Legislating History

Recently various Parliaments throughout the world started to get in the business of legislating history!! Generally this is done to satisfy the requests of minorities within their electoral districts. Unfortunately, such an approach is not only causing a serious dismay of millions of people whose voice is not heard just because they happen not to be living in these districts, but more importantly such parliamentary actions are outside their competence, in pure conflict with the principle due process, and try to limit some basic freedoms.

A case in point is the French Parliament’s recent initiative that conflicts with freedom of thought and speech regarding prohibition of denying the Armenian claim of identifying the events of 1914-1916 as “genocide”, which Turkiye and Turkish people vehemently oppose.

The Armenian stance has gained familiarity with tremendous lobbying efforts throughout the world as well as through the publication of more than 20,000 books supporting their claims. On the other hand, the Turkish side has not been well understood, due to an inadequate amount of share of voice. Less than a hundred books are available supporting the Turkish stance!! Yet, in any court of justice predominant repetition of claims is not sufficient for a verdict, as repetition does not increase validity. A case should stand on its merits. To prevent injustice, it is important not to overlook basic facts.

One of the reasons for such an imbalance in the way public opinion is being formed is the totally different attitude of Armenians and Turks. There are great artists, businessmen, politicians of Armenian descent in many countries. Unfortunately, many of them have been raised with one sided view of the tragic events at the beginning of last century. Almost a century later, they continue to reflect animosity against Turkiye in their work and relationships. On the other hand, for a century Turks have been raised basically ignorant of these events. After establishing her independence in 1923, Turkiye has decided to look forward and not to dwell on the sufferings of the previous period regardless of whether the subjects were Turks, Armenians, or others in order to adopt the dictum “Peace at home, peace in the world”.
History is full of tragedies. Neither the Turkish history nor that of Armenians is an exception. Armenians allege Ottoman Turks committed “genocide” against them. Turks say that this is an unwarranted description of what has really transpired. Armenians accuse Turks of denying genocide. Turks accuse Armenians of defaming them.
There is no doubt that what happened in 1915-16 amounts to a tragedy in which a great number of people, including a large number of Armenians perished. Arnold Toynbee said once that the most painful event in history is the dissolution of an empire, probably having witnessed the demise of the Ottoman Empire. Armenian tragedy is an integral part of that greater tragedy. The main dispute between Turks and Armenians is how to denominate the event.

“Genocide” is a crime codified by the ‘Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide’, signed in 1948. Article 2 of the Convention defines “genocide” as a crime committed against “national, racial, religious or ethnic groups”. Political groups are specifically excluded from the statement because they have political ends such as autonomy, independence, land or ideological revolution. During 1914-16 Armenians constituted a political group par excellence. In fact, the Russian Commander Count Varantzoff Dachkoff made a proposal in which he promised an independence covering six Ottoman provinces if the Armenians had collaborated with the Russians in war. The Armenians responded by preventing the access of Ottoman troops to Baku oil reserves and by delaying the entrance of Enver Pasha to the Sarıkamış front where the harsh weather conditions, caused the death of 30,000 Turkish soldiers. During the Paris Peace Conference, the head of the Armenian National Delegation, Boghos Nubar Pasha, clearly stated their aspiration to independence on one fourth of the Turkish territory where Armenians constituted only 17 % of the population. This is a clear indication of the attitude of the Armenians against the majority Turkish population whose demise was clearly targeted, as without such an action this Armenian goal would be unachievable.

Prof. William Shabas, a renowned jurist, says: “Genocide is, by nature, a collective crime… The organizers and planners must necessarily have a racist or discriminatory motive, genocidal motive… Where this is lacking, the crime cannot be genocide.” Motive of genocide is to extinguish a race for what that group is and not what that group is doing. Armenians claimed genocide predominantly because, the tremendous attention this claim has on world public opinion seemed a feasible way to legitimize their cause for a political end.

In none of the extensive studies relying on the historical archives, any authentic documentation indicating intent to destroy the Armenians has been unearthed. Ottoman archives in Turkiye are open for any historian for research. By contrast, Armenian archives still are not. Furthermore, the Turkish Government has formally called for a joint commission of Turkish, Armenian and independent researchers to go through the Ottoman, Armenian, and third country archives to conduct an independent research for the tragic events of 1914-1916.

At the end of World War I, when the victorious British had access to all Ottoman archives, 144 Turks who were called to war crimes court and the British Crown Prosecutor was asked to try them in Malta. However, the British Prosecutor General discharged all the allegations due to lack of evidence, despite the fact that the British diplomats had the authority to investigate all Ottoman archives. He specifically said in his report dated 29 July 1921 that he “… does not feel that he is in a position to express any opinion as to the prospects of success in any of the cases submitted for his consideration”.

Armenians wish to characterize the fact that they were moved from where Ottoman-Russian war took place to other locations within the Empire as `deportation`, where Turks would define it as `relocation` as they were not sent out of the Empire, but were moved within the Empire. For example, during World War II, the US Supreme Court decided on the Korematsu case on 18 December 1942 that 112,000 people be transferred to another place due to the grounds to prevent espionage and sabotages, American jurists calling it a ‘presumption of disloyalty’. Where as the Ottomans faced `outright treason` by its Armenian citizens and were obliged to relocate them. Armenian citizens of Ottomans were clearly involved in the Ottoman – Russian war on the side of the Russians. On legal grounds, Article 17 of the II Protocol of the Convention states that a ‘civilian population’ can be displaced on the basis of imperative military grounds. As a matter of fact, Gregorian Armenians of the Orthodox sect who collaborated with the Russians were relocated, while Catholic and Protestant Armenians were not subjected to relocation, nor were Armenians living in other parts of the Empire.

The documents show that the Ottomans approached the problems in a relatively humane manner and showed extra effort to minimize the occurrence of any problems during relocation, although not with much success under the prevalent conditions at that time. The Ottomans punished their 500-600 officers who failed to take necessary precautions to protect the population who was being relocated. Indeed, it is apparent that the Ottomans had no will of genocide.

The number of casualties is not strictly relevant in qualifying an event as genocide. The International Criminal Court for the Former Yugoslavia, called the Srebrenitsa massacres of 1995 as `genocide`, where 8000 people were killed. However despite this, the number of losses have an impact on forming a public opinion and there is a dispute about the statistical facts between the Armenian and Turkish claims. While the Armenian side claims that 2,5 million Armenians (The Armenian Delegation in Paris Peace Conference claimed 2.250 million) living within the Ottoman borders before World War I, the Ottoman statistics just before the war states the Armenian population to be 1.3 million. The French Yellow Book states the number to be 1.555 million, while the Britannica indicated 1.5 million. Since the Ottomans recorded these numbers to levy taxes and one of the founding directors of the Statistics Department was an Armenian, they should be closer to the truth. A document of the US State Department declassified in 1958 cites the number of Anatolian Armenians in November 1921 as 1.2 million based on information from the British Embassy and Near East Relief Society. On the basis of these facts, the Ottoman records indicate that 100,000 Armenians lost their lives during the events, while if the French and British statistics are taken as the basis, the losses would be approximately 300,000. Clearly, more research is needed in this area. As for the causes of losses, the Head of the Armenian National Delegation to the Paris Peace Conference, Boghos Nubar, stated ‘epidemics, scarcity of food, inadequacy of medicine and hospital personnel” as major causes of Armenian deaths.

While loss of any human life is a great loss to humanity, regardless of which group he/she belongs, and the number of losses from one side does not, in any way, justify any loss from the other. It should also be emphasized that during the 1912-13 first Balkan War, 1.4 million Turkish civilians were killed; 410,000 were relocated from the Balkans to Anatolia. During World War I, 2.5 million Turkish civilians were killed more than half of which were in Eastern Anatolia. According to the Ottoman archives, Armenian gangs killed 523,000 Ottomans.

The Armenian Diaspora in many countries has been acting politically to achieve what they could not on legal grounds. The attempt of various politicians to legislate history, based on this pressure, not only ignores their legal mandates and democratic principles such as freedom of speech, but also creates an environment of animosity between cultures. Article 6 of the Convention stipulates that “only competent tribunals can try these persons”. In other words laws and resolutions passed by parliaments, commemorative declarations issued by presidents or any other political decisions that describe Armenian events as `genocide` are devoid of legal meaning and effect.
What we need today is reconciliation of these feelings and working together to bring prosperity to the people of Eastern Anatolia and Armenia. At a time where the humanity needs peace and mutual respect, trying to legislate history, to say the least, is not helpful in building common understanding and bridges between people who have great potential to bring mutual prosperity.

Dr. Argüden

October 24, 2006
From Global Crisis to Global Governance
The mortgage crises that started in the US in 2008 soon turned into a global crisis....
The Global Citizens’ Initiative
February 11, 2018
Responsible Boards – Action Plan for a Sustainable Future
A sustainable global economy is one that combines long-term profitability with ethical behavior, social justice, and...
IFC Private Sector Opinion
March 1, 2015
Right Reward for Right Performance
Aligning Executive Compensation with Good Governance Dr. Yılmaz Argüden1 “Price is what you pay. Value is...
International Journal of Disclosure & Governance
April 1, 2013
Is More Regulation the Right Recipe for Better Governance
Increasing regulation of corporate governance is becoming a new trend in many jurisdictions. Yet good governance...
October 2, 2012
Rio+20 was a Bust
World leaders from government, the business world, NGOs and academia gathered at the UN’s Rio+20 summit....
The Globalist
July 11, 2012
Why Boards Need More Women
Diversity on boards is critical to sustaining performance. Broadening the composition of the board increases the...
Harvard Business Review Blog
June 7, 2012
Global Boards Help Make Companies Global
For organizations to endure, they must strike a balance between risks and rewards, short-term objectives and...
Harvard Business Review Blog
November 9, 2011
Attitude is everything: The case for Turkiye
Recent local elections have been a wake up call for numerous European leaders such as Angela...
INSEAD Knowledge
April 28, 2011
Diversity at the Head Table
Click here to download as PDF.
October 25, 2010
Measuring the Effectiveness of Corporate Governance
Trust is the foundation of sustainable development. As the world continues to get smaller, our mutual...
INSEAD Knowledge
April 15, 2010
ARGE Corporate Governance Model©
Click here to download as PDF.
March 15, 2010
Consensual Delegation of Sovereignty
Thanks to changes in IMF voting, countries such as China, Mexico and Turkey now have a...
The Globalist
November 18, 2009
The Power of Inclusion
Editor’s note: When US President Barack Obama landed in Ankara on Monday, April 6, 2009, it...
Harvard Business Review Editors' Blog
April 9, 2009
From Global Crises to Global Governance
In a perspective from Turkiye, top business strategist and civic leader Yilmaz Argüden explores how global...
March 28, 2009
Opportunity from Crisis: Obama’s Chance for Real Global Leadership
In a perspective from Turkiye, top business strategist and civic leader Yilmaz Argüden argues that Barack...
The Globalist
February 20, 2009
Europe’s Dilemma: Values vs Interests and Protectionism vs Leadership
For decades European development has been guided by a number of key values: human rights, democracy,...
World Economic Forum
December 18, 2006
Legislating History
Recently various Parliaments throughout the world started to get in the business of legislating history!! Generally...
October 24, 2006
US – Turkish Cooperation Based on Shared Values
Since 9/11, the US unilateralism has been widely interpreted as a projection of hard power to...
September 5, 2005
Shaping The Future
The choices we make today shape not only the current results, but also the future. However,...
Dünya Gazetesi
March 2, 2005
Water and Global Governance
The 5th World Water Forum has convened in Istanbul. Water is life. Everywhere and every day we need it. Water...
Global Compact
March 1, 2005
The Missing Political Debate
The US presidential elections have profound implications not just for the US, but also for the...
April 6, 2004
Lead Indicators
Managers usually make their decisions based on metrics, which can easily be measured and has an...
January 21, 2004
Family Businesses
Happy families are all alike, but each unhappy family has reasons of its own. Leo Tolstoy...
July 10, 2000
European Union and Turkiye in 2020
“The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams.” Eleanor Roosevelt Let...
July 3, 2000
Civil Society in Support of University
“Only the educated are free” Epictetus That the importance of education increases further everyday is beyond...
June 17, 2000
Democratization of Capital
“You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by escaping today.” Abraham Lincoln In today’s world only...
June 17, 2000
Second Career
“Life consists not in holding good cards but in playing those you hold well.” Joel Billings...
June 17, 2000
Center of Attraction
“It is not in the stars to hold our destiny, but in ourselves.” William Shakespeare To...
June 5, 2000
Going Beyond the Borders
“The shell must break before the bird can fly.” Lord Alfred Tennyson The greatest obstacle to...
May 30, 2000
Galatasaray and Education of a Nation
“Winning is not everything, but the will to win is everthing.” Vince Lombardi Education of a...
May 23, 2000
Corporate Governance
“The best way to create trust in an organization is to open all doors – from...
May 17, 2000
Those Who Fail to Share, Will Be Shared Out
“Dünyada görmek istediğin değişimi, önce kendinde gerçekleştirmelisin.” Mahatma Gandhi Unprecedent improvements in information and communication technologies,...
April 24, 2000
Representative Democracy to Participatory Democracy
“A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.” Confucius Decisions that are not...
April 17, 2000
Reform in Patent Legislation
“Change starts when someone sees the next step.” William Drayton Developed countries are adamant about extending...
April 9, 2000
Leaders Magazine Interview
LEADERS Magazine Interview Questions for: Dr. Yılmaz Argüden Chairman ARGE Consulting, Istanbul Senior Advisor and Representative...
January 1, 2000
Managing Diversity
Ladies and Gentlemen, It is a great pleasure and honor for me to address you to...
January 1, 2000
World Leadership by Example: Challenge for EU
The potential of EU for the leadership of the world was the subject of the largest...
January 1, 2000
Education for Sustainable Global Governance
Vision: The world will be a more stable and innovative place to live for the human...
January 1, 2000
Global Fault Line
Humanity’s search for truth and curiosity to reach further locations have been an ever lasting ambition....
January 1, 2000
Turkish-American relations and TAİK
Turkish-U.S. Business Council (TAİK) Chairman Dr. Yılmaz Argüden answered our questions concerning Turkish-American relations and the...
January 1, 2000
Global NATO
The most important role of government is to provide security and maintain stability. Significant changes occurred...
January 1, 2000