were set free . . . I felt

that a law against this type of racial or religious murder must be

adopted by the world"

 

I soon reached the conclusion that the word genocide is etymologically

interconnected with the tragedy of the Armenians, just like the word

Orange is to the fruit of the same name. The man who coined the word

genocide had in large part based it on the Armenian catastrophe. He

even stated on national television "that it happened to the

Armenians." I further realized that the legal term "Crimes against

humanity" which is affirmed by the U.N general Assembly was in the

main, derived and adopted from a declaration made by the Allies on

24 May 1915 with respect to the initiation of the wartime Armenian

Genocide, which they branded as a "crime against humanity." This

fact is acknowledged by the authoritative UN War Crimes Commission,

History of the United Nations War Crimes Commission and the Development

of the Laws of War.

 

I searched online to learn which countries had actually signed and

ratified the Genocide Convention. I discovered that most countries

in the world had done so, including the United States, Great Britain,

Turkey, Israel and so on. I concluded that by ratifying the convention

they had in fact recognized that the Armenian holocaust was in fact

a genocide.

 

Yes, I use the word 'holocaust' because that word was used to

describe what was happening to the Armenians during the Abdul Hamid

Massacres, Adana Massacres and the Armenian genocide by contemporary

writers. William Walker Rockwell in an article titled "the Total

of Armenian and Syrian Dead" in the New York Times Current History

February 1916, wrote "If the ghosts of the Christian civilians who

have perished miserably in Turkey since the commencement of the great

holocaust should march down Fifth Avenue twenty abreast there might

be a million of them ... for most of them will be women and children".

 

The Armenian genocide has been recognized by the majority of the

nations of the world and we didn't even know it. If those countries

who have ratified the genocide convention deny that the Armenians

were victims of genocide, then they should either terminate their

participation to the convention, or have the convention change the word

'genocide' to something else which is not intrinsically connected to

the Armenian slaughter.

 

Denying that Armenians were victims of genocide is akin to denying

that an Orange is Orange. It is insane and illogical. For those who

believe that what happened to the Armenians should not be termed a

'genocide', should have convinced Raphael Lemkin not to base the

word on what had happened to the Armenians. Unfortunately for them,

it is too late, by signing the genocide convention; most of the world

has already recognized the Armenian genocide.

 

[Arpa]

I reluctantly respond here. I had already read that article, but was hesitant as to where post it, as it is a worst kept secret of my allergy to the subject topic of the G. I wish we could hide that subject under another TOPIC.

Yes, Vicken is right in my alley, he says it better than I ever could.

Here we are, wasting all that breath, time, energy and finances playing a “silly” game of words and alphabet when it has been affirmed time and time again.

Was it a G, an H or an M? is so childish on our part just as on the part of those others. To me it it is tantamount ro re-INVENTING the WHEEL all over again.

History has recorded, independent of our “biased” view that MURDER was committed by a heavily armed state against its totally unarmed subjects. Murder is murder no matter what Lmkin calls it, or Agatha Christie calls it "Murder so Foul". It still smells foul no matter how big one's nose is---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wuFsvz_t_s It was MURDER no matter how one spells it, with or without the letter G, H or M. Yet, here we are wasting valuable time, energy and our meager finances playing word games, if it was a G an H or an M, while the others are saying “yes, we killed 1,499,999 Armenians but it was not a G since it was ONE short of 1,500,000.

Can we learn to speak in another “language”, when killing one person is called MURDER but killing 100 million is an “act of war”?

What war?

One can only wish!

When did we, our ancestors declare “war” on furkey? 1000 Ad? 1895? 1909? 1915? Or even 2008?

To see who is at war with whom….

TO NOT FORGET THAT BLOCKADE IS AN ACT OF WAR.

Edited December 11, 2008 by Arpa

[Yervant1]

Is someone seeing the light? That they cannot escape the truth forever.

 

 

THE COMING STORM WITH WASHINGTON

by Omer Taspinar

 

Today's Zaman

Dec 15 2008

Turkey

 

Last year, shortly after the US Congress decided at the last minute

not to push forward with the Armenian genocide recognition I wrote

in this column that this was a "pyrrhic victory" for Turkey. There

was indeed no reason to celebrate.

 

Of course, I had no idea that the next US president would be a firm

supporter of recognizing the genocide. Instead, my gloomy article had

much more to do with the fact no one in Washington - except those with

a vested financial or political interest to the Turkish government -

believed Turkey's side of the story. Whether "the events of 1915"

amounted to "genocide" was not even debated in America.

 

So why didn't the US Congress pass the resolution? Charles Krauthammer,

a Washington columnist, summarized it best last year in his Washington

Post column. With characteristic poignancy, he wrote: "There are

three relevant questions concerning the Armenian genocide. (a) Did it

happen? ( Should the House of Representatives be expressing itself

on this now? © Was House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's determination

to bring this to a vote, knowing that it risked provoking Turkey

into withdrawing crucial assistance to American soldiers in Iraq,

a conscious or unconscious attempt to sabotage the US war effort?"

 

And here is how Krauthammer answered these questions: "(a) Yes,

unequivocally. ( No, unequivocally. © God only knows." He went on:

"That between 1 million and 1.5 million Armenians were brutally and

systematically massacred starting in 1915 in a deliberate genocidal

campaign is a matter of simple historical record. If you really want

to deepen and broaden awareness of that historical record, you should

support the establishment of the Armenian Genocide Museum and Memorial

in Washington. But to pass a declarative resolution in the House of

Representatives in the middle of a war in which we are inordinately

dependent on Turkey would be the height of irresponsibility."

 

Now do you understand why last year was a pyrrhic victory? The reason

Ankara won the battle was because important newspapers such as The

Washington Post and The New York Times picked up the "genocide"

story and humiliated the House of Representatives with columns and

editorials such as the one written by Krauthammer. Yet, this was not

a sight any believer in Turkey's version enjoyed. Yes, these articles

opposed the Armenian resolution. But none of them believed Turkey's

version of history about "the events of 1915."

 

Turkey won an important battle but ended up losing the war. Just like

Krauthammer's, most of these articles argued that what happened in

1915 was genocide. But Turkey was geo-strategically too important an

ally to offend in the middle of mayhem in the Middle East. In other

words, the opposition to the genocide resolution had nothing to do

with the sudden discovery of new historical facts proving correct the

Turkish version of history. The discussion was only about Turkey's

geo-strategic importance and bad timing.

 

This year we will probably witness the same charade with more

intensity. President-elect Barack Obama, Vice President-elect Joe

Biden, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Secretary of State Hillary

Clinton and, of course, a large majority of Congress are all in favour

of Armenian genocide recognition. The first critical test will be the

US president's annual letter of April 24, which traditionally defines

what happened to Ottoman Armenians as "massacres." Will this year's

letter refer to "genocide"?

 

This first and very critical test in Turkish-American relations

comes within the early months of the Obama administration. There

are only four months between the inauguration in late January and

April 24. And Obama's presidential agenda will be overloaded with the

global financial crisis and all the very crucial foreign policy issues,

ranging from Iraq to Afghanistan and Iran to a possible India-Pakistan

war. Relations with Turkey will not be an urgent issue.

 

In such a busy agenda, it is also highly unlikely that the American

media will pick up the story of a potential crisis with Turkey. This is

why even a pyrrhic victory may not be in the cards this time. There is

still a chance Obama will opt for realism in relations with Turkey. But

this means he will have to break his campaign promises. Surely, this

will not be a first for a politician. But what if Obama is really

committed to "change"? Soon, perhaps too soon, we will know.