A Legal Review of the 1915 Events in 100th Anniversary on the Basis of Historical Findings
Editor Assist. Prof. Dr. Neslihan KARATAŞ DURMUŞ
Editor Asistants Res. Assist. Yavuz Selim DEĞERLİ Res. Assist. Cansu KORKMAZ Res. Assist. Mert SİLAHŞÖR Res. Assist. Ömer ÜNLÜ
ISBN: 978 – 605 – 4929 – 08 – 5
This study was supported within the scope of Scientific Research Projects (Bilimsel Araştırma Projeleri – BAP) of Ankara Yildirim Beyazit University.
The authors are not responsible for any mistakes, errors, or omissions in the translations. In such case, please refer to the original texts.
Printed in : Pozitif Matbaacılık Çamlıca Mah. 145. Sok. No:10/19 Yenimahalle/ANKARA Tel: 0312.397.00.31 - Faks: 0312.397.86.12 [email protected] - www.pozitifmatbaa.com Graphic Design : Safure ARSLAN Date of Publication : 2017 Contact Details : Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi 15 Temmuz Şehitleri Binası Ayvalı Mah. Halil Sezai Erkut Cad. 150. Sok. Etlik/ANKARA Tel : +90 312 906 21 02/ 312 906 21 69 Fax : : +90 312 312 906 29 62 Website : www.ybu.edu.tr/hukuk/
PREFACE AYBU Faculty of Law is on the way to bring “new perspectives on higher education” in conformity with the establishment ground, mission and philosophy of University. In this context, while we are serving with the consciousness and awareness of our responsibilities, we must take thesocial values, mentality and expectations of this country into account. This study is very important to state the view, mission and vision of AYBU Faculty of Lawabout the ArmenianIssue. Transforming of Symposium presentation that are aimed to discuss the Armenian Issue within the concept of law into a published Book is also significantfor academicians and researchers who are interested in this subject. I would like to thank to all who give their best efforts to prepare this Symposium, including the teaching fellow of our Faculty Assist. Prof. Dr. Neslihan KARATAŞ DURMUŞ.
Prof. Dr. M. Fatih UŞAN Vice-Rector Deputy Dean of Faculty of Law
EDITORIAL This book is a compilation of papers presented and discussed in the “International Symposium of the Legal Review of the 1915 Events in 100th Anniversary on the Basis of Historical Findings” which was held on May 8, 2015 by the Faculty of Law of Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University with the Auspices of Presidency of Republic of Turkey. In this book, which also includes the opening speeches of the symposium, the works are in accordance with the order of presentation in the symposium. Today, as in the Middle East, Syria and Arakan, certain states in history have had the aim of ruling the world within their politics. In order to realize these aims, they tried to create chaos in the society by different methods such as prompt a revolt and breed bad blood between the Ottoman people. During World War I different countries attacked to our country with the aim of occupying our territory. Despite this, we saved our country by giving many martyrs. There are many local and foreign sources related to the First World War events on our territory. All of this information has been voiced by historians at different organizations and meetings and the issues has been tried to be clarified. The events of 1915, described as the Armenian issue, became a subject of frequent political action in the international area, especially in April and May each year. In fact, it is also known that the states closely interested in the Armenian issue do not examine their role in the events and do not fulfill their historical responsibilities. However, it is our basic duty to ensure that the matter is examined within the framework of the legal rules. Certain groups make big efforts to attain the legal consequences against the Republic of Turkey in the context of international law only with the support of the media(and lobby groups), although not based on any historical document. A correct social consciousness must be created by creating public opinion within the framework of today's technological possibilities, historical documents and universal legal rules. It is a political and historical responsibility of the states which are respectful for the law and the universal values.
I’m most grateful to Prof. Dr. Yücel Acer, Dr. Jeremy Salt, Prof. Dr. Gül Akyılmaz, Dr. Bekir Tank, Maxime Gauin, Prof. Dr. İbrahim Ethem Atnur, Prof. Dr. İbrahim Kaya for their valuable contributions. I also thank to Mr. Jean Louis Mattei who participated in the symposium despite the very serious health problems before the symposium and present his communique especially in Turkish. The articles in this book also published in English, French and German other than Turkish. I would like to thank Fatma Sarıkaya, Oya Uslu Çetin, Rabia İlay Peerzada, Ömer Ünlü, Cansu Korkmaz, Ali Osman Arslan, Köroğlu Kaya, Belkıs Vural Çelenk, Biset Sena Güneş, for their help to translation and its control. Also, I thank to Yasin Poyraz, Ünsal Dönmez, Selma Öztürk Pınar, Yavuz Selim Değerli, Mert Silahşör,Tuğçe Nimet Yaşar, Figen Tabanlı, Maxime Gauin and Tuncay Çakmak for reading and correction of transla- tion.
I owe a debt of gratitude to Scientific Research Projects Unit of Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University for their help in organization of symposium and publishing of this book. I would also like to thank Türk Tarih Kurumu (Turkish History Association) for providing financial support to the symposium. I hope the book will contribute to both national and international literature. Best regards. Assist. Prof. Dr. Neslihan KARATAŞ DURMUŞ Ankara, 2017
CONTENTS
Editorial Preface Contents Opening Speeches
Assist. Prof. Dr. Neslihan KARATAŞ DURMUŞ ...... 287 Prof. Dr. M. Fatih UŞAN ...... 291 Prof. Metin DOĞAN ...... 295 Prof. Dr. Numan KURTULMUŞ ...... 301
The So-Called Armenian Genocide and the Jurisprudence Of International Court of Justice ...... 307 Prof. Dr. Yücel ACER
Not A Matter For The Historians? Geoffrey Robertson and The ‘Armenian Question’ ...... 323 Dr. Jeremy SALT
Legal Status of Armenians ın the Ottoman State and the Initial Legal Arrangements Regarding the Goods They Left Behind ...... 335 Prof. Dr. Gül AKYILMAZ
Reflections of the Conflicts Within the Major World Powers to the Armenian Question During World War – I ...... 437 Dr. Bekir TANK
From Insurgency To Scorched Earth Policy: Armenian Nationalist Policy Against The Ottoman Empire And Emerging Turkey, 1914-1923 ...... 497 Maxime GAUIN
Armenians’ Return From the Deportation ...... 519 Prof. Dr. İbrahim Ethem ATNUR
Armenian Genocide Claims: Facts Based On Evidence ...... 551 Jean-Louis MATTEI
Possible Legal Implications Of Genocide Claims: Claıms For Compensation and Territory ...... 573 Prof. Dr. İbrahim KAYA
Opening Speeches
My Very Valuable President, Esteemed Deputy to My Prime Minister, Dear President of My University, Dear Dean of My Faculty, My Valuable Teachers and Our Esteemed Guests, The Very Precious President of Our country, Esteemed Deputy to Our Prime Minister, Honorable President of Our University, Valuable Dean of Our Faculty, Our Academicians who are our Guiding Lights and Our Esteemed Guests, Welcome to the International Symposium, which is organized by the Faculty of Law of the Yıldırım Beyazıt University on ‘the Historic Approach to the Events of 1915 on their 100th Anniversary’; you have honored us. First of all, I would like to start with my special thanks and appreciation to our President esteemed Mr. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan for sponsoring this symposium that we organized. This is an honor for us. Glancing at the world history, we observe that the states have a common goal of guiding the world politics. Even though the states have such goals, the methods they use while achieving this goal is taken as the most important data for the establishment of their places in history. Providing a fair societal consciousness by establishing public opinion within the historical documents and universal legal rules using the technological opportunities of our day and age, is the political, historic and legal responsibility of those states that are adherent to law and universal values. No matter how much it is a subject that the historians and lawyers should discuss together, the so called Armenian genocide allegations have become a topic handled only with political concerns as it has become frequently used in international public opinion also. Political end results are being sought,
| 287 | without accepting the subject’s investigation through historic documents and archives, in an approach unwilling to discuss the subject within legal framework. We are able to observe this openly and clearly at the present time as well. Some governments declare that “genocide took place” and that opposing views cannot be accepted and some governments even go as far as stating that defense of the opposite view is a crime. However, there is one point that they overlook which is an open and clear rule of the law: the claim, the defense and then the decision. On any topic, decision should be given at the end of the process of hearing the defense against the claimant party. But unfortunately on this subject, there is a claim and the decision is given by third party countries that have no relation to the subject, without receiving the statements of the defense. In relation to this, I would like to present an event that I witnessed 9 years ago. The date: March 18th 2006. The location: Invalide Square, next to the French Parliament. Again, in those days, the Armenian genocide issue is on the agenda of France, and the bill criminalizing the refusal of this claim is being discussed in the French Parliament on that day. We were organizing meetings and holding up banners, right next to the French Parliament, explaining that this subject should not be discussed by politicians, but by historians and that it is a matter of freedom of speech. We approached with a committee of three persons to esteemed François Hollande who is now the President of France, but used to be the opposition leader at the time and requested him for detention of this voting and to inform that the people’s freedom of thought and freedom of expression could not be restricted.
| 288 |
At that time esteemed Mr. Hollande, mentioning that the Turkish community did not show enough of a presence related to this subject - not raised their voice and remained passive, forwarded this question towards our committee: ‘Where were you Turks, until today?’ Yes, if we were to perform a self-criticism; unfortunately, we could not express ourselves to the international community with a variety of academic works and lobbying activities. Even though we have come a long way on this topic lately, we still are not at the adequate level. So, we have organized this symposium as the Legal Department of Yıldırım Beyazıt University in an effort to add one missing stone in the academic field, to covering this deficiency. Today we are here to analyze events that took place 100 years ago. Even though this subject has been covered in depth numerous times and examined by our historian academicians, its evaluation through the legal angle has taken a back seat. No matter how painful marks it has left on history pages from both peoples’ standpoint, it is an undeniable reality that a legal aspect of these events existed then and now. For this reason, we as the Legal Department of Yıldırım Beyazıt University are acting as a mediator for our precious academicians to share with our community their knowledge on how these events are evaluated from the legal perspective and what kind of results the financial compensation and land demands pushed forward at different times can yield, in light of information that will be given by our valuable historians regarding the events that took place. This symposium will be the beginning of our endeavors and hopefully it will not remain at this level and it will be carried over to international platforms with the leadership of our esteemed university president and the esteemed dean of our faculty.
| 289 | I will be leaving the podium to our master academicians in order not to extend the time allotted to me and also in obedience with the rule of ‘giving the job to the experts. While I submit my respect to you all, I wish the symposium will be successful and lay the foundation for positive turn of events. Thank you.
Assist. Prof. Dr. Neslihan KARATAŞ DURMUŞ
| 290 |
Respected Vice Prime Minister, Esteemed Rector, Dignified President of Higher Council of Atatürk Culture, Language and History, Distinguished National and International Academicians and Dear Guests! I would like to welcome you all and thank you for participating in this International Syposium on the Events of 1915 from Legal Perspectives on their 100th Anniversary. Yıldırım Beyazıt University is a new state university which was established five years ago with the aim of bringing a new dimension to higher education and uplifting the standards in this sector. With its global perspective, our University and Faculty aim to train productive, research oriented, and inquisitive individuals who do not stay out of the problems of the country but are involved in them as well as producing solutions for them. On route to this aim, it is our mission to organize scientific meetings where scientists, researchers, representatives and applicants from jurisdiction come together and present their ideas and criticism to bring out solutions to certain problems. Therefore, our faculty has organized three international, including this one, and two national conferences within the last three years. We will continue to carry out such events. In fact, we are going to hold two international conferences on Commercial Law and Intellectual Property Law in the autumn of 2015. Dear Participants, We planned and decided to organize the current Syposium about three years ago in order to reveal the mission, vision and perspective of our Faculty on the events of 1915. As a new and young faculty, while revealing the legal aspects of the issue with a sense of responsibility, we aspire to discuss the issue in the light of objective and scientific data far from prejudgements. Thus, I would like to thank the respected scientists who will contribute to our goal by presenting their papers in this Symposium.
| 291 |
Hereby, I would like to take this opportunity to thank our President for his supports to handle the events of 1915 from an objective perspective. Dear Guests, There were two important events for Turkish and World history: Battle of Gallipoli and Tahcir. As for the first one, the heroic struggles of Turks, their martial success, their chivalry and their humanistic virtues-except the situations resulting from the difficult conditions of war-were accepted and appreciated by everyone. Today, the grandchildren of those who fighted against each other in the past participate in commemoration days together and consider the past sufferings as means of friendship rather than source of grudge. Past hostility resulted from certain conditions of history should not be eternal. Isn’t the fact that nations which have fighted with each other for centuries integrate with each other in order to realise their mutual aims a good example of the possibility of forgetting hostile feelings? Dear Guests, Tahcir, administrated by Ottoman Empire at the same time with the Battle of Gallipoli, is kept up-to-date even after one hundred years in order to condemn a nation for carrying out massacre. Moreover, this issue is tried to be taken into internatinal platforms with the decisions taken by the parliaments of third party countries. However, a great many cases of destructive wars in history were without doubt forms of massacre, but they are not brought forward either by the related parties or third parties. Therefore, it is worth to think how to explain the approaches held against Tahcir. It should be noted at first that this issue is multidimensional. The problem is not only a matter of history or law. In a world where even more severe applications and events of history were put behind, bringing up Tahcir constantly and making allegations could only be explained through social psychology. It is a common belief that Armenian nationalism and their struggle for freedom support this viewpoint. On the other hand, it is not only a hpothesis but also an observation that this issue will cause significant problems in terms of international politics and relations. Claims of Genocide
| 292 |
that hinder the positive relations between Turkey and Armenia affect the relations of Turkey with other countries such as the USA and France. As is known to all, Armenians lived by keeping their ethnic and religious features without any problems in Ottoman Empire. However, the problem started with the political demands resulted from the nationalism that arose in 19th century when the Ottoman Empire started to lose its power. During this period, Hınçak and Taşnak Parties carried out systematic riots and committed assaults addressing Muslims. Without mentioning its details regarding under which conditions and how the compulsory relocation (Tahcir) was administered, it is possible to assert that the aim of this act was to protect the law and order and prevent all-out slaughter. Tahcir is a historical event while genocide is a criminal conduct in terms of penal code. The United Nations Genocide Convention adopted in 1948 makes a definition of the term by referring to conducts such as “eradicating a national, ethnic, religious group or a race partially or totally”. Undoubtedly, in my opening speech, I am not going to focus on either the historical date or the judicial analysis of the issue. However, the experts of the topic are going to reveal the truth by discussing the events of 1915 from juridical perspective. Dear Guests, I would like to take this opportunity to extend you my sincere thanks and greetings for participating in this International Symposium on the Judical Look on the Events of 1915 in their 100th Anniversary.
Prof. Dr. M. Fatih UŞAN
| 293 |
| 294 |
Respected President, Esteemed Minister, Dignified Legislators, Distinguished Academicians and Dear Guests, Since 2015 is the hundredth anniversary of the 1915 events, it has been expected to witness increasing discussions regarding not only Armenia and Turkey but also the public opinion as much as it is interest in the issue. Correspondingly, these discussions are intensely lasting. However, at this stage, when these events are considered, the issue does not have two sides as opposed to the popular belief. Namely, it is impossible to imagine a platform where one of the two basic arguments would prevail the other. In fact, currently, there is not a mutual agreement even on the basis of these discussions. Should we call the events of 1915 Tehcir (Relocation) or Sevk ve İskan (Dispatch and Housing)? Is this the topic of History or Politics? Are we going to talk about the Documents or Ideologies? At this point, answering these questions actually reveals from which point of view the issue should be discussed. In other words, it is not true that there are one Armenian and one Turkish side and each defends different opinions. The issue has already become an international problem. In fact, it is not well known by the Turkish party. Namely, Turkish people (especially those living abroad) do not have much knowledge about the issue. They face with intense propaganda and they almost tend to believe in the arguments of these propaganda. On the other hand, three issues draw attention when the other party is considered. The first is to do with the Armenians living in Armenia, who actually confront most of the trouble today since it is not an autarky and does not have rich resources and thus under the control of Russia. Therefore, it has financial problems and its population gradually decreases. Today, it is estimated that there are around 100.000 fugitive and licensee Armenians working in Turkey. The problems of this group could be solved with the use of reasonable, scientific, political and commercial approaches.
| 295 |
The second group consists of Armenians living within the border of Turkish Republic. Actually, there are not big problems regarding this group. In fact, the endevours of the last 10-15 years aiming to develop demeocracy and give human rights prominence have made this group excessively happy. The third group is the Armenian Diaspora, which aggravates the issue and tries hard in order to bring it to the international arena. The living Diaspora, USA and France being in the first place, brings the issue to the front every year, benefits from this issue and keeps itself alive thanks to it. While It carries out lobbying activities by keeping the issue on the agenda, on the other side those who want to appropriate the issue cause pressure on Armenians and Armenia. As a result, the policies followed by Armenian parties make the true and objective analysis of the issue impossible. Armenian historians and many western historians have practiced double standards in their unidirectional studies. The events of 1915 have been exaggerated with the use of Armenian suffer. The Armenian Diaspora has overstated the issue and made it international. Thus, the stagy statements made by public opinion across the world were accepted. From time to time, the convergence policies of Turkey have remained inconclusive. In fact, each step Turkey had taken in order to shed light on the issue through historical and objective perspectives have been considered as a weakness by Armenians. Nowadays, not only in history and law but also in every field of social sciences, defending opinions that are not based on evidence are not considered so eligible as it was before. Propaganda and language of war are not beneficial even for the supporters of such approaches. On the contrary, together with transnational approaches, possibly more narrow but strong and realistic comments and descriptions that could be proven as objective bring the scientist to the front. At present, there are undoubtedly many scientists both in Turkey and everywhere around the World who would defend the realistic and objective arguments of Turkey. As for the current aspect of the issue, the spiritual leader of Catholic Christians Pope Fransicus Gregorian, who have not accepted Armenians as a sect for 1000 years, have suddenly started to embrace them and described
| 296 |
these events as the first tragedy of the 20th century and just after this European Parliament took similar decisions and parliaments of the various Christian countries and higher executives have made similar explanations. What do all these mean? Is this only because 2015 is the hundredth anniversary of the events of 1915 or a result of the lobbying activities of Armenian Diaspora? However, Armenians were described as Millet-i Sadıka (Loyal Nation) in the Ottoman Empire and have been living in peace together with others in Anatolia. Perhaps, they belong to Gregorian Sect, the religious beliefs and life sytles of which is the closest one to Muslims. Moreover, Armenian Patrick was firstly established in İstanbul by Fatih Sultan Mehmet. However, between 1850 and 1915, Gregorian Armenians were trained in missionary schools opened in places where Armanian population was dense. Then, these people were sent to the USA for education and then sent back to Anatolia so that they become Protestants. After all these endeavours, Armenians were organized in line with the provocations of many foreign countries. They held about 50 riots and tyrannized over Muslims. The main reasons of Tehcir (Relocation) are Ottoman-Russian War and the World War I, which brought the end of Ottoman Empire. During the World War I, when Ottoman Empired fighted against enemies in many fronts, Armenians living in the hinterland of East Frontiers betrayed and started riots. They even fighted together with enemies against Ottoman armies. While Armenians started riots in provinces where there were logistic support to be sent to the armies, on the other side Armenian gangs slaughtered Muslims. Therefore, in order to prevent carelessness, Ottoman administrators sent Armenian citizens to places where there were no war and the Muslim population was dense. The issue is related to the losses that occured during the displacement and is imposed as genocide today. In fact, Ottoman Empire took measures in order to protect even animals besides people, which could be understood from the documents found in the archives. One of the issues I want to highlight is that a new crusade mentality is about to emerge because the Catholic Pope, the spiritual leader of Catholic
| 297 |
Christians, has suddenly started to embrace the Gregorian Armenians and following this the parliaments and leaders of the Christian countries have taken similar decisions. In particular, we wonder if the fact that Turkey has been more active in international arena and has become stronger in economics and politics in recent years disturb someone? Is that why a great deal of countries focus on this issue like moors who have just found unclaimed goods? Is the reason behind this to clip Turkey’s wings by taking such decisions at international level? All these should be well understood. In these days, Turkey is tried to be accused by Tehcir (Relocation), the events of 1915, for they are considered as genocide. Knowing this, Yıldırım Beyazıt University struggles for discussing the issue from different perspectives such as Politics, History, Sociology, Diplomacy and particularly International Law. Therefore, I believe that this symposium will be really invaluable in handling the issue in accordance with objectivity and historical facts in the light of juristicial views. I also claim that the opinions, thoughts and studies of this syposium, which is probably the first in terms of legal perspective, will make history. In this sense, I would like to extend my sincere thanks to our President Recep Tayyip ERDOĞAN, under whose aegis this syposium is organized. Moreover, I would like to thank Vice Prime Minister Prof. Dr. Numan KURTULMUŞ, who is here with us now. I also want to thank the scientists on duty and everyone, particularly Prof. Dr. Yücel ACER, a teaching member of Yıldırım Beyazıt University Faculty of Law and rector of Çanakkale 18 Mart University, and Prof. Dr. Muhammed Fatih UŞAN, Dean of the Faculty of Law who have spent great effort to carry out this special event. I greet you with respect wishing you all a successful symposium.
Prof. Dr. Metin DOĞAN Rector of Ankara Yildirim Beyazit University
| 298 |
Dear Respected Chairmen/Principals of Atatürk High Institution of Culture, Language and History and Turkish Historical Association, Dear Esteemed President of Yıldırım Beyazıt University, Dear Honorable President of Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Distinguished Scientists, Respectable Teachers, Special Ladies and Gentlemen, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome you all, and to extend my sincere regards. I want to express that it is a great pleasure to speak to and be with you today. I am pleased to be participating in this momentous event in order to contribute to your endevours in making your voice heard regarding this humanistic and national issue. I wish you all have a nice symposium. In particular, I would like to congratulate everyone who have made a crucial contribution towards the success of this conference. Armenian Question has long been made into an important political tool used in order to drive Turkey into a corner. While this tool was once Asala Terrorist Organization, it has turned into anti-Turkey policies and paved the way for initiatives that aim to enforce anti-Turkey laws in the certain countries with the help of several lobbies/pressure groups. In short, even though they appear in various forms, we witness numerous projects devoted to force Turkey in a corner rather than reveal the truth. By the 100th anniversary, namely 2015, we have forecast that the number of discussions about the events of 1915 would have increased and Turkey would be pushed to the wall more severely. Turkish attitude towards the events of 1915 could be summarized under two aspects: The first one is the idea that was proposed in our Honorable President’s speech made on April 24, 2013, when he was Prime Minister. We convey our condolonces to all Ottoman citizens who lost their lives because the events in 1915. Both Armenians and Muslims who lost their lives during those events were Ottoman citizens living together as friends on those lands as members of a great civilization. Therefore, we would not let anyone exploit the agonizing pains of Anatolian people, who had lived together in Anatolia, appeared during the World War I. Armenians and Muslims who died and were killed there are the children of these lands and cultural background of
299
our history. They are painful memories, but they belong to us. That is our first idea and attitude. Our second attitude is that we are open to anyone who seeks after the truth as to the events of 1915 and wants to reveal the historical truths with their justifications if we want to talk about and realize the truth rather than stating political rhetorics concerning the current situation of the events of 1915. In İstanbul on March 19, 2015, our President made the opening speech at the meeting of the general directors of state archives coming from various countries and I made the closing remarks. The following view both of us confirmed there proves how straight-forward and communicative Turkey is: “Come in and bring it on! All Turkish archives are open and at the disposal of those who want to seek truth. They are welcome to come in and do research. However, we would not let anyone force Turkey into a corner because of one of the painful memories that happened a hundred year ago. It is out of question.” Dear Participants, Armenians and Muslims are the eternal citizens of Anatolia. Before Malazgirt Victory, both Armenians and Syrians, namely the components/ elements of Mesopotamia in Anatolian part and representing the everlasting culture of this region, got acquainted with Muslim and Turkish cultures thanks to Akhis and Dervishes who settled in Anatolia because of Byzantian oppression. Turkmenians, Kurds, and Armenians shared their food, namely their cheese, yoghurt, cooked food and wheat. They welcome each other at their home and mourned together. Theyshared their happiness; danced in their wedding ceremonies. In fact, believing that “komşu komşunun külüne muhtaçtır”, Turkmenians, Kurds, Armenians and Syrians have showed good examples of neighbourhood and kept them alive for ages. We have been in such close and sincere relations that our music, speech, requiem, and folk songs have united and integrated witihin the frame of friendship and fellowship. As a great example of how well Muslims and Armenians integrated with each other, I want to share one of these beautiful folk songs, which was composed by Armenian Bruce Hovennes from Erzincan in Turkey.
| 300 |
“Yeri yeri gavur oğlu, götür bizden muhal sözü, ben Hovennes keşiş oğlu, ben Müslüman Molla Gazi” If there is a culture that makes one to utter this stanza, tyranny and injustice could not derive from those regions. Although we experience this friendship, fellowship and neighbourhood altogether, today we have been talking about the painful and mournful events that occured a hundred year ago because history gains its seat not thanks to great friendships and happiness but thanks to mass mournful and painful events. This is valid for all countries regardless of geography and society. Therefore, instead of our friendship and neighbourhood with Armanians, Syrians and Non-Muslim citizents of Anatolia which was reflected in our folk songs, songs, food and master-apprentice relationship, unfortunately, we have been focusing on a history based on sorrow and lament. Deep pains, great traumas, deaths, exiles, relocations and expulsions…It is a pity that history is considered based on these. However, these lands have always been a place of friendship and fellowship and homeland of peace for ages, as depicted by Yunus Emre- a Turkish poet and Sufi mystic. People coming from different cultures, ethnics and religions have attained living together by keeping their own values and without being assimilated and ostracizing and alienating anyone. They taught their values to each other and exchanged information. For instance, we have learnt crafting and mastership from Armenians. In fact, they built our houses and taught us copperwork.Similarly, Syrians taught us jewellery and trained novice Muslim children as masters. We got so intertwined that Hovennes does not refer to himself or other non-Muslim citizens because “gavur” is not an adjective used for depicting non-Muslims.Whether they are Muslim or non-Muslim and Turkish or Kurdish, “Gavur” is an adjective used to describe any tyrants, despots and those who torture people. On the other hand, it is used as a noun to refer to imperialist countries in modern times. Moreover, we are the only Muslim country in whose dictionary the word gavur is found.
| 301 |
I remember from my childhood that mothers would warn their children for not calling Armenian children as gavur while they were playing for instance in Kumkapı in İstanbul. This is because gavur is not the name of non- Muslims living together with us. It is the name of imparialists who came to Gallipoli to occupy our country… We are talking about a culture that loves human because of God and accepts any kind of difference resulting from creation as the wealth of humanity. As the name implies, Anatolia embraces everyone like a mother without discriminating among Greek, Armenian, Turkish, Bosnian, Laz and Kurdish or Muslim, Non-Muslim, Sunni and Alavi. Anatolia cradles everyone coming from any part of the world and contributes to their peaceful and wealthy life feeling that these lands are their homeland . This is because our great and ever-present civilization implies/spells/tells that human is the synopsis of the world and the universe. When appointing a governor to Kufe, Prophet Ali said: “You are to leave and manage the people. Keep in mind that there are two classes of people: either your equal in terms of creation or fellow before religion…” “Hilkatte eşin (equal in terms of creation)” means that all dual/double classification is ignored. Any kind of classification regarding the difference in terms of religion, ethnicity, gender, richness, poverty,and skin color is overlooked and people are considered equal in terms of their creation. The concept of “Dinde kardeşin (fellow before religion)” ignores any kind of discrimination based on religion; disregards sects, dispositions and divisions and pursue the principle of “The faithful are fellows”. Anatolian lands are the home of such principles. They are the homeland of the discourse, acts and lives of Yunus, Mevlana, Hacı Bektaş-ı Veli, Hacı Bayram-ı Veli. There are words examplifying this fellowship for several reasons. The previous example was from Hovennes and here is an example from the verses of Yunus: “We do not hold a grudge to anyone / We are friends with even strangers We are called lazy / our enemy is hate/grudge We do not hold a grudge to anyone / everyone is equal for us” Therefore, those who want to study our history should also consider and analyse these. Unfortunately, great sorrow was experienced within the
| 302 |
dark/gloomy context of 1915 and darkness caused by those wanted to share Anatolia during the World War I. All of us know these. I will not focus on their details. However, there were honest and dignified administrators who were against the decision and application of relocation enacted by the Government of Union and Progress (İttihat Terakki Hükümeti). Below are the names of some of them. Governor of Ankara Hasan Mazhar, Governor of Kütahya Faik Ali, Cemal Pasha’s Assistant Ali Fuat Erden and Governor of Konya Mister Celal… I want to share Konya Governor (previously the Governor of Aleppo) Celal Bey’s memories and evaluation that shed light on the events. He expresses that Turkish people and Muslims should not be cat’s paw in these issues and they did their best in order to prevent the possible provocations. “I witnessed Muslims who helped Armenians subjected to displacement. Some of the farmers told me that they could host the Armenians in their houses and I took note of their requests. Both in Aleppo and Konya, lots of ulema-a body of Muslim scholars who are recognized as having specialist knowledge of Islamic sacred law and theology- and tradesmen were thankful to me for my eforts to protect Armenians. They said that “After all, Shariah (Religious Law) orders that they are to be protected.” Here are his literal memories: “Besides, I neither saw nor heard any Turkish citizen grabbed Armenian goods in both Aleppo and Konya. I did not see anyone who did not dispraise those supporting the provocations and participating in them. After I returned Konya, most of my acquaintance congratulated me on my endevours and stated that they were extremely compatible with humanity and Islam.” I wanted to share these with you as historical documents. Therefore, those who want to reveal the truth are welcome to do it. All our historical documents are open to use. We are ready to discuss the event of 1915, inquire the truth and support the studies to reveal the truth. Yet, as I mentioned earlier, if people want to hold Armenian issue as a political trump over Turkey so that Turkey is prevented and introduced as a difficult and
| 303 |
problematic country at international level, it is in vain, nobody could achieve it. Yes, we agree that humanity was in deep sorrow and suffered because of the events of 1915 events. However, it is Turkey’s trauma/problem. Those people who had seen and know the people who splitted and disarrayed Muslims and Non-Muslims living together for ages can perceive the real perpetrators of the events of 1915. Those who witnessed why and how Sykes- Picot Agreement was made, many wars were declared in order to conclude it and aspiration to split the countries in the region again through a new Sykes- Picot Agreement could surely better understand the events of 1915. Lastly, I want to state that under the leadership of our Esteemed President, we organized a peace summit hosting the statesmen and government representatives in İstanbul on the 100. Anniversary Ceremonies of Battle of Gallipoli. During the events, Turkey put forth and verified the humanistic and peaceful attitudes it holds. Similarly, we transformed the 100. Anniversary of Battle of Gallipoli into a peace ceremony on April 23, 2015. The following day, on April 24, we commemorate English and French martyrs and tried to sing peace songs together instead of bearing hostility over war memories. In conclusion, I can explicitly Express that discourse of peace is always more powerful than anything else. It is more consistent, more didactic and more realistic to convey messages to people. Hereby, I am pleased that Yıldırım Beyazıt University has organized this symposium where the legal dimensions of the Armenian question will be revealed through historical documents. This is an effort that aims to understand and make sense of history thanks to discourse of peace. Moreover, I would like to extend my respect and best regards to our Honorable President, under whose auspices this event was held. I wish that this syposium would lead to good deeds. I hope that it would bring about positive results. I welcome all national and international participants and thank them for their interest.
Prof. Dr. Numan KURTULMUŞ
| 304 |
Articles
THE SO-CALLED ARMENIAN GENOCIDE AND THE JURISPRUDENCE OF INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE*
Yücel ACER**
INTRODUCTION During the First World War, the events relating to Armenian community in the Ottoman State specifically throughout the year 1915 are defined as “Armenian genocide” by some scholars. These literature claim that Armenian intellectuals had been arrested starting from 24 April 1915; around 1.5 million of two million Ottoman Armenians had been killed in 1915-16 amounting to a so-called “Armenian genocide”. For a long time, there have been matters of discussion on whether these claims had been happened or to what extent these had been happened and the more significantly whether these events would be called as 'genocide' or not. Many factors make this longstanding debate difficult to resolve. Among these factors the leading one is the matter which has become considerably a political one. The politicians aiming to benefit from the matter have taken decisions on it by the channel of political institutions. The parliaments of some countries, namely their political institutions have made decisions on 'Armenian genocide'. The governments or state presidents of some countries, even the Pope as the leader of Christian Catholic Church, used the expression of 'Armenian genocide' in his expression. In addition, some legal factors obstruct clarification of the debate. Genocide is a criminal act and identification of whether the genocide crime happened in any case requires related legal principals and detailed observations in the light of these principals. The facts that the Armenian events had happened long time ago and some contradictory and political views have been expressed on the events complicate the investigation of reasons behind historical correspondences and attitudes of the relevant time. Moreover, the identification of these facts makes legal assessments difficult to
* This is the original version of the text. ** Professor at Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University, Faculty of Law, Department of Interna- tional Law and Rector of Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University
| 307 | Yücel ACER be depicted right. On the other hand, since 1951 although a widely acknowledged definition of genocide crime has been indicated with the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1951 Genocide Convention), the embodiment and interpretation of this definition have not found a wide scope of application. Therefore, in order to understand existing legal principles on the genocide crime, an advanced jurisprudence is required. In the context of these mentioned legal complexities, in other words for the aim of contribution to overcome difficulties in clarification of definitional component of genocide crime, this study makes a general legal analysis on the allegations in Armenian genocide in the light of two decisions of International Court of Justice (ICJ) on genocide. In this paper, first of all a brief summary of Armenian events is given, then the concept of genocide crime and what is understood from this concept in ICJ decisions are revealed for making a general assessment on the 'Armenian genocide' allegations.
A. SHORT HISTORICAL BACKGROUND It is a widely accepted view that a remarkable number of Armenians had lived under the authority of the Ottoman for six centuries and they had maintained it in complacence for a considerably long time. The concept of minority in the Ottoman was religious/faith based rather than ethnic-based, these groups had their rights and liberties, even it was allowed that they could organize in their own groups and could govern the issues related with their own communities. After the conquest of Istanbul, Fatih Sultan Mehmet had let the Armenian community living under the Ottoman rule to establish their own patriarchate in 1461. In this frame, Ottoman Armenian community had managed their own internal affairs and had various religious and cultural privileges. One of the facts that indicate how these conditions were satisfactory for Armenian community is this community showed its loyalty to the Ottoman state as much as they were called the 'loyal nation'. Despite this summarized positive picture of the past, it must be highly surprising to see a massive 'Armenian problem' broke out in the Ottoman.
| 308 | Yücel ACER
Undoubtedly, sui generis reasons and factors lie behind this surprising situation. Most of the reasons and factors were rooted from the specific characteristics of the historical period in which 'Armenian Problem' occurred in the Ottoman. 19th century represents the decline and fall periods of Ottoman and owing to this reason it also represents particularly the period that it was subject to intensive interventions of the Western powers. Thus, it was conventionally accepted by Turkish historians that the main reason underlying Armenian problem in the Ottoman was provocations and utilisations originated from the Western interventions. However, there had been other factors that should be emphasized as well. One of the most significant one was the atmosphere which was created by nationalism movement gained speed. Related to this, another factor was Armenian nationalism and more specifically which kinds of methods they used to conduct their plans for establishing an independent Armenia in the eastern lands of Ottoman. Furthermore, the question of whether the Ottoman's reaction caused negative effects would be a different research matter and would find out the new reasons. Armenian community, in fact, had begun to be a problematique in the Ottoman in the beginning of the 1880s. Wide ranging violence acts had been done by Armenian communities and associations. The leading goal of these institutions was not dividing the Ottoman state by the violent events, rather making an Armenian problem in the Ottoman and providing the help for Ottoman Armenians by the intervention of the Western countries. As a matter of fact, these institutions succeeded in this goal in the following years. The late 1880s had been the first period when Armenian problem transformed into tangible incidents. It is possible to note that 38 massive Armenian incidents and seditions had been between 1882 and 1904. 31 of these are identified as seditions and massive seditions such as I. and II. Sasun Rebellion (1894, 1897), Zeytun Rebellion (1895) and Adana Rebellion (1909) are accepted as Armenian rebellions. In addition to these, in various degrees many turmoil and incidents had resulted in injuries and slaughter. It can be said that Armenian's acts, in particular against the Turks remained, even gained momentum throughout the First World War. Undoubtedly, the war gave Armenians a suitable atmosphere for carrying out
| 309 | Yücel ACER their actions easily in order to realize their independence desires. Besides it is known that before the war Armenian committees and churches considerably became armed for this purpose, in particular with the support of Russia. When the war broke out these decisions turned into acts and Armenian gangs propagated their attacks on defenceless population of the region and also mass murders took place. No sooner than the Ottoman state went into the war, Ottoman Armenians left the military, embarked to sabotage and rebel in various places, began to plunder and mass murder actions in helpless Ottoman villages and towns. As a consequence of these kinds of events, a decision called as Deportation Law on 27 May 1915 resolved to evacuate people who did espionage and infidelity acts against Ottoman state to outside of the war zones in part or whole. Despite the fact that Armenians was not nominally mentioned in this law, people at issue meant to be mostly Armenians due to mentioned reasons. In the post-war period Armenian-based violence events continued. At the Second West Armenian Congress in Erivan between 6-13 February 1919, decision-makers such as Talat Pasha, Cemil Pasha, Sait Halim Pasha and governors such as Dr. Nazım, Bahattin Sakir and Cemil Azmi were judged, received sentences, and the operations were initiated for killing them where they were found. From the 1970s to 1985, 45 individuals lost their life in the terrorist actions of ASALA (Armenian Secret Army to Liberate Armenia). Number of the Turkish citizens in the victims was 34, including 4 Turkish ambassadors and 6 consulates. The rest of them were Turkish diplomats and employees of Turkish embassies or consulates. 11 of 45 victims were not Turkish citizens, but some of them were working as the officers in these embassies or consulates. Throughout this process how many of Armenian population died or killed is a question of a serious debate. On one hand Turkish History Institution's researches indicate that around 300.000 Armenians died during 4 years of the war, including more than 200.000 disease victims,* on the other
* Halaçoğlu, Yusuf. Ermenilerin Suriye’ye Nakli: Sürgün mü Soykırım mı? Belgeler.
| 310 | Yücel ACER hand some of Armenian references note this number is more than 1.5 million. Besides this debate, it requires a legal analysis whether the events can be called as genocide. Thus, in the following sections this issue is observed in the context of two conclusive judgments of international judiciary.
B. RELATED ICJ JUDGEMENTS 1. Short History The independence declarations of Slovenia and Croatia on 25th June 1991 trigged the collapse of Yugoslavia Federation which was consisting of six republics. On 17th 1991 Macedonia and on 6th March 1992 Bosnia- Herzegovina declared their independence. On 27th April 1992 the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia established by Serbia and Montenegro. This process of collapsing became the most brutal and inhuman period of European history. When it was 1993, only the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia remained. Many peace attempts such as the Venice plan failed during the conflict. Bosnian Muslims were the most disadvantaged group suffered from the inhuman actions. In 1995, Croatians attacked to gain their lands back again and they got their territories back. On 3rd June 2006 Montenegro declared its independence. At the same time, Serbia came out as a distinct state. In addition to many political problems these events created serious legal effects and they still continue to create. Perpetrators have been judged at the International Court of Old Yugoslavia which was established by the UN’s Security Council’s decision on 15th May 1993. Furthermore, the genocide allegations on the ground of these events have been subjected to two different investigations for the International Court of Justice authorized in international conflicts: Bosnia and Herzegovina- Serbia and Montenegro case; Croatia-Serbia case.
2. The Bosnia and Herzegovina versus Serbia and Montenegro Genocide Case On 20 March 1993, in respect of a dispute concerning alleged violations of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1951 the Government of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina
| 311 | Yücel ACER filed in the Registry of the International Court of Justice an application instituting proceedings against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia formed of the Republic of Serbia and Montenegro in that period. The Application invoked Article IX of the Genocide Convention. Under Article IX, an application shall be submitted to the Court in relation to disputes between the contracting parties relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the present Convention, including those relating to the responsibility of a state for genocide or for any of the other acts enumerated in Article III, at the request of any of the parties to the dispute. On 26 February 2007, the Court announced its decision on the merits.† During the case, the Court has investigated whether the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has committed any of the acts as referred in Article II and III. These facts are: a) Genocide; b) Conspiracy to commit genocide; c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide; d) Attempt to commit genocide; e) Complicity on genocide. However, other essential legal issues also came into subject during the case. The first one was whether the Court has jurisdiction authority over the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Serbia after the separation of Montenegro on 3 June 2006. By the 11 July 1996 judgement, the Court held that it has jurisdiction authority over the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and by the final judgement on 26 February 2006, it was decided that Serbia was the respondent party. The second essential legal issue was that whether a state could be held responsible for the offense of genocide. Serbia claimed that responsibility for genocide can be imposed on individuals rather than states, according to the Genocide Convention of 1951. The Court rejected Serbia´s claim and ruled that Article I of the Convention imposes responsibility on states and states
† Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Geno- cide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro). 26 February 2007.
| 312 | Yücel ACER shall be responsible for 'the actions of a state body, or the actions of individuals or groups of individuals whose actions are attributable to the actions of a state'. Thus, a state could be held responsible when individuals or a state body committed actions referred in Article III. The Court simply applied the relevant articles of the Convention when questioning whether there had been genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the definition of the crime of genocide in Article II was the base when determining Serbia´s responsibility. According to the definition of this article: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. First of all, the Court has agreed that the act of “killing members of the group” was committed widely during the conflicts over the whole territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Court however, concluded that there was no conclusive evidence showing that the killings intended to “destroy a group in whole or in part”. According to the Court, conclusive evidence must be established to claim that genocide has been perpetrated or other crimes referred in Article III have been committed. In this case, the Court has ruled that there were no conclusive evidence showing the intention of “to destroy a group, in whole or in part”. Consequently, according to the Court, the killings in Bosnia and Herzegovina may be regarded as “war crimes” or “crimes against humanity” however, they cannot be considered as genocide. However, the Court has acknowledged that in July 1995 following the seizure of Srebrenica by Bosnian Serb, killing of about 7,000 Muslims by the Serbs constituted a crime of genocide. Because the Court was convinced that
| 313 | Yücel ACER there were conclusive evidence showing that the killings in Srebrenica carried out by the armed forces of the Republic of Bosnia and Serbia was deliberately indented “to destroy a group in whole or in part”. It was held that other actions constituting an offense of genocide such as “causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group” and “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part” were widely held in Bosnia and Herzegovina however, the element of intent in relation to the act of “to destroy in whole or in part” was absent. On the other hand, it was ruled that the act of “imposing measures to prevent births within a group” was not committed in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Court also addressed whether Serbia committed any of the crimes referred in Article III. The Court concluded that Serbia did not commit the crime of “complicity in genocide”. The Court acknowledged that Serbia showed serious support to the Bosnian Serbs and the armed forces of the Republic of Bosnian Serbs; however, it held that there was no conclusive evidence found showing these helps were carried out with the intention of genocide. Moreover, the Court noted that Serbia was not fully aware of these helps will be used for genocide. It was also emphasised that there was no evidence showing that Serbia had effective control over the operations in Srebrenica. Another issue addressed by the Court was that whether Serbia has violated their obligations under the Convention for having failed to prevent genocide and punish its perpetrators. In this regard, the Court concluded that Serbia had violated its obligation to prevent genocide in Srebrenica. According to the Court, authorities in Serbia and Belgrade knew or ought to know that there was a risk of genocide and having the opportunity to control to prevent the occurrence of genocide. According to the Court, Serbian authorities could have done their best to prevent the risk of genocide however they did almost nothing to do so. In addition, it was held that Serbia had failed its obligations to cooperate in the arrest one of the perpetrators of the Srebrenica genocide General Radko Miladic and his delivery to international courts for trial. In the conclusion, the Court held responsible Serbia in violating its obligations to prevent genocide and punish its perpetrators rather than an
| 314 | Yücel ACER offense of genocide or any other crimes listed in Article III; stating that Serbia does not need to pay compensation since this determination was sufficient. The Court´s decision could be criticised in many respects yet it should be noted that two findings are important. First, a state can too be held responsible for the offense of genocide or other crimes referred in Article III. Second, the intention “to destroy a group in whole or in part” is required and this intention must be based on “conclusive evidence” in order to hold a state responsible for genocide. Thus, the existence of the following acts that constitute the crime of genocide is not enough for the formation of the crime; these actions must be carried out with the intention “to destroy in whole or in part”: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. On the other hand, the Court looks for conclusive evidence to rule on the existence of an intention “to destroy in whole or in part” and it is not satisfied with the assumption of existence or possibility of such. This second point is clearly shows that the Court demands strong and precise evidence for the acts of killing, bodily harm, or any other types of violence to be regarded as the offense of genocide. When these findings combined with the findings of the Croatia-Serbia case and applied to the Armenian genocide allegation, some important results emerge which will be discussed briefly at the end of the work.
3. The Croatia versus Serbia Case We mentioned disintegration of the Federation of Yugoslavia in the beginning of the section related to the decision on the Bosnia and Herzegovina – Serbia case. In addition, it should be stated that in 1995 Croats carried an attack again to regain their lost territory following to the previous conflicts
| 315 | Yücel ACER between Croats and Serbs, in that year more attack carried by Serbs resulting another conflict process between two. Croatia like any other former federal republics has not a homogeneous ethnic and religious structure. Croats make 78% of the population of Croatia while Serbs make 12% and the rest constituted by other ethnic and religious groups. Following the conflicts, on 2 July 1999, Croatia filled an application to the Court related to these matters based on Article IX of the Convention of 1951 that allows disputes resulting from the implementation of the Convention to be taken to the Court. The main claim of Croatia was that the Genocide Convention of 1951 has been allegedly infringed by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia or Serbia with the new status during the conflicts between 1991 and 1995. Serbia´s first claim against Croatia´s application was that the Court lack of jurisdiction power of the Court. According to Serbia, the Court had no jurisdiction authority on this application, since on 27 April 1992 Serbia became a party to the Genocide Convention of 1951 following disintegration of the former Yugoslavia. Thus, Serbia could not have been held responsible in relation to events prior to this date. In terms of time, the Court stated that the implementation of Article IX of the Convention has same principles as the implementation of the Convention that means the Convention shall be applied to a state as a whole after it becomes a respondent party to the Convention. Therefore, according to the Court, the provisions of the Convention do not bring an obligation to a state with regard to events occurred previous the date on which it becomes a respondent party to the Convention. This provision appears in Article 28 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969 amongst the general provisions. Based on this general principle, we cannot talk about the existence of the “obligation to prevent” genocide in respect of events occurred before a state being a part to the Convention. Based on the same principle, the obligation “to punish the perpetrators” also shall not be in place. Technically, we cannot look for the obligation to make legal arrangements for previous
| 316 | Yücel ACER events. On the other hand, the obligations to judge for events that occurred previously cannot be addressed. Despite this obvious determination, it introduces another related question. Accordingly, has Serbia taken over the responsibilities of Yugoslavia as a successor in relation to possible infringements, in particular responsibilities arising from the breach of the Convention? To answer this question, the Court indicated that three questions should be answered one after another. First, whether the events that Croatia is based on has actually occurred; if so, whether these events can be attributable to the former Yugoslavia, if it is attributable whether this can be regarded as an infringement to the Convention; and last, if there is a breach whether Serbia has taken over these responsibilities. The Court indicated that this kind of claims do not remain outside of the Court´s jurisdiction, however it is stated that under general rules it is not appropriate to subject a state (without its consent) of a trial even that state could have caused the events. Undoubtedly, the former Yugoslavia was a contracting party to the Genocide Convention of 1951 and its acts were related to the Convention in other words, these acts were governed by the Convention. According to the Court, the general principles of International Law would identify whether Serbia has taken over the responsibilities arising from these acts. In other words, the rules on “attribution” will identify whether responsibilities for the events occurred before 27 April 1992 are attributable. In this case, the Court ruled that it was not necessary to investigate whether Serbia has taken over the responsibilities of the former Yugoslavia. The Court would look for only whether events taken place before 27 April, if a case took place previous to this date the attribution of the responsibility for those events would be determined at later stages of trial. This shows us that there is a possibility of attribution of some responsibility in the context of each specific case. After dealing with jurisdictional matters, the Court moved on topics related to the merits of the case. First, it discussed the elements of genocide.
| 317 | Yücel ACER
The Court established that Article II of the Genocide Convention of 1951 features two fundamental elements that are: first, is the physical element – the act (actus reus); and second, is the mental element (mens rea). As noted in the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina- Serbia and Montenegro, the acts are: a) Killing members of the group; b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. The Court dealt with these acts allegedly performed by Serbia and Croatia in the context of the element of intention that will be specified below. The Court clearly stressed that the element of intent differentiates genocide from any other serious crimes is the “intent to destroy in whole or in part”. The Court named it as “specific intent” (dolus specialis). It is indicated that the special intent of each action should be determined whilst the specific intent for each action should be indicated. In other words, for the formation of an offense of genocide the special intent “to destroy in whole or in part” must be present in each act. It is stated that the element of intent that is to destroy in whole or in part is difficult to prove. The critical issue is that to prove the existence of the acts and the intents in each these acts. However, observations relating to how this will be done are very important. According to the Court, the nature of the action should be the starting point when the intent is not clearly defined. Regarding the nature of the evidence, the Court noted that the claim of the claimant should be clearly established, fully conclusive and based on concrete evidence that should not place any doubts. According to the Court, the scope and the systemic nature of the act is important to detect the intent. The Court made some observations to look in details in the element of intent. First of all, in this context, the party who makes the allegations bears the burden of proof. On the other hand, indications related to the evidence
| 318 | Yücel ACER should be inconclusive and fully convincing. Even the statements of a state should be supported by concrete evidence to create the elements of genocide. Second, it is indicated that intensity and scope might indicate intent in the absence of direct evidence. Scope (intensity) and systemic practice together will be important evidence. The element of the act that is the behaviours of the perpetrators should be the starting point. For example, sometimes an action of destroying a group in whole or in part could be limited to a specific geographical area and the elements of these actions could be evaluated on this basis. With regards to the element of causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, the degree of damage should contribute to the extinction in whole or in part. By ´being subject to the living conditions that will lead to destruction in whole or in part´ it was meant that deprivation a group of people of adequate food, water, medical care, sheltering and dressing facilities, hygiene, and forcing them to excessive working to make them weak that would ultimately lead to death. With regards to the act of ´imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group´, it is indicated that rapes and sexual assault as well as measures to prevent births could be considered in this context. In the case of question, for example, Yugoslavia´s attacks in Vukovar were against independence but not for the purpose of destroying. The intention of those who carried out the attacks was to punish but not to destroy. Also, the Court stated that the number of 12,500 people that were killed remained small in the total number of the group. It was identified that actions that made serious bodily and mental harm were carried out intensively, however it was ruled that the evidence presented was insufficient in relation to their 'severity'. In this context, the Court ruled that Krayina was not bombed for killing civilians without discrimination; there were no intention of physical destruction in these actions; although there were actions to force them to emigrate, there were no intention to destroy in whole or in part. According to the Court, even the efforts to prevent the return cannot be accepted as proof of genocide intent.
| 319 | Yücel ACER
Although, it was seen that some of the following alleged acts, such as acts of rape, deprivation from food, water, medical care, and deprivation of procurement of other essential needs, and forcing them to leave from place and home were existed; the Court noted that Croatia failed to prove the existence of the components of the intent (actus reus) element of genocide. Also, it was stated that the allegations related to the prevention of births within a group were not intensive to form the element of intention (actus reus). The Court has examined 17 factors presented by Croatia to prove the intent element of genocide and noted that the systemic and intensive actions are the most important elements, however ruled that the evidence presented was not sufficient to prove these elements. In the conclusion, according to the Court, even though East Slovenia, West Slovenia, Banovina/Banija, Kordun, Lika and Dalmita da JNA and Serbian forces performed certain actions that are prohibited from performing, those actions were not sufficient to prove forming the intent element of the definition of genocide.
CONCLUSION In this article, summarized judgments of Bosnia and Herzegovina- Serbia and Montenegro Case and Croatia-Serbia Case show that International Court of Justice requires much more stronger evidences than the ones argued until the present, in order to accept the claim of the Ottoman State committed Armenian genocide based on just the fact of death or killing of Armenians in the result of 1915 events. First of all, the intention of “to destroy a group, in whole or in part” has the central importance to call the events as genocide. Moreover, in this context general intention is not sufficient, conclusive evidence must be established to prove this intention in every specific action. In the 1915 events in the Ottoman State, the general intention of to destroy Armenians in whole or in part has not been able to be revealed with any tangible evidence which would be considered to be strong. Much rather, a secret policy or decision is expressed.
| 320 | Yücel ACER
In addition, this intention is not able to be shown in evidence in any single event. Second, in order to show whether there is mentioned intention, conclusive evidences are investigated. For that matter this intention must be proved in state officers' statements with tangible evidences. Despite the fact that the Court addressed to sacle and systematic natura of attacks in the investigation of intention, it acknowledged that evidences must be fully conclusive and clearly established. If one considers the events of 1915's form of being and its conditions, it is seen that there was not the intention of destroying Armenians in whole or in part, but different intentions. In summarised judgment of Croatia-Serbia Case above, the Court emphasized the intention of invasion or defence of a particular region dominantly took over in the acts of killing and wounding. Similarly, it can be argued that these kinds of intentions came into prominence in specific conditions of Ottoman State in that period.
| 321 | Yücel ACER
BIBLIOGRAPHY Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro) 26 February 2007. Halaçoğlu, Yusuf. Ermenilerin Suriye’ye Nakli: Sürgün mü Soykırım mı? Belgeler
| 322 |
NOT A MATTER FOR THE HISTORIANS? GEOFFREY ROBERTSON AND THE ‘ARMENIAN QUESTION’* Jeremy SALT**
Geoffrey Robertson is an Anglo-Australian lawyer who at some point took on human rights as his life’s work. He operates from chambers in London and several years ago involved himself in the Armenian question by taking a retainer from the Armenian lobby in Britain. His brief was to change the British government’s policy of acknowledging the suffering of Armenians in the First World War but not calling it genocide. He did not reach this objective but because he is well known as a lawyer, author and media figure his campaign did have some impact. He has recently acted for the Armenian government in the European Court of Human Rights hearing of an appeal against its ruling that a Swiss court violated Dogu Perincek’s right to freedom of expression by sentencing him to prison for saying that the Armenian genocide was an international lie. The court has yet to issue its decision. Mr. Robertson recently extended his interest in the issue by publishing a book, An Inconvenient Genocide. Who Now Remembers the Armenians? His starting point is that ‘this is not a matter for the historians’ because ‘we know the history’ and the ‘facts’ are known. It is therefore now just a matter for the law. In fact, as an argument that this question should be kept out of the hands of lawyers and left in the hands of historians, no better case could be made than Mr. Robertson’s book. There is a history behind every crime be it atrocities committed against Ottoman civilians during the First World War (whether Muslims or Christians) or a mugging on the street. The difference between lawyers and historians is that whereas the historian’s central concern is searching for the
* This is the original version of the text. ** Visiting Associate Professor at Bilkent University
| 323 | Jeremy SALT truth the lawyer’s concern is in court to defend his (or her) client irrespective of the truth. Mr. Robertson may well believe that every word he speaks is the truth. He may well believe that prisoners can be transported from Istanbul to Ankara by ship, as he writes in this book, but if he can be so badly mistaken on a simple question of geography requiring him only to look at the map, is it possible that he has made other mistakes in his representations of history and the ‘facts? In fact – a real fact – his book is strewn with them. There are small mistakes – small but significant, indicating that the writer does not have a strong grasp of some of the basics. He gets the name of the Committee of Union and Progress Party wrong. He talks of Armenians being ‘deported’ when not one was moved beyond the boundaries of the Ottoman Empire. He refers to the Young Turks’ ‘tame ayatollah’, a religious title which applies only to Iran and Shia Muslims. These are all signs that Mr. Robertson does not know the history nearly as well as he thinks he does or as well as he would like his readers and listeners to think that he does. The transgressions lie in what he leaves out of his narrative in favor of the questionable facts on which it is largely based. Here we can begin with the Hitler quote on the front cover of his book - ‘who now remembers the Armenians’ a remark he is alleged to have made just before the invasion of Poland in 1939. The American scholar Heath Lowry has done the spade work here, demonstrating that there is no mention of the Armenians in the versions of the speeches Hitler made on that day accepted as evidence at the Nuremberg tribunal. The version Mr Robertson uses came from an Associated Press journalist, Louis P. Lochner, who was apparently handed it by Hitler’s internal enemies in an attempt to discredit him. His insulting remarks about allies or erstwhile allies indicates that the Lochner version was touched up, if genuine at all. It was submitted to the prosecutors but they declined to table it, in favor of looking for something more reliable. At the very least there is such doubt about its authenticity that it cannot taken
| 324 | Jeremy SALT as reliable evidence of what Hitler said. It certainly has no place on the cover of the book as an apparent statement of fact. Mr. Robertson’s knowledge of history does not extend to any understanding of the situation on the ground in eastern Anatolia – the very crucible of the Armenian question – at the time the war broke out. There were no sealed roads and almost no rail links. Communications were limited. The entire region had not changed from a century before and probably a century before that. Illiteracy hovered around 80 per cent or more. Provincial administration had been reformed but only superficially. Modernity had barely scratched the surface of eastern Anatolia. Its very backwardness and remoteness were the reasons why Russian Armenians chose it ahead of Russian territories as the platform for their campaigns of sabotage and provocation, intended to bring about the intervention of the European powers, in the 19th century. Real power on the ground lay not with the governor in his konak in the town but with the tribal chiefs with whom the sultan worked out a form of social contract, according to which he acknowledged their traditional privileges in return for them according his sovereign powers and performing such services as collecting taxes and raising troops. This arrangement was ruptured by Britain when it set out to create an ‘Armenia’ out of provinces that were more than 80 per cent Muslim and predominantly Kurdish. It was for this reason that that sultan and his ministers called this region Kurdistan. British policies alarmed the Kurds and can be seen as an element in the uprising of Shaikh Ubaydullah in the wake of the Congress of Berlin of 1878. The extent to which the killings in eastern Anatolia during the First World War were not ‘Turkish’ but an extension of Kurdish-Armenian rivalry over territory, authority and power has not been acknowledged even now. One cannot possibly understand let along know the history without taking this background into account yet it has no place at all in Mr. Robertson’s narrative. Much of the material he presents in support of his case is unreliable. It includes British wartime propaganda, especially the Bryce-Toynbee
| 325 | Jeremy SALT propaganda ‘blue book’ of 1916 and the writings of Taner Akcam, whose ‘scholarship’ on the Armenian question has been shown to be more of a ship full of holes. Robertson writes that the Sultan Abdulhamit ‘oversaw the slaughter of some 200,000 Armenians between 1894 and 1896’. The figure is a wild exaggeration and the sultan oversaw nothing: he was faced with outbreaks of violence that he could not stop. He had warned the British that their so-called ‘reforms’ would end in violence for which he would be blamed and he was right. He was blamed and he has been blamed ever since. Mr. Robertson writes that massacres began at Sasun in 1894 when the ‘the provincial governor urged local Muslims to teach the insubordinate Muslims a lesson.’ In a book designed as a prosecutor’s brief he provides no evidence of this. In fact Armenian militants had been stirring up trouble in the hope of provoking an outrage so great that one or more of the European powers would intervene and give them the autonomy they were demanding. The Sasun uprising was their handiwork. They committed atrocities against Kurds before a force of 4000 troops was sent from the 4th Army headquarters at Erzurum to quell the trouble. This was a regular military operation, soldiers facing a ragtag Armenian force of at least 1000 men (estimates went as high as 3000) mostly armed with muskets, swords and hatchets but some with modern weapons. A small number of hamidiye cavalrymen took part in the operation but not the ‘regiments’ - a popular theme in propaganda on this issue - to which Mr. Robertson refers. He repeats the lurid stories of events at Sasun and Urfa told by British consuls who were not even there. He refers to atrocities but not the atrocities committed by Armenians. Referring to the demonstration outside the government offices (Bab-i Ali) in 1895, Mr. Robertson claims that the police opened fire, ‘charging the demonstrators with clubs [and] killing many of them.’ In fact the British ambassador Sir Philip Currie, no friend of the Turks or the Ottoman government and the American minister plenipotentiary, Alexander Terrell, concurred in their conclusion that it seemed to be an Armenian who fired the first shots, triggering off an affray in which 15 jandarma and about 60 Armenians were killed or wounded.
| 326 | Jeremy SALT
This was no more acceptable in the streets of Istanbul than it would have been in any European capital or in Washington. It was a calculated attempt by Armenian militants to set off a fire which would bring in the European powers and force the sultan to give them what they wanted, autonomy which in time could be transformed into independence. Mr. Robertson’s figures are as unreliable as are his accounts of specific events. Quoting Armenian church records, he refers to an Armenian population ‘in Anatolia’ of 2.1 million. The Armenian patriarchs had been playing their own political game since the Congress of Berlin 1878 and these figures have been inflated for propaganda purposes. The last Ottoman census taken before the war (in 1912) showed an Armenian population for the entire empire of 1.2 million. Once the war started this is likely to have dropped but discounting this and making the most generous allowance for undercounting, the Armenian population by 1915 could not have been more than 1.5 or 1.6 million. The Armenians did not constitute 30 per cent of the population of the eastern Anatolian provinces as Mr. Robertson claims but about 30 per cent of one province, Van. The demographics did not lend themselves to the autonomy the Armenians wanted. They were scattered over the region and to create Armenian autonomy in a region where Muslims constituted about 80 per cent of the population would have had to involve what is now called ethnic cleansing. As Muslims had been cleared from the Balkans and the Caucasus en masse from early in the 19th century this could not be regarded as a distant threat. With regard to the First World War, most of the so-called documents in the Bryce-Toynbee ‘blue book’ on which Mr. Robertson relies are not documents at all but letters from missionaries or from people living far from the scene or they are excerpts from Armenian newspapers. Many if not most of the accusations are based on hearsay and would not hold up in any court of law worthy of the description. Bryce himself was a longstanding campaigner against Muslim rule over Christians anywhere. His propensity for exaggeration can be judged from his claim that 15,000 Armenians were killed at Sasun in 1894 when the figure established by an Ottoman Commission of
| 327 | Jeremy SALT
Inquiry was 265. European observers put the figure as high as 900 but this was still a long way short of 15,000 or the equally crazed estimates of William Gladstone. The claim by Robertson that Arnold Toynbee was ‘no propagandist’ is pure nonsense because that is exactly the role he took on during the war. The same is true of Bryce whose 1915 report on German atrocities was shown after the war to be full of exaggerations and inventions. Bryce used his authority as an historian and former US ambassador to give his report added weight and the British government published it as a parliamentary paper for the same reason. The central fact remains that it is a collation of accusations launched against the Ottoman government intended to cause as much propaganda damage as possible. In no way does this parliamentary ‘blue book’ conform to the evidentiary standards prevailing in British and Commonwealth courts, as Bryce claimed in his introduction. Another source is Henry Morgenthau, wartime US ambassador to the Ottoman Empire for a short period. Morgenthau never travelled to eastern Anatolia, did not speak the language and relied on his Armenian office staff and missionaries for most of what he knew. He kept a diary in which there is no mention of the evil intentions he attributes to the Ottoman Interior Minister, Talat Pasa, in his 1918 book, Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story. The American correspondent George Abel Schreiner took a very dim view of Morgenthau, writing in his own book, The Craft Sinister, that ‘you saw little of the cruelty you fasten upon the Turks. Besides that you have killed more Armenians than ever lived in the districts of the uprising. The fate of those people was sad enough without [it] having to be exaggerated as you have done.’ Schreiner comes close to calling Morgenthau a liar and certainly had Morgenthau in mind when he wrote that ‘it is to be hoped that the future historian will not give too much heed to the drivel one finds in the books of diplomatist-authors …. ‘Studies would lead to ‘no other conclusion that they
| 328 | Jeremy SALT are at best a record of backstairs gossip’ yet it was from such books that people in the US learnt what they knew – or thought they knew – of the war. Mr. Robertson also makes use of Peter Balakian whose book The Burning Tigris the late Andrew Mango concluded was ‘not a work of historical research’ but was characterized by assertions that would make any serious Ottoman scholar’s hair stand on end. Taner Akcam and his mentor Vakahn Dadrian are other sources. Akcam’s book A Shameful Act is littered with basic errors and characterized by misrepresentation. Inverting the normal process of historical scholarship he begins with a conclusion – genocide – which he then sets out to prove. His claim that the CUP met early in 1915 and decided to wipe out the Armenians is basely on conjecture and supposition and is completely devoid of evidence. He has no names, places or dates or indeed that would give weight to such an accusation. That this could get into print without Akcam being pulled up is extraordinary and an indictment of editing processes where the Armenian question is concerned: no less extraordinary is the description of the book as brilliant by Orhan Pamuk but perhaps he became so engrossed in his reading he thought the book was a novel. Mr. Robertson refers to the April 1915 Van uprising as the Armenians simply defending their quarter against aggression by troops under orders from the Turkish governor. This is not likely and it does not really matter anyway from the point of view of the military which saw only that a major provincial town had been captured by Armenian insurgents and handed over to the Russians. Other towns (Bitlis for example) were now threatened with the same fate. Van had been a major centre of rebellion and arms stockpiling since the late 19th century and the Armenians were well prepared for their uprising in 1915 which was probably coordinated with the Russians (about to engage the Ottomans in battle in northwest Persia) and possibly coordinated with the British (about to land troops at Gallipoli and preparing to move troops inland from their base at Basra in what is now Iraq or rather what is left of Iraq following the US-led attacks of 1991 and 2003).
| 329 | Jeremy SALT
Robertson admits to heavy casualties on both sides but comes nowhere near capturing the horror of what happened in Van as the Armenians overran Ottoman defences, ransacked the Muslim quarter and slaughtered people before moving on to slaughter them in the villages around the lake. Many thousands were killed amidst a panicked flight of tens of thousands of others. Having taken over the city the Armenians handed it over to Russian control. The most appalling atrocities were committed by Armenians, none of which have any place in the Robertson narrative. Mr. Robertson claims that the Ottoman army returned to Van ‘with a vengeance’ at the end of July. If that was the case there was virtually no Armenian left on whom to take revenge as virtually the whole Armenian population of the province had fled across the Russian border, harassed by Kurds taking revenge for the killing of their kinfolk and coreligionists. The evidence for this comes from an impeccable source, a missionary, Miss Grace Knapp, who writes that ‘General Nicolaieff ordered all the Armenians of the Van province, also the Americans and other foreigners, to flee for their lives. By Saturday night the city was nearly emptied of Armenians and quite emptied of conveyances’. As for troops attacking the Armenians, the Ottoman defenders in the town were mainly jandarma and volunteers. The Armenians take April 24 as the critical date in 1915. This was when the government rounded up members of the Armenian committees and their sympathisers in Istanbul and sent them off to prison or house arrest in the interior (at Cankiri and Ayas). They were not all killed as Armenian propagandists keep repeating or ‘executed without trial’ as Mr. Robertson claims: he obviously has not read the careful research done by Yusuf Sarinay and probably is not even aware of it. Many of the arrested were released within the coming weeks, some were moved on to Syria where they may have died or been killed and others were kept in detention until the end of the war. It is at this juncture – April 24 - that Mr. Robertson makes his most inane statement, writing that ‘in Constantinople that night several hundred were seized and transported in ships to military prisons near Ankara’. How is
| 330 | Jeremy SALT it possible that someone who does not even know that there is no stretch of water between Istanbul and Ankara can claim that ‘we know the history’ and ‘we know the facts’? How is it possible that any reviewer can call this book forensic as one Australian reviewer did? In any case, the critical date was not April 24 but about a week earlier when the Van Armenians launched their uprising, triggering the arrests on April 24 and eventually the recommendation of the general staff to ‘relocate’ the bulk of the Anatolian Armenian population. The omission of the horrors associated with the Van uprising and of the preceding attacks on Muslim villages since the defeat at Sarikamis threw the whole of northeastern Anatolia wide open to Russian invasion and the activities of Armenian insurgents operating behind the Ottoman lines is necessary for the propagandists to assert that the Armenians were arrested on April 24 for no other reason than that they were Armenian. What is extraordinary is that as the Armenian committees had thrown their weight behind the Russian war effort they had not been closed down a long time before April 24. Mr. Robertson argues that rebellion apart from Van seems to have been low level or non-existent, casting doubt on ‘military necessity’ as being a plausible reason for the ‘relocation.’ In fact tens of thousands of Ottoman Armenians were doing their best to sabotage the Ottoman war effort from behind the lines. To this number has to be added the tens of thousands of Armenians fighting as regular soldiers in the Russian army and the thousands of Armenians recruited into the ‘volunteer’ brigades tasked with ‘liberating’ east Anatolian provinces in which Armenians formed a small minority of the population. Mr. Robertson’s assertion that uprisings were virtually non-existent is made without the benefit of research. Ten of volumes in Turkish have been published on the war apart from documents still in the archives and apart from general histories and memoirs. Mr. Robertson does not have the competence to study the military record and does not bother with it anyway and thus his conclusion that ‘military necessity’ was just a pretext for the
| 331 | Jeremy SALT removal of the Armenians has no scholarly or legal value at all and is only an ill-informed opinion. The American military historian Edward Erickson has done the necessary research and concludes that sabotage of the war effort from behind the lines was the sole reason for the military recommending that the bulk of the Armenian population be moved away. The threat was taken so seriously that to the military command the whole war effort was endangered. The defeat at Sarikamis left the Third Army decimated and unable to launch strategic offensive operations or defend the civilian population of the interior. Northeastern Anatolia was thrown wide open to Russian invasion and the depredations of Armenian gangs. Villages denuded of young men because all were off at the front were vulnerable to attack and many of their inhabitants were massacred. Van brought this cycle to a disastrous pitch and having failed to staunch insurgent operations from behind the lines the military command recommended the drying up of the sea in which the insurgents swam, the general Armenian population. This was a harsh measure which had dire consequences but the removal of a suspect population in war time was hardly one without precedents even in recent military history (think of British actions against the Boers in South Africa in the late 19th century, think of Spanish resettlement of Cubans about the same time and American resettlement of a civilian population in the Philippines in the early 20th century and this was hardly the end of the story as the British resettled civilians in Malaya in the 1940s, the French in Algeria in the 1950s and the Americans in Vietnam in the 1960s/1970s. Hardship and suffering was always involved yet no one says the Spaniards, the British, the French and the Americans removed these people simply because they didn’t like them – that label is attached only to the Ottomans). Mr. Robertson tries to soften the significance of anti-government activities in the southeastern Anatolian town of Zeitun, blaming conscription rather than revolutionary fervor. In fact, Zeitun had been a major centre of anti-government activity since the 19th century and was the site of a massacre
| 332 | Jeremy SALT of hundreds of Ottoman soldiers during an uprising in 1895. The evidence is all there had Mr. Robertson wanted to pick it up. The Zeitunlis were tough mountaineers whose services were offered to the British in 1915 if they chose to open a new front in the eastern Mediterranean. The British were already landing raiding parties and taking intelligence from Armenians on the ground so moving the Armenians from this critical point, where a British offensive would have threatened Ottoman supply lines to Mesopotamia and Palestine, was an act of prudence by the government. There is a lot that Mr. Robertson bypasses or scarcely mentions. One is the scale of the killing of Muslims before the ‘relocation’ was ordered and continuing long after it. About three million Ottoman civilians died in this war and they died from all causes (combat, massacre, disease, exposure and malnutrition). The vast bulk of them (about 2.5 million) were Muslims. They have no place in Mr. Robertson’s narrative or Mr. Akcam’s narrative any more than the disappearance of millions of Muslims from the Balkans between the 1870s and 1913 figure in most ‘western’ histories of that region and to this list one can add the slow and mostly overlooked ethnic cleansing of Muslims from the Caucasus over a century. Hundreds of thousands of Muslims were actually massacred by Armenians and/or Russians during the war but mostly by Armenians. These massacres began before the ‘relocation’ was ordered and continued long after them. Armenians were perpetrators of large-scale violence as well as its victims. Ottoman forces returning to the eastern provinces encountered the most ghastly scenes left in the wake of the retreating Armenians. These killings have been recorded in Ottoman documents (and Russian documents) and the evidence is infinitely more plausible than the wartime propaganda accusations leveled against the Ottomans in the Bryce ‘blue book’. Mr. Robertson does not deal with these inconvenient facts. Neither does he deal with the destructive consequences of the British naval blockade of the eastern Mediterranean coast or the terrible locust plague of 1915 which along with the general effects of the war created an enormous catastrophe in
| 333 | Jeremy SALT the history of modern Syria, with people dropping dead from hunger in the streets of Beirut and Damascus. Mr. Robertson dips into the trials of 1919 when Istanbul was occupied by the British but does not touch the far more important trials of 1915-16. The postwar trials were set up under the aegis of the occupying powers desperately seeking evidence against the wartime government (and finally failing to find it). They ransacked the archives and asked the Americans for help but could not find what they wanted and eventually had to give up. The trials of 1915-16 were held after the Ottoman government set up three commissions of inquiry to investigate crimes committed against Armenians as they were being moved south. More than 1600 people, including soldiers and senior provincial officials, were court-martialled, hundreds were jailed and more than 50 sentenced to death. These trials are never mentioned by the propagandists because of the logical question they pose: if the Ottoman government was so determined to wipe out the Armenians as they keep saying, why was it prosecuting people accused of committing crimes against them? We are living in a theatre of the absurd worthy of Ionesco. Around the world people who know nothing of Ottoman history or the law proclaim that there was a genocide. Mr. Robertson knows the law but not the history and certainly does not know it well enough to pass legal judgment. He passes it nevertheless and proves only that he is not competent to pass it and that if there is any conclusion to be drawn from his book it is that the Armenian question in history should be kept out of the hands of lawyers and politicians and left in the hands of historians.
| 334 |
LEGAL STATUS OF ARMENIANS IN THE OTTOMAN STATE AND THE INITIAL LEGAL ARRANGEMENTS REGARDING THE GOODS THEY LEFT BEHIND*
Gül AKYILMAZ** INTRODUCTION The year 2015 is the 100th anniversary of the relocation and resettlement of the Armenians during World War-1.From this perspective, the year 2015 will be a turning point in the Armenian issue. As they are aware of this, The Armenians, especially those among the Diaspora have been preparing for the year 2015 for some time. They endeavor to keep the topic alive through grand propaganda activities and they have been trying to convince the world public opinion that their cause is righteous, by organizing various meetings, seminars, symposiums and through the use of media. They have also concentrated their efforts to have laws and resolutions passed through as many countries as possible, blaming the Ottoman Empire and its successor - the Republic of Turkey with the crime of genocide against the Armenians. They even take one more step forward and try to have those who claim otherwise face criminal punishments. Their aim is to demand important concessions from Turkey after the necessary groundwork is laid out. In order to achieve this, they wish to obtain the approval of governments and public opinions of all people around the world, by concentrating all of their capabilities, they wish to achieve tangible results during the year 2015. A three step plan has been the subject matter for years. They first wish to gain wide acceptance that genocide was perpetrated on the Armenians. Next, compensation demands will be revived and payment of reparations for the entire movable and immovable goods that the Ottoman Armenians left behind due to their relocation will be demanded from the Republic of Turkey; they specifically wish the real estate to be returned to their present day
* This text is translated by Fatma Sarıkaya and Oya Uslu Çetin. ** Professor, History of Law at the Gazi University Faculty of Law.
| 335 |
inheritors. The last step will be their land claims. They will demand the return of a considerable area of Eastern Anatolia, which they consider to be part of Armenia. In recent years, in line with this plan, the Armenians have achieved the passing of resolutions through many countries’ parliaments recognizing the World War-1 events of 1915 as the genocide of Armenians and laws were enacted in some countries to punish those who claim otherwise. In pursuit of the second phase of the plan, compensation claims have started to be filed in the courts of third party countries.1 More importantly, the people who claimed to be the inheritors of the Armenians subjected to relocation and resettlement have demanded that movable and immovable goods, especially the land property be returned to them in some court cases filed in Turkey.2 The time is slowly approaching toward land claims. Also results of the court cases filed both within and outside Turkey
1 As a first step, American lawyers of Armenian descent have filed lawsuits against the Turkish Government and two Turkish Banks (T. C. Merkez Bankası and T. C. Ziraat Bankası), in the Los Angeles county of the USA on July 29, 2010 on behalf of the inheritors of the Armenians whose goods they claim were seized during their relocation while under the rule of the Ottoman Empire. They tried to attain a collective case identity to the court cases opened up on behalf of Garbis Davouyan and Hrayr Tyrabian. Initially a case with the characteristics of a common court case is opened up and other people in similar situation can be added on to it later. In this court case, compensation was demanded to cover the land, building and work shops claimed to be deprived from the Armenians as well as return of their bank account deposits. They also demand the return of the religious artistry and works of art they claim have been displayed in Turkish museums. Again, inheritors of the Armenians living in the USA have litigated in the years 2004 and 2005 the insurance companies for payment of the life insurance policy of their forefathers and a sum of 37.5 million Dollars were paid to the Armenian organizations as indemnity of their insurance policy. For detailed information regarding the court cases pls see: Ünal, Şeref (2013) ‘Ermenilerin Yabancı Devlet Mahkemeleri ve Uluslararası Yargı Organlarında Türkiye Cumhuriyeti ve Türk Vatandaşlarına Karşı Açtıkları Tazminat ve Ceza Davaları ve Hukuki Sonuçları’, Ufuk Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, C: 1, S: 2, p. 36-42. 2 “Sarıyer Davası” is an important example in this subject. Edward Nubar Agopyan, Bedros Mardiros Leon Agopyan and Mary Anais Agopyan have sued claiming that they are the inheritors of the Ottoman State’s citizen Ohannes Marten Agopyan who they also claim owned the Kireçburnu Quarter of the Sarıyer County and a considerably sizeable lot on the Arabayolu Tarabya Quarter of Sarıyer County. They demanded return of the lots assigned to the exchequer. With its decision dated February 26, 2001 the Sarıyer 1. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi (Civil Court of General Juristiction) has adjudicated on cancellation of those immovable properties’ title deeds from the government exchequer and be registered to the plaintiffs: Edward Nubar Agopyan, Bedros Mardiros Leon Agopyan and Mary Anais Agopyan. In other words, these lots were taken from the government’s treasury and given to the three individuals who applied to court. Many such examples can be mentioned.
| 336 |
Gül AKYILMAZ carry absolute importance for the Republic of Turkey as they have the capacity to create further problems and adversity. Currently the outlet of the Armenians whilst forwarding their demands is that the Ottoman State persecuted its Armenian citizens, gave them no rights and treated them differently from their Muslim counterparts - as second class citizens. It is observed especially in some recent studies that they are also focusing on the goods left behind by the Armenians who faced relocation. One of the basic claims put forward is that their relocation did not only have political aims but it also achieved the capital to change hands within the Ottoman Empire. According to those with this viewpoint economic transmutation and the first step towards economic homogeneity was achieved through transfer of the vast wealth owned by the non-Muslims and in this case especially the Armenian bourgeoisie (by their relocation and resettlement) on to the Muslim Turks whose economic situation was deteriorating each passing day.3
3 The defenders of this view have argued that since the establishment of the Ottoman Empire the Muslim/Turkish elements were interested only in farming and in government employment with the military in the forefront, whereas the non-Muslims were kept outside the military with applications like ‘cizye’ until 1856, ‘bedel-i askerlik’ until 1909 and ‘amele taburu’ after 1914 and were kept out of other governmental posts. For this reason, because they had no other outlet, the non-Muslims turned towards trade and crafts. The Muslim Turks, whose situation worsened in time due to consecutive military failures from the 18th Century onwards, set their eyes upon the wealth of non-Muslims who got rich by adopting to changing world conditions, Hür, Ayşe ‘Ermeni Mallarını Kimler Aldı?’,
| 337 | Gül AKYILMAZ
Those who come up with such claims allege that one of the functions of the emvâl-i metruke [abandoned property] laws was to end the Christian- Armenian presence in the Ottoman state. According to them, these laws are the structural instruments of the “(so called) genocide”. Even though the owners of this viewpoint accept that the Ottoman Empire had carried out detailed adjustments related to the goods left behind by Armenians and that they designed basic principles on the basis that the goods and/or their equivalent would be returned to the Armenians according to the laws and decrees enacted, they argue that no legal text was put forward regarding the return policy and that the whole process was organized in such a way not to give them even “a splinter”. In fact they go one step further and claim that the legal adjustments made on the subject of emvâl-i metruke [abandoned property] comprise the basic foundation of their thesis that those goods still belong to the Armenians - so should be returned to them.4
all Armenian assets with the aim to clear off its Armenian population from eternal lands so that they would never return. Administrators, soldiers, local notables and the refugees who were settled in the vacated regions have benefited from these assets. The point that draws attention in these claims is that it has always been the Muslims and especially the Turks who benefited from the Armenian assets. Those who defend such views say that the legal arrangements and applications performed on the goods and assets left behind by the (sic) “exiled Armenians” are evidence that return of those who left was never envisioned and that the asset transfer was achieved in this way. Claimants defend that the İttihat ve Terakkî which was in power while the relocation and resettlement occurred had encouraged the establishment of the incorporations in order to increase the number of Muslim companies and inclusion in the system of the limited quantity of potential Muslim industrialists and entrepreneurs. In line with these aims, Armenian assets were transferred at very low rate to individual customers and companies, and small shares were arranged in the incorporated companies for the craftsmen and villagers to be able to purchase these shares. The obligation of registering the shares in the names of the shareholders was introduced in order to avoid purchase of these companies by foreigners. The Central Government instructed the local administrators to report regularly about the developments and steps achieved during this restructuring process which can be named the Turkification of the capital and the bourgeoisie. In relation with these assertions, please see, especially Onaran, Nevzat (2010) Emvâl-i Metrûke Olayı Osmanlı’da ve Cumhuriyette Ermeni ve Rum Mallarının Türkleştirilmesi, İstanbul, Belge Yayınları; Akçam, Taner / Kurt, Ümit (2012) Kanunların Ruhu-Emvâl-i Metrûke Kanunlarında Soykırımın İzini Sürmek, İstanbul, İletişim Yayınları; Kaiser, Hilmar (2012) ‘1915-1916 Ermeni Soykırımı Sırasında Ermeni Mülkleri, Osmanlı Hukuku ve Milliyet Politikaları’, İmparatorluk’tan Cumhuriyet’e Türkiye’de Etnik Çatışma, (Derleyen: Zürcher, E. J.), Ankara, İletişim Yayınları, pp. 123- 156, and for the fundamental allegations on this subject pls see especially pp. 132-154. 4 Akçam/Kurt, p. 13, 22.
| 338 | Gül AKYILMAZ
The topic will be handled under two main sub-titles in this presentation, in order to clarify the claims mentioned above as well: • First, the legal status of the Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire will be reviewed in a detailed manner: their situation prior to the Tanzimat (reform) era; the changes brought forward by the adjustments made with the Tanzimat Fermanı (Imperial Edict of Gülhane) (1839), Islahat Fermanı (Royal Edict of Reform) (1856), Tabiiyyet Kanunu (Code of Citizenship) (1869) and Kanun-i Esasî (1876). • Second, the initial legal adjustments made on the goods [called ‘emvâl-i metruke’] left behind the Armenians who were subjected to relocation in 1915 will be addressed. Because almost 30 arrangements were made regarding the emvâl-i metruke, only the three arrangements made during 1915 will be investigated as a pretext to the subject. While investigating all of these matters, effort will be made to approach the topic through a legal venue, within a framework of completely objective and scientific academic criteria.
I. LEGAL STATUS OF ARMENIANS PRIOR TO THE TANZİMAT ERA As is well known, the Ottoman Empire which maintained its existence for six centuries was a multi ethnic state. The state which owned vast land masses established an important status in Europe by its domination over the Balkans on one side and acquired land masses in the Middle East and North Africa on the other side. An Ottoman citizen profile5 comprising of various ethnic roots, religions and sects came about, due to domination over huge land masses on vastly varied geographies.
5 The concept of citizenship - the way we know it today was introduced into the Ottoman Empire with the “1869 Tabiiyyet Kanunu” (Code of Citizenship) during the period of Tanzimat. For this reason the concept of “tebaa” will be used for the Ottoman citizens prior to this date in an effort not to use wrong expressions.
| 339 | Gül AKYILMAZ
The Ottoman Legal System was comprised of two major components called şer’î hukuk (İslamic Legal System) and örfî hukuk (legal adjustments made by the Sultan and his aides - Divân-ı Hümayun). As it is in other Islamic States the adjustments relating to the legal status of the non-Muslims has been shaped according to the rules set forth by the Islamic Legal System. Because the Armenians were a part of the non-Muslim tebaa [called citizens in modern times] of the Ottoman State, these regulations have been in effect for them too. Non-Muslims living in an Islamic State were defined with the “dhimmi” concept, and adopting the same, the Ottoman Empire also used this terminology in official documents. The word dhimmi [zimmî] is a derivative of the word zimmet which means pledge, security and promise and the non-Muslims who obtained permanent status by coming under the jurisdiction of Islamic countries were called dhimmi.6 Obtaining the dhimmi status was possible above all for the ehl-i kitap [people of the book - like the Tevrat or the Bible] – that is the Christians and Jews were accepted to the dhimmi status. Later on, the Magi, Buddhists and the Hindus were also bestowed with the status of dhimmi. When a country gets absorbed under the hegemony of an Islamic state, the non-Muslims living in that country that do not accept Islamism would come to an agreement with the Islamic State and could continue to live in their old environs within the status of that agreement. In other words, the non–Muslims need to enter into an agreement with the Islamic state in order to gain the dhimmi status and this agreement is abiding, it cannot be restricted with a time limit.7 The agreement of zimmet assigns rights and responsibilities to both sides (the government and the non-Muslims). The state promises the non- Muslims the right to live among the Muslim society with security for their lives, protection of their property, with dignity and honour. This means that
6 Bozkurt, Gülnihal (1987) ‘İslâm Hukukunda Zimmîlerin Hukukî Statüleri’, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Kudred Ayiter Armağanı, C: III, S: 1–4, p. 117; Karaman, Hayreddin (1986) Mukayeseli İslâm Hukuku, C: 3, İstanbul, Nesil Yayınları, p. 234. 7 Cin, Halil / Akyılmaz, Gül (2013) Türk Hukuk Tarihi, Konya, Sayram Yayınları, p. 197.
| 340 | Gül AKYILMAZ if a Muslim kills a non-Muslim, he will be punished just like he would be for killing a Muslim. The properties of dhimmis would also be protected against unjust actions.8 Also the freedom of religion and conscience is put under protection with the zimmet agreement. Just as they cannot be forced to change their religion, the Muslims cannot lay hands on their religious shrines which were already in existence before they arrived.9 In return for the guarantees and freedoms that the government provides to them, the non- Muslims promise two things: to pay some taxes that are not taken from the Muslims and to abide by Islamic rules with some exceptions. Medina constitution is considered to be the first origin of the dhimmi concept. The freedom of religion and conscience for the non-Muslims is put forward clearly in the 25th article of the Medina constitution as: “The Jews’ religion is to them and the Muslims’ is to themselves”.10 The letter that Hz. Mohammed sent to the people of Necran granting them emân [forgiveness] is the first example of the zimmet agreement.11 The regulations made for the non-Muslims and hence the Armenians who constituted a group within the dhimmis were carried out according to the Islamic Legal rules within the Ottoman State as well. The Armenians living in the Ottoman State have been subjected to the rules of their own religion, as necessitated by their freedom of religion and conscience, in the matters pertaining to family law (like marriage and divorce). In order to pass verdicts according to their own religious rules, the cases for wedding contracts and divorces were left to the, “Cemaat Mahkemeleri” [Congregational Courts]. Each religion’s own religious clergies acted as judges in these courts.
8 Furthermore, according to the jurists of the Hanefi sect, objects like vine or pork which are not considered to hold legal value (mütekavvim) and thus undeserving of protection against unjust actions are considered mütekavvim from point of view of the non-Muslims and so protected against unjust actions. 9 Bozkurt, Gülnihal (1989) Alman–İngiliz Belgelerinin ve Siyasi Gelişmelerinin Işığı Altında Gayrimüslim Osmanlı Vatandaşlarının Hukuki Durumu (1839–1914), Ankara, Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, p. 8; Bozkurt (1987), p. 124–125. 10 Aydın, Mehmet Akif (1996) ‘Eski Hukukumuzda Gayrimüslimlerin Din ve Vicdan Hürriyeti’, İslâm ve Osmanlı Hukuku Araştırmaları, İstanbul, İz Yayıncılık, p. 230. 11 Ebu Yusuf, (1982) Kitâb’ül Haraç, (Mütercim Mehmet Ataullah Efendi, Sadeleştiren: Karakaya, İsmail), Ankara, Akçağ Yayınları, p. 195–196.
| 341 | Gül AKYILMAZ
According to the related rules, the Armenian tebaa’s wedding, divorce and inheritance cases were left to their own congregational courts. However, since it was possible for Muslim men to marry non-Muslim women and since Islamic Legal rules would become applicable in cases when Muslim men married Armenian women; the court cases regarding those people’s wedding and divorce would fall within the jurisdiction of the Şer’iyye [Islamic] Courts.12 Even though the Armenians (just like the other dhimmi groups in the Ottoman State) were given the right to take their legal cases regarding marriage and divorce among their own sect’s Congregational Courts, this was not an absolute condition forced upon them. If the involved parties agree, they had the right to apply to the Şer’iyye Courts as well. Under these conditions, the Islamic rules would be applied to them. What is interesting is that, from time to time, non-Muslims with Armenians among them have preferred to carry their cases related to marriage and divorce to Şer’iyye Courts instead of their own Congregational Courts.13 Within the Ottoman State, the court cases regarding the inheritance and the sharing of it were solved according to each Dhimmi group’s own religious rules as per the Islamic Legal principals. Thus problems of this sort were solved in the Cemaat Courts. In other words, while solving the inheritance among the Armenians their religious rules became applicable. Just like in marriage and divorce cases, they could apply to the Şer’iyye Courts if they desired.14 The strictest restriction brought by the Islamic Inheritance Law, from the perspective of non-Muslims, was the acceptance of the difference in religion as an obstacle in inheritance cases and hence, the dhimmi and the Muslims not being able to inherit from each other. For example, it would not be possible to establish an inheritance relationship between a Muslim man and his Armenian wife, i.e.: a Muslim man married to an Armenian woman could neither pass on his worldly goods to his wife, nor could he inherit from
12 Cin/Akyılmaz, p. 204-205; Akyılmaz, Gül (2001) ‘Tanzimat’tan Önce ve Sonra Gayrimüslimlerin Hukuki Statüsü’, Yeni Türkiye Ermeni Sorunu Özel Sayısı, Y: 7, S: 38, Ankara, p. 675. 13 For examples of Şer’iyye registers, pls see Akyılmaz (2001), p. 675, footnote 33. 14 For details and examples, pls see Akyılmaz (2001), p.675-676; Cin/Akyılmaz, p. 206-207.
| 342 | Gül AKYILMAZ her. Because the children born in the marriage of a Muslim man and a dhimmi woman were considered to belong to their dad’s religion, they did not have an inheritance relationship with their mother either. In such a case, the children born of an Armenian woman and Muslim man would be unable to receive inheritance upon their mother’s death and neither could their mother inherit from her children due to the difference in their religions. In the fields of liability and trade laws, the non-Muslims adhered to Islamic Law and benefited from the same rights as the Muslims. In this framework, the Armenians who were Ottoman tebaa had ownership rights. They could own all kinds of movable and immovable goods. Their goods were secured under the Islamic Government’s guarantee. Offences against their goods were considered of equal status with the assaults on the Muslims’ personal goods and repelled as such.15 Again, the Armenians who were under the dhimmi status had the capacity to act. On condition that they possess the necessary requirements, just like the Muslim subjects, they too could execute all legal procedures with full authority on their movable and immovable goods. According to the zimmet agreement, the non-Muslims adhered to the Islamic Criminal Law with a few exceptions to the level of punishment. Their lives and bodily integrity was under protection as well. Someone who killed or wounded an Armenian (or any dhimmi) would be punished the same as if he had performed the offence against a Muslim. According to the principles of the Ottoman Criminal Law the non-Muslims were provided a few exceptions. The first exception came in the crime of drinking alcohol. While a Muslim was punished with 80 floggings for such a crime, this punishment was not applied to non-Muslims and hence not to the Armenians, because drinking alcohol is not exempted by their religion. Again according to the Islamic-Ottoman Criminal Law while married Muslims are punished by stoning to death (recm) upon committing adultery, the married non-Muslims,
15 Divân–ı Hümayun Çavuş’u Mustafa’s presentation about the case when the quilter Emin and his wife were captured in [the island of] Girit where they had escaped after swindling and cheating the goldsmith Boghos with the stolen goods and goods were returned to the owner according to Islamic rules [mafireti şer’i] can be seen in: BOA, CTA, No: 584, t: 19/5/ 1236 (1820).
| 343 | Gül AKYILMAZ for instance an Armenian, would not be sentenced with this severe punishment when he committed the same act. With the zimmet agreement, the government chartered the non- Muslims with a wide variety of freedom of religion and conscience. For this reason, the Armenians of the Ottoman Government’s non-Muslim citizens have benefited from this freedom. Because they carried “freedom of belief” alongside the freedom of religion and conscience, they were able to protect their own beliefs and express the same. The non-Muslims of the Islamic Country were not pressed to convert to Islam. Within the framework of the “freedom of religious ritual and worship”, the non-Muslims were given the freedom to worship and offer their prayers as they wished.16 Within the framework of this freedom, their temples of worship and prayer ceremonies were protected. With the “freedom of education” the dhimmis passed on their beliefs to their children and gave them religious education. Because the judicial and legal autonomy was considered within the freedom of religion and conscience, their own religion’s courts could pass judgment on topics like: family law and inheritance law. As they were among the dhimmi class of the Ottoman State, the Armenians benefited from the same rights and freedoms.17 The most controversial topic on the subject of freedom of conscience in the Ottoman Empire was in building new temples for the dhimmis and in repairing the old ones. According to the rules of the Islamic Law besides asking permission from the government for building new worship places, fetva [approval] from the Şeyh-ül islam [top Islamic clerk] of the time was also necessary to secure legal legitimacy.18 It was declared that in the districts
16 However, some restrictions were brought on this subject. For example, ringing of the church bells during “namaz” [Islamic prayer time] was forbidden. 17 Cin/Akyılmaz, p. 210-213; Akyılmaz (2001), p. 678-679; Aydın, Mehmet Akif (1999) Türk Hukuk Tarihi, Beta Basın Yayın Dağıtım, İstanbul, p. 148-150; Aydın (1996), p. 231-233. 18 Şeyhülislâm Mustafa Asım Efendi’s fetva declaring that it is possible to repair the run-down churches without making additions to the original buildings: BOA, HHT, No: 36351 A t: 1248 (1832) and No: 36353 – B, t: 1250 (1834); Şeyhülislâm Mustafa Asım Efendi’s fetva declaring that according to Islamic Law ( şer’an) repair of the Jewish synagogues are possible in Islamic countries, BOA, HHT, No: 36351 – B and C, t: 1248 (1832); Şeyhûlislâm Mustafa Asım Efendi’s fetva stating that according to Islamic Law (şer’an) it is not necessary to obstruct the building of a church desired by those residents in a village with the
| 344 | Gül AKYILMAZ where all the citizens are Christian, impading the dhimmis from building a new church was legally impossible, but the churches which were built in places where the dhimmis lived among the Muslims, could be demolished.19 As accentuated above, even though the non-Muslims and hence the Armenians had some important rights and protections, in an effort to emphasize that they were treated differently from the Muslims who were the basic element of the state, we must mention that the Armenians were not equal to the Muslims in some legal issues.20 The first of these came in the subject of taxes. By accepting the zimmet agreement, the Armenians too, just
permission of the Sultan, BOA, HHT, No: 36351 – B t: 1248 (1832); fetva (approval) stating that the repair of the Meryem Ana [Mother Mary] Armenian church in Karacaşehir as built originally (“vaz–ı kadimi üzere”) is suitable according Şeriat [the Islamic Law], BOA, HHT, No: 36293, t: 1240 (1824). 19 In an island where the residents comprise of non-Muslims [dhimmis], if one of the non- Muslim [kefere] communities residing with the Sultan’s permission desired to build a church in the mentioned island, would they be disapproved by the Islamic rules? Answer: NO THEY WOULD NOT!; In a region where the residents are a mixture of Muslims and non-Muslims, if the non-Muslims build a church, could the judge order tearing down of the said church? Answer: YES!, Fetevây–ı Ali, p. 170–171; For detailed information on the subject and verdicts of the Islamic Clerics [fetva] and examples of archive documents pls see: Koyuncu, Nuran (2014) Osmanlı Devleti’nde Gayrimüslimlerin Din ve Vicdan Hürriyetleri Bağlamında Mâbedlerinin Hukuki Statüsü, Ankara, Adalet Yayınevi, p. 73-132. 20 The point which needs to be emphasized here is that until the 1789 French Revolution, even Europe was unaware of the concept of equality. It is seen that equality was mentioned, for the first time, in the Virginia Declaration of Rights which was announced during the American Revolution of 1776 and in the American Freedom Act. Continental Europe was introduced with the concept of equality in front of the law, when the idea took center stage in the Declaration of French Human and Citizenship Rights as the basic concept of the French Revolution. In the first article of the declaration it is specified that as far as the law is concerned; humans are born free and equal, and remain that way, and that social segregation is out of question unless it is beneficial for the general public. In the sixth article by emphasizing on the principle of “equality in front of the law”, it is said that the law has to be applied the same way for everyone, during protection and in punishment. All citizens considered equal in front of the law will be accepted equally for all governmental ranks, posts and positions according to their capabilities and will not be discriminated other than according to their capabilities and merit. At a time when all Europe was unaware of equality, it is natural that this principle was unknown in the Ottoman Empire as well. Actually, until the Muslim and non-Muslim equality was completely achieved with the 1856 Islahat Fermanı [Reform Edict], the Ottoman State has tried to fill up the gap by making use of the fairness concept. For this reason, they thought that they can achieve fairness by identifying special status and trying to apply it meticulously for the groups who were not considered equal as per the law like: non-Muslims, slaves and women.
| 345 | Gül AKYILMAZ like the other non-Muslim groups, accepted to pay some taxes that the Muslims were exempt from. Out of these taxes cizye and haraç were religious (şer’i) taxes, and were ordered by the Islamic Law. The Cizye tax was collected from the male non-Muslims who were at the age and qualification to serve the military. While establishing the amount of the Cizye tax, the income level of the liable person was taken into consideration.21 For example, during the reign of the Grand Vizier Köprülü Fâzıl Mustafa Paşa, the order was to take 4 pieces of gold şerifî22 from the rich (â’lâ), 2 pieces from the average (evsât’ül hal) and one piece from the poor (ednâ). The Haraç Tax was collected from non-Muslims who owned land. The haraç tax which consisted of two sections called haraç-ı muvazzaf and haraç-ı mukaseme was a heavier tax than the öşür [tithe = one tenth of the income] tax collected from the Muslims who owned lands.23 The Ottoman Government also collected some örfi taxes from the non-Muslims with işpence resm’i on top of the list.24 The Armenians who were among the dhimmi citizens, paid the örfi, cizye and
21 It should not be forgotten that there are two types of cizye [tax]. The first one is the maktu cizye and it is collected at a standard rate assigned whenever the lands belonging to non- Muslims were conquered. The maktu cizye tax was not collected from some districts. The second one, the ale’r-ruus cizye is the one collected from each person by taking into consideration their financial state. Sayın, Abdurrahman Vefik (1999) Tekâlif Kavaidi (Osmanlı Vergi Sistemi), (Transkripte eden Özkan, Hakan), Ankara, Maliye Bakanlığı Araştırma, Planlama ve Koordinasyon Kurulu Başkanlığı Yayınları, p. 21-22. 22 Şerifî gold is equivalent to 320 akçe. Hence the rich will pay approximately 1280, the median income 640 and the not so well off non-Muslims were to pay 320 akçe as cizye tax. While this sum amounted to considerable amount of income for the governmental treasury, it can be said that it cost a heavy burden on the non-Muslims. Sayın, p. 42-43. 23 While the Harac-ı muvazzaf was collected according to the size of the land, haraç-ı mukâseme was collected from the produce. The amount of haraç -ı mukâseme varied depending on the crop collected; it was collected at rates varying form 1/10 to ½. Considering that the öşür tax collected from the Muslim population never exceeded 1/10, it can be said that the Armenians were under a heavier tax burden. Also, while the öşür tax was collected only once a year, haraç-ı mukâseme was collected as many times as the land was harvested each year. Cin/Akyılmaz, p. 213; Cin, Halil (1987) Mirî Arazi ve Bu Arazinin Özel Mülkiyete Dönüşümü, Konya, Selçuk Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Yayınları, p. 23- 27. 24 The örfî tax were not a part of the Islamic Law, they were assigned by the Ottoman Government. Even though its amount varied according to the location and time that it was collected, the işpençe resm’i [derived from the Byzantine "zeugaratikion"] which was an örfi tax collected from non-Muslims living in towns and rural areas, was generally collected as 25 akçe.
| 346 | Gül AKYILMAZ haraç taxes just like the other non-Muslims. In fact the Armenians, just like the other dhimmi groups were under a higher proportion of tax burden in comparison to the Muslim citizens. In addition, the presence of the haraç tax proves that the allegations that only Muslims did farming and that the Armenians were not given this chance as discussed in the Introduction Section have no legal basis. One of the restrictions brought within the rules of the Islamic Law in relation to the non-Muslim citizens of the Ottoman State is in the scope of witnessing in court. Non-Muslims could act as witnesses, on cases like: marriage, divorce and inheritance in the Community Courts [Cemaat Mahkemeleri] which saw cases according to the conditions of their respective religions. However, the non-Muslims’ witness did not hold up against that of the Muslims. For this reason, they could not be witnesses in the Şer’iyye Courts. According to the Ottoman-Islamic Law, if one of the sides in a court case was a Muslim, the witnesses had to be Muslims as well.25 For this reason, Armenians could not act as witnesses in court cases where one of the sides was a Muslim.26 The most important restriction brought by the Law of Islam and the Ottoman Government in relation to the non-Muslims could be the one on the issue of administrative rights. What is understood from political rights according to the Law of Islam and the Ottoman state is not only the right to vote and to be eligible for electoral office, but also the right to enroll in governmental office positions (to be able to become a civil servant). When we look at the act of voting and running for elections, not having political rights for the dhimmis would not be unusual because not even the Muslim tebaa had such rights until the First Meşrutiyet. However, dhimmi [non-Muslim] tebaa
25 Heffening, W. “Şâhid”, İslam Ansiklopedisi, C. XI, İstanbul, Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Yayınları, p. 282; Fahreddin Atar, (1991) İslâm Adliye Teşkilatı, Ankara, Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı Yayınları, p. 197; Karaman, 303–304; Cin/Akyılmaz, p. 207-208; Akyılmaz (2001), p. 676-677. 26 It is asked that denunciations concerning the comfortable living of the Muslim and Christian general public and the conditions of those accused of crime, murder and corruption should not be conveyed to Istanbul “unless its correctness is verified by trustworthy Muslims”. BOA, CTA, No: 1927, 22 M 1212 (1797).
| 347 | Gül AKYILMAZ and hence the Armenians were always restricted from holding office. The non-Muslims of the Ottoman Government could not hold office while holding their identity as non-Muslim until the Royal Edict (Islahat Fermanı) of 1856.27 Within this framework, it is impossible for an Ottoman Armenian to join the army, act as a judge, or become an ordinary desk clerk. Even though the dhimmis did not directly gain admission into the army; officials like Voynuk, Martolos, Eflak, and Derbentçi who performed military policemen duties were selected among the non-Muslims. They also became oarsmen in the navy and dhimmi families were given the job of protecting the gunpowder storehouse.28 Especially the Armenians and Rums of Fener served in official or semi-official positions. However, when compared with the Muslims, their numbers were very few.29 Prior to the Tanzimat Edict, the
27 The only exception to this rule has been the Rums of Fener. Rums of Fener (they have been called as such because they lived in the Fener District of Istanbul) have followed a separate path of development within the Ottoman state system. This process starts with going to a university in Italy without losing one’s non-Muslim identity and improves with their achieving the titles of dil oğlanlığı (translator) and the kapı kâhyalığı (doormen) of the Eflâk–Boğdan voyvoda at the Bâb–ı Âli and ends with the positions of Divân–ı Hümayun Translator and Eflâk–Boğdan voyvoda [sort of like a lord or governor of Eflak and Boğdan]. Especially the Divan Translators started to monopolize the foreign policy of the Ottoman Empire, because they translated the official letters sent from foreign embassies and remained in the presence of the sultan, sadrazam and reis- ül küttab while they were accepting foreign representatives. The foreign governments’ representatives were forced to contact the Divan Translator in order to contact the Ottoman State. The vacuum created due to the non-Muslims other than the Rumi of Fener District not being able to hold office in the government services while keeping their non-Muslim status, has been tried to be compensated by the kul system for which the devşirme system established since Fatih era formed the basis of. The Christian children collected through the devşirme system were raised with Muslim/Turkish identity by being forced to undergo a transfer of identity. Following that, within framework of the kul system, most of the high statesmen with the position of veziri azam [grand vizier – highest position after the Sultan] at the helm, were selected among the kuls. For detailed information on the kul system, pls see: Cin/Akyılmaz, p. 128-133; Mumcu, Ahmet (1985) Osmanlı Devleti’nde Siyaseten Katl, Ankara, Birey ve Toplum Yayınları, p. 62 and others. 28 Akyılmaz, Gül (2003) ‘Osmanlı Devleti’nde Zimmilerin Siyasi ve İdari Hakları ve Tanzimat ve Islahat Fermanlarının Getirdiği Yenilikler’, Dünden Bugüne Türk Ermeni İlişkileri, (Editörler: Bal, İdris / Çufalı, Mustafa), Ankara, Nobel Yayınları, p. 95. 29 Findley, Carter V. (1982) ‘The Acid Test of Ottomanism: The Acceptance of Non–Muslims in the Late Ottoman Bureaucracy’, Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire The Functioning of a Plural Society, (Edited by: Braude, Benjamin / Lewis, Bernard), V: I, New York, The Central Lands, Holmes&Meier Publishers, p. 340.
| 348 | Gül AKYILMAZ
Armenian Amira Class30 within the Ottoman Empire fulfilled two very important positions such as sarraflık [broker like a banker or money changer] and bezirgânlık [merchants]. While the Armenian merchants sold all kinds of merchandise to supply the needs of the palace and the army, the money lenders seized a special place in the Ottoman economy. Their importance improved with the passing into the iltizam system [a kind of tax collection system where some merchants paid the money owed to the government up front and then collected it from the people in time, instead of the government collecting the income from the people directly] on the miri lands [lands belonging to the state]. The mültezims [sort of tax collectors], who wanted the right to collect tax in the miri land, were asked to bring a letter of guarantee from a sarraf (banker) and the government held not the mültezims
30 Amira is a word of Arabic origin and means prince or commander. This term has been used by the Armenians to represent the financially powerful leaders of the community. Due to their capability to possess special benefits and viewpoints, the Amiras have been accepted as a class. It is estimated that the terminology was used in the year 1559 for the first time. Besides obtaining wide powers within their own community, the Amiras have penetrated well within the Ottoman administration. Titles like: hoca, çelebi and mahdesi were used for the members of the Amira Class. After 1750 and especially after the 1780’s, it is seen that the Amira terminology is used more frequently. It is mentioned that the number of Amira families were 165; almost half of these came to Istanbul from Eğin (in our time it is the county of Erzincan which took the name Kemaliye and during the Ottoman times, it was affiliated with the city of Malatya). The rest of the Amiras migrated from Van, Sivas and a lesser part from Iran. A portion of them were born and raised in Istanbul. Even though they came from different locations, the most important feature of these Armenians was that while they owned a small capital at the beginning, (in spite of the fact that they invested their capital in different fields) they laid them in the best possible tracts. Generally, the ones who came from Eğin became money changers, the ones from Van became jewelers and the rest became entrepreneur-merchants. Most famous and influential Armenian families like the Dadyans, Balyans and Bezciyans belonged to the Amira order. Barsoumian, Hagob (1982) ‘The Dual Role of the Armenian Class within the Ottoman Government and the Armenian Millet (1750-1850)’, Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire The Functioning of a Plural Society, (Edited by: Braude, Benjamin / Lewis, Bernard), V: I, New York, The Central Lands, Holmes & Meiers Publishers, p. 171-177; For information on the prominent class of the Amira order pls see: Dabağyan, Levon Panos (2010) Geçmişten Günümüze Millet-i Sâdıka-ı Osmanlı Ermenileri, Âmiralar, Devlet Adamları, Mimarlar-Hekimler-İlim Adamları, İstanbul, Yedirenk, p. 231-378; Regarding the Amira order, pls also see: Külekçi, Cahit (2013) ‘Ermeni Kimliğinin Dönüşüm Süreci ve Âmira Sınıfının Oluşumu’, Hikmet Yurdu, Y: 6, C: 6, S: 12, p. 106-115.
| 349 | Gül AKYILMAZ but the banker who gave the guarantee as the responsible party to pay the arrears for what was owed to the government treasury.31 Armenians began to enter into the government services as well, from the 17th Century onwards. Particularly some palace services were handled by the Armenians. For example Armenians of the Amira Class were assigned to the positions of: bezirgânbaşı [person in charge of providing the fabric necessities of the Sultan], kilercibaşı [chief in charge of kitchen supplies], chief jeweler, person responsible for the dressing room, palace tailor, chief architect and building official of the palace, and administrator of the Sultan’s personal treasury (Enderun Treasury).32 Additionally, the Barutçubaşı and the Darphane Emini positions were always selected among the Armenians. In the 19th Century, the duty of establishing factories in Istanbul and in the rural areas was also given to the Armenians. Once the Greeks lost the trust of the Ottoman State due to the Greek rebellion of 1821, the Armenians were brought to the translator positions for a while in the Divân-ı Hümayun.33 Also, from the reign of Selim the IIIrd onwards, upon switching to reciprocity in the field of diplomacy, Armenian translators were assigned along with the Greeks to accompany the Ottoman ambassadors. Those assigned to the jobs listed above in the Ottoman State were always chosen from the Amira class Armenians. Moreover, when the important role played by the bankers - money lenders on the iltizam [tax collection] system is considered, they played a pivotal role in terms of the Ottoman finance system as well. The Amiras, as bankers have provided vital capital for the Ottoman finance system. For this reason the Armenian authors have claimed that the Armenian sarrafs [money lenders] played a major role in the survival of the extremely fragile Ottoman economy enabling it to
31 Barsoumian, s. 175-176; For details based on archival documents on the subject pls see: Koyuncu, Nuran (2014) ‘Osmanlı Devleti’nde Sarrafların Mültezimlere Kefaleti’, I. Türk Hukuk Tarihi Kongresi Bildirileri 21-22 Aralık 2012, (Editör: Gedikli, Fethi), İstanbul, XII Levha Yayıncılık, p. 361-371. 32 Artinian, Vartan (no date) The Armenian Constitutional System in the Ottoman Empire 1839-1863, İstanbul, p. 21 vd.; Barsoumian, p. 175. 33 Akyılmaz, Gül (2000) Osmanlı Diplomasi Tarihi ve Teşkilatı, Konya, Tablet Basım Yayın, p. 155.
| 350 | Gül AKYILMAZ remain afloat.34 Besides being extremely influential on the Armenian Patriarchate of Istanbul, the Amira Class could decide who could become the Patriarch as well as deposing of those they did not like. On the other hand, they established close relations with the Palace and the Bâb-ı Âli.35 The Amiras became unquestionable leaders over the Armenian citizens with enormous prestige and control power, due to their economic supremacy, power over the Patriarchate and the close relations that they established with the Ottoman state36. The Islamic Law has brought some restrictions on other matters like the residences, dress codes, saddle horses and bearing of arms for the dhimmi’s. The Armenian class has mostly obeyed these restrictions but some exceptions were allowed to the Amira Class. The Islamic Law did not impose any rules to restrict the Muslims and non-Muslims living in the same neighborhoods altogether. For this reason, even though the Armenians in the Ottoman State lived together with their Muslim neighbors from time to time, just like the Jews and the Rums, the Armenians also chose to live in separate neighborhoods in Istanbul as well as the provinces.37
34 Barsoumian, p. 175-176. 35 For example it is claimed that Bezciyan established close relationship with Mahmut-II to become his advisor and that the Sultan even visited him in his sick-bed at his house, Barsoumian, p. 176. 36 The Amiras have supported charities, aid-societies and religious establishments in order to solidify the superior status they held over the Armenian community. Many Amiras sponsored construction of new churches and famous Amira families like the Dadyans, Balyans and Bezciyans erected not even one but a few churches. The Bezciyans took one step further to have a church constructed for the Rum [Greeks of Turkey] and employed them in their factories. They also had hospitals and schools built and sponsored all of their requisitions. The Sultan’s permission was necessary for the dhimmi class to be able to construct a brand new one and repair the existing institutions like churches, schools and hospitals; it is also a duration that necessitates time and money. However, the good relations established between the Amiras and the Palace and the Bâb-ı Âli have eased up and shortened the official procedures. This situation increased the respect they carried among the Armenian community even more, Barsoumian, p. 177-178. 37 In Istanbul the non-Muslims generally preferred to live in districts like: Fener, Balat, Samatya and Kumkapı. Just like the other non-Muslim communities, the Armenians were not allowed to live around the Eyüp Sultan Türbesi and Ortaköy Camii in Istanbul. They were also barred from living in and traveling to the Hicaz (Mekke and Medina) district, Fidan, Yusuf (1998) İslam Hukukunda Ehl-i Kitab Kavramı ve Hükümleri, (Unpublished PhD Thesis) Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Konya, p. 371-373; Bozkurt (1989), p. 18.
| 351 | Gül AKYILMAZ
The Islamic Law brought some restrictions regarding the height and color of the houses of the dhimmis and these rules were strictly adhered to in the Ottoman State. According to these rules, just like those of other dhimmis, the houses of Armenians could not be built higher than the Muslims’, the outside should be painted in dark colors and they could not place windows looking onto the Muslims’ properties. It is interesting that even a Sultan like Selim-III, who followed a sophisticated reform program and took the West as an example, asked for meticulous obedience to these restrictions.38 The Islamic Law had established some rules regarding the dress code of the dhimmis as well: they were forbidden from imitating the Muslims in their clothing, beard and hair styles.39 These rules were followed within the Ottoman Empire and measures were taken to identify the Muslims from non- Muslims, through their physical appearance. Some dhimmi groups were required to wear different color headgear and shoes. Due to this, the Armenian men had to wear red colored hats and shoes. The Armenian women were to wear black or brown shoes and brown or grey colored ferace [cloak]. According to a ferman [decree] that came about in the year 1600, the Armenian women were also forbidden from wearing the ferace and veil, just like the other dhimmi women were.40 According to the rules of the Islamic Law, Armenians just like the other dhimmi groups were barred from riding a horse, carrying weapons or keeping
38 “To the Kaim Makam Paşa (Grand Vezier) warn that the houses built from now on should not be painted black and navy blue like that of the non-Muslims. They are building them too high and they should not be constructed higher than usual. Do not let the Muslim houses be painted black. Let the non-Muslim and Jewish homes be black. Let the Muslim and non-Muslims be identifiable. Call your architect masters and inform them”, Karal, Enver Ziya (1988) Selim III’ün Hatt-ı Hümayunları-Nizam-ı Cedid-1789-1807, Ankara, Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, p. 103. 39 Hatt-ı hümayun [oligarchical official note] of Mahmut the IInd regarding the members of the dhimmi community not to wear clothing or headwear in the same color as that of the Muslims, that they should wander around in clothing style customary of the dhimmi community is a nice example, BOA, HHT, No: 10290, not dated, date on the stamp is: 1825.; The dhimmi men were to wrap around their waist over their pants a belt made of thick rope called “zünnar” and tie a knot at the center front. They cannot wear white sarık [turban]. Dhimmi men were banned from letting their hair grow long or splitting into two from the center or growing a beard, Ebu Yusuf, p. 293-295; Fidan, p. 366-367. 40 Cin/Akyılmaz, p. 217-218; Bozkurt, (1989), p. 19.
| 352 | Gül AKYILMAZ arms in their homes.41 However, due to their special positions, some of these restrictions were not applied to the Amira Class. Some Amiras had the privilege to ride horses, and wear special costumes identifying them from both the non-Muslim and Muslim communities.42 One more point that needs to be examined before moving on to the changes made during the Tanzimat era on the legal status of the Ottoman Armenians is the “millet” system [status of the citizens] which was started in the Ottoman Empire by Fatih [Sultan Mehmet]. The multinational Ottoman Empire organized its non-Muslim subjects within its millet system. Since the Muslims were the main constituent, they were not included in the millet system. The religion and sect criterion was used as the basis for grouping the people, and so regardless of their ethnicity like: Turkish, Rum, Bulgar or Arab, the people belonging to various races, religion and sects were classified and considered as: Muslim, Christian or Jew. Each one of these groups was called “millet” [nation] as per the Ottoman state.43 The Ottoman State considered its non-Muslims not on individual basis, but as members of one of the cemaats [communities]. Division of the society into communities along the lines of religion resulted in each individual or society belonging to one of the millet groups by a religious tie. The tebaa communicated with the governing class, usually through the leader of the millet they were classified into. Each millet leader became accountable to the sultan and his clerks regarding the actions, taxation and other responsibilities of the millet they represented. Until the Fatih era, no autonomous status was bestowed onto the non-Muslims in the Ottoman Empire. Bestowing an autonomous status to the non-Muslims within the governmental structure and defining of the millet system with its
41 “Ferman [decree] stating that the guns, swords, Piştov and similar gadgets carried on or kept in the homes of the Ehl-i zimmet reaya [non-Muslim subjects] should be collected, sold and the payment should be given to the owners of such” , BOA, CTA, No: 7372, T: Z 1185 (1771); The decree regarding: “The non-Muslims should not possess weapons, those found should be collected and sold to Muslims at their fair value, BOA, CTD, No: 524, T: 20 z 1220 (1806). 42 Barsoumian, p. 176. 43 The millet system of the Ottoman State should not be confused with the ethnic nationalism concept which was to come centuries later with the French Revolution. The system of millet within the Ottoman Empire was not based on racial roots but on religion and sects.
| 353 | Gül AKYILMAZ general characteristics materialized after Istanbul was conquered during the reign of Sultan Mehmet the 2ndtih Sultan Mehmet bestowed wide autonomies in 1453 to the Rum, Jewish and Armenian millets (the groups as recognized by their religious characteristics to the Empire) through Gennadios Scholarias who was at that time the Patriarch of the Greek Orthodox Church, Moses Capsali the Chief Rabbi of the Jews and Bishop Joachim who was the head of the Armenian Church in that order.44 Thus, three millets [nations] were recognized in the Ottoman State until the turn of the 19th Century: the Orthodox Rum, the Jewish, and the Armenian Millets. Because the system was established on the basis of religious and sectarian characteristics, the Orthodox Rum Citizenry included not only the Rums, but also the Serbs, Romans and even the Arab Orthodox people,45 and the distinctive characteristic of the Armenian Millet was that they were Gregorian. A major portion of the block not recognized as a religious group were also included within the Armenian millet and so the Armenian Patriarch used legal and judicial authority over all of them. Each millet was headed by a religious chief selected by his cemaat [community] and approved with a berat [charter] by the Ottoman Government. The religious leader had the authority to manage the group’s property, execute religious ceremonies along with other religious affairs and to collect an assigned amount of tax from his congregation. He was also endowed with the authority to solve his congregation members’ private legalities like wedding, divorce, and inheritance. Most important of all, the religious leaders were held responsible on all matters related to their community in front of the government and they executed the responsibility to act as a go between with their community and the Ottoman administrators. Each cemaat [community] was organized within an apparent hierarchy all the way down to its smallest dwelling units. In the neighborhoods where the non-
44 Braude, Benjamin (1999) ‘Millet Sisteminin İlginç Tarihi’, Osmanlı, C: 4, İstanbul, Yeni Türkiye Yayınları, p. 245; Ercan, Yavuz (2000) ‘Osmanlı Devleti’nde Müslüman Olmayan Topluluklar (Millet Sistemi)’, Yeni Türkiye Osmanlı Özel Sayısı II, Ankara, p. 403. 45 Clogg, Richard (1982) ‘The Greek Millet in the Ottoman Empire’, Christian and Jews in the Ottoman Empire The Functioning of a Plural Society, (Edited by: Braude, Benjamin / Lewis, Bernard), Vol. I, The Central Lands, New York, Holmes &Meiers Publishers, p. 185.
| 354 | Gül AKYILMAZ
Muslims lived, ministers and notables were considered the representatives of the kadı [Muslim judge] in the district’s ownership and municipality matters. They also kept population records like deaths and births. Each community created their own administrative units and organized them in order to fulfill the duties of education, religion, governance and their community’s security. Thus, the religious leaders possessed major responsibilities in the administration of hospitals, trusts and education foundations.46 Hence, the Armenian Patriarch was accepted as the leader of the Armenian Community and possessed the wide authorities mentioned above.
II. LEGAL STATUS OF THE ARMENIANS IN THE OTTOMAN STATE DURING THE TANZİMAT PERIOD AND THE RIGHTS GAINED BY THEM While important changes came about in the Ottoman Empire on many topics during the period beginning with the announcement of the Tanzimat Edict on November 3, 1839, the people most affected from these reforms were the non-Muslims and hence the Armenians. Basically three documents affected the legal and social status of the Armenian community and caused them to gain new rights during the Tanzimat [Reform] Period. The first document was the Tanzimat Fermanı [Imperial Edict of Gulhane - 1839] and the second one the Islahat Fermanı [Royal Edict of Reform -1856]. This was the most important one, because it removed the restrictions from the non- Muslims which were present in the Islamic - Ottoman Legal System and thus provided legal equality between Muslims and non-Muslims. The third document: Kanun-i Esasi [First Constitution - 1876] ushered the concept of equal citizenship and exhibited that religious and sectarian differences would not cause any kind of inequality in front of the law among the Ottoman Citizens. The first reason why the Ottoman State declared the Tanzimat and Islahat edicts is that shortly before these events, Great Britain and France had
46 Regarding the Millet System pls see: Cin/Akyılmaz, s. 199-203; Akyılmaz (2001), p. 672- 674.
| 355 | Gül AKYILMAZ advised the Ottoman State to take steps regarding the rights of their non- Muslim citizens. However it is neither possible nor fair to explain the reforms that came about, during the Tanzimat period only with the outside pressures. There are profound reasons hidden behind this historical period. The first of these is: beginning from the Vienna Adjustments of 1815, Ottoman Government’s ideal of “becoming a European State” reached the highest level among its goals of external affairs. If the Ottoman Empire was accepted into the league of “Avrupa Uyumu” [International Vienna Adjustments, also called Concert of Europe (1815 – 1914)] which could be considered the European Union of the 19th Century, the Ottoman State would have become Europeanized, its land integrity and independence would be assured, its international troubles would be solved according to the International Law just like those of the European Governments and if important problems emerged from within or outside, it would not be left alone; on the contrary the Ottoman Government would be able to guide the solution period since it would carry equal status among the other governments within the framework of “Concert of Europe”. However, the inequality between its Muslim and non- Muslim citizens became the obstacle blocking all of its efforts of becoming a European Government and hence, the Tanzimat and Islahat edicts have been considered as the steps to eliminate this inequality. The third major reason for declaring the Tanzimat and Islahat edicts is that the effects of the French Revolution reached the Ottoman Government as well. Starting with Mahmut the Second onwards, all of the Ottoman Sultans and the ruling elite became aware of the effects that the trend of liberalism and nationalism could create on a multi-national Empire like the Ottomans’. The Rum tebaas’ declaration of independence in Greece in 1830, starting with their rebellion, made the severity of the situation quite clear for the Ottoman Statesmen. It was obvious that the separatist actions would not be localized to the Greeks, but would be followed by all other ethnic groups. The governing staff saw the solution in the Ottomanist ideology and thought that disintegration could be avoided with the creation of a super identity of Ottoman Citizenship. According to this approach, everyone has an ethnic identity and can openly declare it. In fact, with the establishment of the millet
| 356 | Gül AKYILMAZ system following the conquest of Istanbul [in 1453] protection of the language, religion and culture of the diverse groups was provided under the care of the Government. For this reason, when the nationalist trend reached its frontiers after the French Revolution, it became effective more easily in the Ottoman Empire than in most European countries. The solution found by the Ottoman Statesmen to alleviate the dangers of the nationalist trend was the establishment of a common identity in which all of the tebaa could freely declare their ethnic identity, such as: Orthodox, Rum, Bulgarian, Roman or Gregorian Armenian. The superior identity they deemed necessary to establish was Ottomanism. The path to its establishment would be possible by providing equal rights to all of the tebaa without religious discrimination. Therefore, the Tanzimat Edict and the Islahat Edict constituted the first steps in creation of this superior identity. The new Ottoman policies that the Western States put into application in the 19th Century was another very important reason for establishing arrangements to provide the non-Muslims with new rights. This policy was named “Şark Meselesi” (Eastern Question) because, with respect to the European Countries, ‘east’ started from the Ottoman frontiers. In simplistic terms, this can be defined as the policy of the European Powers to gain influence and dominance over the Ottoman lands and eventually dismantle the Ottoman Empire. The policy has two important aspects. First is the project to dismantle the Ottoman Empire and to partition its lands. During the decline phase of the Ottoman Empire, the Western Powers pitched into a struggle to gain political as well as economic authority over Ottoman lands, mostly in the Balkans and the Middle East, and tried to claim lands of most strategic importance for their own national interests. Interestingly, whilst cooperating to break up the Ottoman Empire, these states competed with each other at the same time. At the foundation of this frenzy was who could procure the lands with the highest strategic importance and who would yield most power over the new countries to be established on the lands attained from the Ottomans. Armenians have been the major trump card for these countries that had entered a race of superiority with each other encompassing the Eastern Question. Western Powers’ provocation of the distinct groups
| 357 | Gül AKYILMAZ living under the Ottoman sovereignty towards independence, using the nationalistic furor which arose as a result of the French Revolution and the foreign intervention in the internal policies of the Ottomans by continuously demanding new rights for the non-Muslim groups; thus formed the second aspect of the policies regarding the Eastern Question. The unchanged policy of the Western Powers in regard to the Eastern Question has been their demand of privileges, autonomy and independence in that order for the Christian groups within the Ottoman Empire. And the Ottoman State found relief by announcing declarations establishing legal equality between their Muslim and non-Muslim tebaa in an effort to protect themselves from the harmful effects of this policy.47 The new play put forward by the Western Powers in the second half of the 19th Century with respect to the “Eastern Question” has been the Armenian problem. In reality Armenians have constituted the most integrated and well blended non-Muslim group within the multinational Ottoman Empire for hundreds of years. For this reason, the Armenians were called “millet-i sadıka” [the loyal nation] and especially the well-educated among them, besides being well versed in the Turkish language, carried on a life style most similar to that of the Turks. The Ottoman Armenians maintained their lives with similar values to that of the Turks; whichever way the Turks lived, whatever prejudice they carried and life style or virtue the Turks had… The Armenians have been so much influenced by the Turks that Moltke, who came to Istanbul in 1835 and explored many corners of Anatolia reached the
47 On the subject of Eastern Question pls see: Akyılmaz, Gül (2004) ‘Şark Meselesi Kavramı ve Günümüzdeki Yansımaları’, Stratejik Araştırmalar Dergisi, Y: 2, S: 4, p. 46 vd.; Gencer, Mustafa (2002) ‘Osmanlı-Alman Münasebetleri Çerçevesinde Şark Meselesi’, Türkler, C: 13, Ankara, Yeni Türkiye Yayınları, p. 34; Lord Kinross, (1977) The Ottoman Centuries, The Rise and Fall of the Turkish Empire, New York, Morrow Quıll Paperback, p. 549; Giritli, İsmet (1972) Superpowers in the Middle East, İstanbul, Fakülteler Matbaası, p. 3; For the definition of the Eastern Question concept and its scope pls see: Macfie, A. L. (1989) The Eastern Question 1774-1923, New York, Longman; Marriot, J. A. (1958) The Eastern Question an Historical Study in European Diplomacy, Oxford, Clarendon; Anderson, M. S. (1966) The Eastern Question 1774-1923, New York, Macmillan; Anderson, M. S. (1970) The Great Powers and the Near East 1774-1923, London, Arnold Edward; Frank, Russel (1877) Russian Wars with Turkey, London, H.S. King&Co..
| 358 | Gül AKYILMAZ opinion that “It can be said that these Armenians are in reality Christianized Turks”. 48 However, this scene changed in the 19th Century, and the nationalistic rhetoric ensuing from the French Revolution of 1789 influenced the Armenians just like it did the other non-Muslim people within the Ottoman Empire and they began to demand independence. What should be understood is that the powers of the time, like; Russia, Great Britain and France saw this matter as a component of the Eastern Question and in this regard supported the Armenians in addition to inciting them. Actually, the first step in playing the Armenian card against the Ottoman Empire started by way of the great powers in deepening the rift between different religious sects among the Armenians. At the beginning of the 19th Century, the Western Catholic and Protestant missionaries intensified their activities over the Gregorian Armenians as they had been doing to the Orthodox Rum millet during that time. It is not surprising that the Catholic missionaries were backed up by France and the Protestants by Great Britain.49 What is of interest is that the USA, which had not yet become actively involved in the Eastern Question, and who had declared, within the framework of the Monroe Doctrine that it had no political interests in Europe, also partook in
48 Ortaylı, İlber (2001) ‘Osmanlı Ermenileri’, Yeni Türkiye Ermeni Sorunu Özel Sayısı, C: II, Y: 7, S: 38, p. 632; Göyünç, Nejad (2001) ‘Osmanlı Devleti’nde Ermeniler Hakkında’, Yeni Türkiye Ermeni Sorunu Özel Sayısı, C: II, Y: 7, S: 38, p.638. 49 Great Britain intensified efforts to create a Protestant community within the Ottoman Empire after 1840, due to one of its two major rivals; Russia’s sponsoring the Orthodox and the other rival France sponsoring the Catholics, started to constitute danger on its path to India. With this purpose, the British Ministry of Foreign Affairs requested permission from the Ottoman State for the construction of a Protestant Church in Kudüs in the year 1840. The United States of America and Prussia supported Great Britain on this policy. The first Protestant Church was inaugurated in Kudüs in 1842, and conversion of the Gregorian Armenians into the Protestant sect gained speed from then on. While the British Consuls took an active role in the subject of missionaries, the Armenian community was gradually absorbed under the British control by establishment of Protestant Churches and Protestant Colleges. Almost a balance was achieved by Russia forming influence over the Orthodox, the French over the Catholics and the British over the Protestant Armenians. In serving its external affairs, Great Britain thought an autonomous Armenian administration in Eastern Anatolia would be more secure for itself and intensified efforts towards this goal after the Berlin Congress. Kılıç, Davut (2003) ‘XIX. Asırda İngiltere’nin Ortadoğu Politikasının Osmanlı Ermenilerine Yansıması’, Dünden Bugüne Türk-Ermeni İlişkileri, (Editörler: Bal, İdris / Çufalı, Mustafa), Ankara, Nobel Yayınları, p. 231-234.
| 359 | Gül AKYILMAZ the Protestant missionary activities in the 19th Century. It is obvious which compelling forces Great Britain and France acted upon. Both countries wished to gain control by this means over the Armenians whom they thought could be beneficial within the framework of the Eastern Problem in the upcoming stages.50 Yet, the factors behind the actions of the USA need further studying. Because of the intense pressure applied by France and Great Britain and when the number of its citizens that had converted to the Catholic and Protestant Sects reached significant levels, the Ottoman Empire officially recognized the Catholic millet in 1830 and the Protestant in 1847.51 This situation provided a cultural revival among the Armenians and started to form the underlying basis of Armenian nationalism. Catholic and Protestant Armenians revived classical Armenian literature, printed their religious books in their conversational language in place of the Church style liturgy, and established a new literary language which could be understood by the masses. Gregorian Armenians, not wanting to be left behind, entered a cultural awakening in the same period. The Millet Schools started to become effective during those secular education years. With the announcement of the Ermeni Milleti Nizamnamesi [Statute book for the Armenian Millet] in 1863, by the Ottoman State, the Armenian millet took the first step in the direction of secular - democratic administration and autonomous administration, prior to
50 Expansion of Catholic and Protestant sects among the Armenians due to outside interferences caused great uproar among the Gregorian Armenians. Particularly the religious clergy appealed to the Ottoman administration requesting them to obstruct conversion to different religious sects. The Ottoman Government, considering this situation the internal affairs of the Armenian people, did not want to intervene at the beginning; however, once bloody riots broke out; it was compelled to get involved and banned changing of religious sects. For example in an archive document dated 1840 which is located in the Cevdet Adliye assortment: “Once those Armenians who need to be tamed join the Catholic Sect their behavior gets to be uncontrollable and because this situation also harms the free selection of this population [tahrir-i- nüfus], the Catholic Armenian Patriarchy is informed with a written order not to accept those who apply for conversion into the Catholic sect, and so the Gregorian Armenian Patriarchate is also informed of this situation. BOA, CTA, No: 125. 51 Because the Amira Class belonged to the Gregorian Sect, thinking that it may reduce their power, they fiercely opposed the Catholic and Protestant missionary activities among the Armenians. However some among the Amiras, like the Düzyan Family, embraced the Catholics Sect.
| 360 | Gül AKYILMAZ the Kanun-i Esasi.52 The Armenian Amira Class has played an important role during this process, 53 the Armenian youth sent for education outside the country returned back having learned Western culture and languages, and while demanding reforms for their own millet, they asked for secularism and autonomy at the same time. However, the Armenian nationalists who were very few in number in the 1860’s could influence only the intellectuals. The Gregorian Armenian Millet, the rich tradesmen who had reached a serious economic level within the Ottoman sovereignty and the Armenian civil servants who had reached important levels within the bureaucracy exhibited a
52 Akyılmaz, Gül (2014) ‘Osmanlı Hukukundaki Düzenlemeler Çerçevesinde Yabancı Ülke Vatandaşlığına Geçen Ermenilerin Gayrimenkullerinin Hukuki Statüsü’, Yeni Türkiye Ermeni Özel Sayısı C: IV, Y: 20, S: 63, p. 3103-3104; Ermeni Milleti Nizamnamesi [the Statute book for the Armenian Millet] was prepared by a commission comprising of Armenians and established within the frame of authority conveyed by the Bâb-ı Âli. The text agreed upon by the Bâb-ı Âli [Ottoman Government], the Patriarchate and this Commission was published on March 29 1863. The Statute Book for the Armenian Millet stipulated an Assembly of Representatives comprising of 140 members, and two Executive Councils; with that of the spiritual (religious) body comprising of 14 members and the secular (national) one comprising of 20 members. The Religious Assembly was responsible of: dogmatic, religious education and assignment of the priests, while the secular assembly was responsible for carrying out the affairs related to education, hospitals, millet’s property, budget and justice. Both assemblies were responsible towards the General Assembly. This Assembly had the authority to choose the Istanbul and Kudüs Patriarchs, and assemblies comprising of 20 persons for the secular and 14 for the spiritual sections. The Patriarch was to continue establishing the relations between the assembly and the Bâb-ı Âli and only those from the Ottoman citizens could be brought to this position, Bozkurt (1989), p. 181- 182, Following the announcement of the Statute book, the Armenian Community established new schools, and national and cultural awareness has flourished. 53 The Amira Class, as an important tool in the cultural awakening of the Armenians has in reality laid the foundation of Armenian nationalism. The first secular Armenian school was established as early as 1790, with the generous donations of the prominent members of the Amira Class. Following this, one or a group of families belonging to the Amira Class got together to build up a school next to each Armenian Church in Istanbul. The Amiras built a girls’ school in Samatya in 1831. They did not stop at establishing these schools but carried on financing their yearly expenditures as well. The Amiras did not hesitate to spend money for the publication of many books in the Armenian language. They established associations for the kindling of Armenian Literature. The fact that they established Middle Schools from 1836 onwards proves that they were concerned about the education of the ordinary Armenians who were not as lucky as themselves. Thus they intended to increase the literacy ratio among the Armenians, to bring in the technology of the West, and to introduce them to the Western concepts, Barsoumian, p. 178-179.
| 361 | Gül AKYILMAZ firm stand against Armenian nationalism.54 A major rift opened up amidst the Amira Class during the era reached by the announcement of the Tanzimat Edict. In this break-up, the Amiras involved in the money exchange and jewelry businesses remained on one side and the technocrat Armenians holding governmental posts such as; chief architects, chief in charge of gunpowder factories and mint factories held the other side. The competition between these two groups carried to prominence a new group described as the reformists or the illuminated (constitutionalist) Armenians. What is interesting is that this group was comprised of those youngsters who were sent outside the country for education by the Amiras and thus introduced to the ideology and concepts unveiled by the French Revolution. While the enlightened Armenians were young and had obtained good educations, bonded with democratic principles and doctrines, the Amiras of the opposing group portrayed a more conservative and traditionalist appearance. The conflict between these two groups did not remain restricted to the political arena, but continued in the social, economic and cultural areas as well. The popularity and power of the advancement group increased in the years after the declaration of Tanzimat and Islahat Edicts and they rose up to a stronger position against the conventional Amiras. Their new status enabled them with the preparation of the Constitution for the Armenian Millet [Nizamname of the Armenian Millet] and played an effective role within the Ottoman Governmental Institution.55 Armenian nationalism started to gain strong support among the Armenians only after the era starting with the Ayastefanos and Berlin Peace Treaties. With the 16th article of the Ayastefanos Agreement, which did not stand any chances of applicability, the Ottoman Government promised to make reforms in the locations where Armenians lived in large numbers. With the 61st article of the Berlin Agreement signed that same year, Bâb-ı Âli again promised to activate the reforms necessitated in the districts where Armenian population was concentrated and obliged to inform the signatory countries of the precautions taken. With this arrangement the Armenian problem, for
54 Shaw, Stanford J. / Shaw, Ezel Kural (1983) Osmanlı İmparatorluğu ve Modern Türkiye, C: 2, (Çeviren: Harmancı, Mehmet), İstanbul, E Yayınları, p. 251-252; Barsoumian, p. 180- 181. 55 Barsoumian, p. 180-181.
| 362 | Gül AKYILMAZ which the foundations were laid down with the Ayastefanos Treaty, was extended and by declaring it under the guaranty of all of the signatory governments, the subject gained an international dimension. At the same time, the Armenian Community started to part its ways with the Turks. s caAs can be seen, a very dense political back drop lies under the foundation of the new rights chartered to the Armenians and the Ottoman Government had no choice but to acknowledge rights equal to that of the Muslims for the Armenians and the other non-Muslim groups.
A. Rights Chartered to the Armenians With the Tanzimat Edict The Tanzimat Edict is a document prepared to legitimize the equality between the Muslims and non-Muslims. However, because this situation could contradict the Islamic Law which had prevailed on the non-Muslims within the Ottoman Empire until then, and in order to reduce the possible objections in such a case, the concept of equality was not openly mentioned in the text of the Edict. The concept of equality suggested in the Edict covered a timid and veiled understanding of equality. The principles covered in the Edict were: regulations should be put into effect for all of the Ottoman Citizens regarding the guaranty of their lives, honour and possessions, property rights, taxes and military duty; that the legal trials should be open and fair, that no one could be deemed guilty or punished without a judicial court verdict, etc… Thus with the Edict, universal rights such as: no one can be punished (without a judicial court verdict) i.e. “personal immunity” and “no guilt or punishment can be laid without an admissible law defining the wrong doing” were also accepted. Alongside the principles to be applied in confiscation prohibition and taxation (fair and equal taxation), security of owned property is also accepted. One of the expressions grabbing attention in the Edict is that new rules were going to be established alongside these principles. Expression of “new laws” verbalizes new principles that did not exist in the Ottoman Law, in other words legal reforms! New legislations that would form the backbone of new administrative methods could be prepared with the administrative committees in a collective manner. It was emphasized in the Edict that decisions taken on all topics by the Meclis-i Vâlâ-yı Ahkâm-ı Adliye (High Commission of Legal and Judiciary Matters) would become law, upon
| 363 | Gül AKYILMAZ approval by the Sultan, that new punishment laws would be prepared in order to decide on the punishment of those who disobey and that all guilty would be punished (regardless of their religious belief) according to this new law.56 As can be seen, equality between the Muslim and non-Muslim tebaa [citizens] is not clearly mentioned in the Edict, however according to the rights and promises expressed, it is understood that such an equality is on the nail.57 In short, with the Tanzimant Fermanı important rights and guarantees were provided to all citizens – all non-Muslims and hence the Armenians among them, as much as the Muslims – they all have the guarantee to life, property and honour; justice in taxation; property rights; personal immunity (principle that no punishment can be given without due process and prohibition of torture); legality (no guilt or punishment can be established without it being defined in a law); open and fair judicial court was to be provided for all. Even though there is an alluded stress on equality, this constitutes a very important step for the Turkish Public Law, because acceptance of equality in front of the law for everyone irrespective of their religion by the Reform Edict means a split from the conventional Islamic Law. Even though important rights and securities were granted to the non-Muslims with the Islamic Legal System which had been effective within the Ottoman Empire until then, this system had not held the non-Muslims equal to the Muslims and had imposed some legal restrictions on them. For this reason, the
56 Bozkurt, Gülnihal (1996) Batı Hukuku’nun Türkiyede Benimsenmesi Osmanlı Devleti’nden Türkiye Cumhuriyeti’ne Resepsiyon Süreci (1839-1939), Ankara, Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, p. 49; Mumcu, Ahmet/Küzeci, Elif (2003) İnsan Hakları ve Kamu Özgürlükleri (Kavramlar, Evrensel ve Ulusal Gelişimleri, Bugünkü Durumları), Ankara, Savaş Yayınları, p. 158; Tanör, Bülent (1998) Osmanlı- Türk Anayasal Gelişmeleri, İstanbul, Yapı Kredi Kültür Sanat Yayınları, p. 88; Tahiroğlu, Tahiroğlu (1985) ‘Tanzimattan Sonra Kanunlaştırma Hareketleri’, Tanzimattan Cumhuriyete Türkiye Ansiklopedisi, C: 3, İletişim Yayınları, p. 588; For the substance of the Reforms Edict and for different opinions on it, pls see: Osmanağaoğlu, Cihan (2004) Tanzimat Dönemi İtibariyle Osmanlı Tabiiyyetinin (Vatandaşlığının) Gelişimi, İstanbul, Legal Yayıncılık, p. 107-118. 57 From the expression mentioned in the Edict it is understood that the non-Muslims will benefit equally with the Muslims from the assurances given: “... security is assured by our brave government to our non-Muslim citizens, just like our Muslim citizens on the issues regarding life security, honour, and protection of property …”, Tanör, Bülent (1985) ‘Anayasal Gelişmelere Toplu Bir Bakış’, Tanzimattan Cumhuriyete Türkiye Ansiklopedisi, C: 1, İstanbul, İletişim Yayınları, p. 15; İnalcık, Halil (1964) ‘Sened-i İttifak ve Gülhane Hatt-ı Hümayunu’, Belleten c. XXVII, Ankara, p. 619; Cin/Akyılmaz, p. 556-557.
| 364 | Gül AKYILMAZ introduction of the concept of “equality in front of the law” which was the product of the French Revolution in Europe, into the Ottoman State with the announcement of the Reform Edict, signifies an important change of mentality. However, it needs to be mentioned immediately, while the concept of equality in the nationalist countries of the West developed on the subjects of social classes and citizens, the concept of “equality in front of the law” announced with the Reform Edict showed up as equality of the non-Muslims [to the Muslims].58 Concrete results of the concept of equality within the Ottoman Legal System announced with the Reform Edict started to be seen from the year 1840 onwards. An absolute development came to life in January 1840 and the right of representation was given to the dhimmi class of people for the first time. With an edict announced in 1840, establishment of administrative assemblies in the rural areas was resolved. Grand Assemblies comprising of 13 representatives were to be established in the sanjaks [Ottoman districts smaller than city but larger than county] and eyalets [almost like provinces]. If non-Muslims live in such districts, 2 representatives representing the dhimmis could partake as members in these assemblies besides their religious leaders like priest, metropolitan bishop or the chief rabbi. The sanjak or eyalet’s administrative, financial and security issues would be discussed and decided in the Grand Assemblies and the civil servants could be judged and punished accordingly. Small assemblies comprised of 5 members were to be established in the towns. In these assemblies out of the two members representing the town’s people, one would be Muslim and the other one would be the leader of the non-Muslim group which has the highest population in the town. And if there are two non-Muslim groups with almost equal numbers, the number of members in that town will be increased to six.59
58 İnalcık, p. 621. 59 Davison, Roderic (1968) ‘The Advent of the Principle of Representation in the Government of the Ottoman Empire’, Beginnings of Modernization in the Middle East the Nineteenth Century, (Edited by: Polk, William R. / Chambers, Richard L.), Chicago, University of Chicago Press, s. 97-98; Shaw, Stanford J. (1969) ‘The Origins of Representative Government in the Ottoman Empire An Introduction to the Provincial Councials 1839-1876’, (Edited by: Winder, R. Bayly), Near Eastern Round Table 1967-1968, New York, p. 60-62; Ortaylı, İlber (1974) Tanzimattan Sonra Mahalli İdareler (1840-1878), Ankara, Türkiye Amme İdaresi Enstitüsü Yayınları, p. 15-16; Tuncer, Seral (2014) İdari Teşkilat İlkeleri Işığında Osmanlı Devleti’nde Eyalet Sistemi, Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, p. 94-100.
| 365 | Gül AKYILMAZ
Armenian representatives also took part in these assemblies, which were a product of the Tanzimat era and their course for participation in politics began albeit in a local level.
B. Arrangements Committed With the Royal Edict of 1856 (Islahat Fermanı) and the Advantages Accorded to the Armenians During the Islahat and Meşrutiyet Periods AThe second important legal certificate that came about during the Tanzimat Period was the Royal Edict of 1856 (Islahat Fermanı). With the exception of a few articles which were addressing all of the Ottoman tebaa [citizens], this edict in general included arrangements that could cause changes in the legal status, religious and social lives of the dhimmis. Whilst the Cremean War neared its end Great Britain and France had especially decided to take the initiative to blockade Russia from gaining political benefits by reviving the Ottoman Christians’ rights once again in an upcoming peace conference. The Ottoman Government was not happy about foreign interventions on its internal affairs through its Christian populations and not happy that the matter was gaining international status. And also, its dream to become a European State was still the basic aim of the Ottoman State’s foreign policy. It also saw that the announcement of the Tanzimat Edict was not enough for the establishment of the Ottoman Superior Identity, which it thought was necessary in order to quell the destructive effects of the nationalistic trend. In its desire to strengthen its position prior to attending the Paris Peace negotiations which would settle the Crimean War, the Ottoman State started preparations for a new Edict with the aims to prevent interference in its internal affairs, blockade the separatist movements and also to show that it had studied the homework assigned to itself on the path of becoming a European Government.60 A commission was established for this purpose. What is interesting is the presence of British, French and Austrian ambassadors in this commission alongside important [Ottoman] government administrators like the Sadrazam, Minister of Foreign Affairs and other
60 Bernard Lewis writes that the Islahat Edict was announced by the Sultan on February 18, 1856 to show the Ottoman State’s acceptance which was one of the pre-conditions for becoming a member of the inharmonious chain known as the European Unity, Lewis, Bernard (1984) Modern Türkiyenin Doğuşu, Ankara, Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, p. 116.
| 366 | Gül AKYILMAZ statesmen. The establishment style of the commission shows how evident the outside effects had been on the announcement of this edict. In no other Ottoman Certificate was the foreign influence so visible. For this reason, it has been a document the quality of which remained contentious in the past and today. In spite of all of its negative facets, there are some people who defend its importance for bringing absolute equality in front of the law, in the history of Turkish people’s human rights and public freedoms.61 On the other hand, the principle of freedom as one of the important elements of a constitutional state was achieved at least in terms of the Dhimmi – Muslim equality.62 The legal status chartered to the dhimmis by the Islamic Legal System was digressed with the Royal Edict of 1856.63 The Royal Edict of 1856 established solid reforms which could be beneficial to realize the promises brought forward in the Hatt–ı Hümayun dated 1839 and brought into the open some of the aspects which remained obscured in the same. Examining the contents of the Edict shows that all of the rights, exemptions and privileges given to the non-Muslim communities in the previous reforms were repeated. Regardless of their population numbers [in a location], the non- Muslims [dhimmis] would not be prevented from performing the rituals required by their religion or sect, they would not be tormented for this act and would not be forced to convert their religion or sect. The Patriarchs would be assigned to their positions for their lifetime. However, by stating in the Ferman that the Patriarchs have jurisdiction only over the religious matters, the authority they held over worldly affairs until then was nullified. The dues paid to the patriarchs and the community leaders by the citizens were also nullified. Furthermore, through an important change brought to the old millet system, administration of the cemaats [communities] was left to the
61 Mumcu/Küzeci, p. 193. 62 Tahiroğlu, p. 589. 63 Even though the 1839 Tanzimat Edict did not provide a constitution to the Muslim citizens, the 1856 Islahat Edict in general has become the starting point of a constitutional development for the non-Muslim “citizens” and a manifestation of their national independence demands, Ercan, p. 403; Berkes, Niyazi (2010) Türkiye’de Çağdaşlaşma, İstanbul, Yapı Kredi Yayınları, p. 218; In the course started with the Islahat Edict the communities have established their own national administrations including the Gregorian Armenians’ statute book.
| 367 | Gül AKYILMAZ assemblies comprised of the religious and secular members. No obstacles would be brought to the repair of temples, schools, hospitals, graveyards and alike in quarters where all of the people were of the same religion and sect; no permission would be required for the same in those locations, but the Sultan’s permission would be necessary only in the case of new constructions. In districts where the population comprised of mixed sects, the Patriarchs or the bishops were to submit an application to the Bâb–ı Âli [Sublime Porte] and obtain the Sultan’s approval for the repair of similar buildings. Communities would be able to open up schools within their own habitat; however, their educational programs and teachers would be under the inspection of the Ministry of Education. Phrases denouncing the dhimmi people due to their religion or sect in official documents and speeches as well as the clerks’ and ordinary peoples’ use of offensive language towards them were all forbidden. As can be seen, the freedom held by non-Muslims and hence the Armenians for centuries, regarding the subjects of religion and personal belief were being re-emphasized. However, a detail and difference attracts attention: While the religious leaders of the communities were deprived of many of their privileges and therefore became less influential, secularity period of the Armenian, Orthodox Rum and Jewish Communities was started by the [Ottoman] government’s own making. Probably the most important arrangement of the Ferman is the acceptance without any discrimination of all Ottoman subjects to the government jobs, including the military and civilian administrative [mülki] academies.64 Thus an important limitation on the non-Muslims such as not
64 The rule which became a subject of great debate was that the non-Muslim citizens and hence the Armenians could serve the military instead of paying the Cizye Tax following the Royal Edict of 1856 and only in case they do not wish to serve the military that they could pay monetary compensation named “bedel-i askerî”. For these arguments pls see: Bozkurt (1989), p. 121-129; thinking that it may negatively influence the spirit of unity and togetherness within the army, the Ottoman Government preferred the non-Muslims to pay the monetary compensation instead of serving the military. In the period following the announcement of the Islahat Edict, a calculation based on the population ratios showed that 33.334 Muslim and 16.666 non-Muslim men were supposed to be admitted into the army. However,” for centuries, the government had drawn its military power only from the Muslims and assigned its trade and treasury i.e. its economic battles to the non-Muslims. Thinking that going on military expeditions could feel too heavy for these citizens who had
| 368 | Gül AKYILMAZ being able to enroll in the governmental posts or government employment was removed. Another arrangement brought for the non-Muslims by the Islahat Edict of 1856 was that their witnesses could become acceptable in legal courts. Thus mixed courts were established and the testimony of non-Muslims’ were valid (including the Armenians) in the Ottoman Courts by this Edict. Another arrangement accepted with this Edict was the presence of dhimmi representatives whilst discussing articles regarding all of the tebaa as well as their rights to present opinions and cast votes in the Meclis–i Valâyı Ahkâm-ı Adliye which was a high court assembly where important government matters were discussed, decisions made and draft of laws were prepared.65 Another point worthy of attention in the Ferman is the mention of the political rights of the dhimmis in three different places. First, with the readjustment brought to the subject of election of representatives to the existing Eyalet Meclisleri [District Assemblies] the guarantee that Muslim and
no experience in swordsmanship and cündîlik [wielding of arms]”, it was decided to introduce them into the military in steps [tedricen aşamalı]. For this reason, it was decided to include only 3,500 non-Muslims under arms and bedel-i askeriye should be received from the remaining 13,166 for a while. Later a reduction of 666 was also made and the numbers were dropped down to 12,500 soldiers. It was decided to collect 5,000 kuruş from each delinquent thus a total of 52,500,000 kuruş was to be collected as bedel-i askeriyye [payment in lieu of military duty]. Bedel-i askeriyye was not taken as an upfront lump sum but in installments. Initially it was decided to collect it in 10 installments, but in the following years it was reduced to four installments. Sayın, p. 469-473; It must be emphasized immediately that in case some members of the Muslim community do not wish to serve the army, they too have to pay redemption called “bedel-i nakdî”. The males who were to serve the army, in other words those between the ages of (20-40) were held responsible for a total of 20 years with the first 5 years in nizâmiyye, 7 years in redif and 8 years as müstahfız, withan adjustment made during the reign of Mahmut the Second. If they wished they could do this service by bodily serving in the army or by paying bedel-i nakdî. The total cost of this was assessed at a huge sum of 150 hundred Ottoman golds. Sayın, p.474-475; During the period of IInd Meşrutiyet with the constitutional changes made in the year 1909 bedel-i askeriyye was removed and all citizens of the Empire were forced to serve in the army. Bozkurt (1989), p. 129; Shaw/Shaw, p. 100. 65 For detailed information with regard to the articles pls see: Karal, Enver Ziya (1988) Osmanlı Tarihi Islahat Fermanı Devri (1856–1861), C: VI, Ankara, Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, p. 1 vd.; Bozkurt (1989), p. 56–57; Osmanağaoğlu, p.121-127.
| 369 | Gül AKYILMAZ dhimmi representative assignments would be in ratio with their populations has provided the Dhimmi Community with the possibility of joining politics in the eyalet [district] level and the right to become representatives. Second, by making some changes in the organization of the Millet system, ordinary subjects were introduced into the Community Assembly in addition to their religious clergy. Thus the dhimmi tebaa were given the chance to control events affecting their daily lives. Third and last, by giving the Dhimmi Community the right to be represented in the Meclis-i Vâlâ-yı Ahkâm-ı Adliye [the top assembly where legal procedures were discussed] they were entitled the right to voice opinion and vote on subjects pertaining to the whole country and all subjects [Muslim and non-Muslim].66 With the new adjustments made in the IslahatEdict, by providing absolutely equal legal rights between the Muslim and non-Muslim subjects [the State] tried to achieve the concept of “equal citizenship”, thus tried to prevent splitting of the Empire via nationalist ideals. However, these efforts formed a far more important step in the topic of “secular government and citizenship” even though the Ottoman administrators did not completely realize their consequences.67 The adjustments made in regards to the dhimmi subjects by the Royal Edict of 1856 did not remain only on paper, but found a chance for application. As mentioned in the Edict, the dhimmis continued to be represented in the local level assemblies. The dhimmis were provided with representation rights in the “Vilayet İdare Meclisleri” and “Vilayet Umumi Meclisleri” that were newly established with the Vilayet Nizamnamesi [County Adjustment] of 1864. Presence of two elected members to represent the non- Muslims and two to represent the Muslims was provided besides the government administrators in the administrative assemblies which were equipped with the authority to discuss, take necessary precautions and to take action on the subjects of civilian administration, finance, external affairs, government duties, trade and farming. In addition to the elected members,
66 Davison (1968), p. 101; Akyılmaz (2003), p. 101. 67 Davison, Roderic (1954) ‘Turkish Attitudes Concerning Christian-Muslim Equality in the Nineteenth Century’, American Historical Review, V: LIX, I: 4, July, s. 852; Akyılmaz (2003), p. 101-102.
| 370 | Gül AKYILMAZ the religious representatives of the non-Muslims also participated in the İdare Meclisleri [Administrative Assemblies].68 İdare Meclisleri [Administrative Assemblies] were established not only at the vilayet [city] level, but they were also established at the sanjaks and kazas. With the “İdare–i Umumiye–i Vilayet Nizamnamesi” [Regulation of General District Administration] dated 1871, equal Muslim and non-Muslim representation was decreed for the assemblies at the vilayet [city], liva [sanjak] and kaza [township] levels and at the appeal courts of the vilayets. Armenian representatives participated in all of these local assemblies and by joining politics at the local level represented the Armenians. The mixed courts mentioned in the Reform Edict of 1856 were also established awhile later. Mixed trade courts had become a part of the Ottoman Legal System in 1847. The Nizamiye Courts became a part of the Ottoman legal system, with the Vilayetler Nizamnamesi dated 1864. Under the framework of Nizamiye Courts, deâvi [prosecutive] assemblies in the township centers, and court of appeals with the names of: “divan–ı temyizi hukuk” and “meclis–i kebir–i cinayet” were established in the sanjak centers. One of the important specialities of these courts was that, non-Muslims could act as judges just like the Muslims. It is understood from the records of the archive documents that a large number of Armenians and Rums acted as judges in the Nizamiye Courts.69
68 Shaw, Ezel Kural (1992) ‘Tanzimat Provincial Reform as Compared with European Models’, 150. Yılında Tanzimat, Ankara, Milli Kütüphane Yayını, p.58; Davison (1968), p.102; Bozkurt (1989), p. 111; Ortaylı, İlber (1976) ‘İlk Osmanlı Parlamentosunun Yapısında Eyalet İdare Meclislerinin Etkisi’, Türk Parlamentoculuğunun İlk Yüzyılı, Ankara, Ajans-Türk, p. 438; Ortaylı (1974), p. 58 and others; For example, in 1875, in the Diyarbakır Vilayet İdare Meclisi, besides the two Muslim and two non-Muslim elected members, religious administrators representing each sect were also present. Three of these were Armenian religious clergy: Armenian Protestant Episcope, Armenian Gregorian Assistant Envoy and Armenian Catholic Assistant Envoy. 69 Sultan’s order [irade-i seniyye] for the swapping of the positions of İstavro Malakardi Efendi, the chief of the Menofaç Kazası Mahkeme–i Sulhiyyesi [Minor Court] of the Kandiye Sanjack with Emanuel Papadaki Efendi, the chief of the Kalohoryo Mahkeme–i Sulhiyesi [Minor Court], Adliye ve Mezahip İradeleri Catalogue, Row No: 92, General No: 1475, Private No: 14, t: 15 C 1310 (1892); Order regarding the appointment of İstavrotaze Zâki Efendi to the Chairmanship of Kisamo Kazası Mahkeme–i Sulhiyesi [Minor Court] of the Hanya Sanjac, BOA, Adliye ve Mezahib İrade Catalogue, Row No: 101, General No:
| 371 | Gül AKYILMAZ
During this period, non-Muslim representatives held positions in the Meclis–i Vâlâ–yı Ahkâm-ı Adliye, possessing high court body features and Şûra–yı Devlet [State Council] as well. While it was necessary to be a Muslim in order to become a member of the Meclis–i Vâlâ–yı Ahkâm-ı Adliye until theRoyal Edict of 1856, non-Muslim members (including the Armenians] participated in the Committee following 1856.70 Meclis–i Vâlâ–yı Ahkâm–ı Adliye was split into two sections in 1868, namely: Divân–ı Ahkâm–ı Adliye and Şurây–ı Devlet. Şûra–yı Devlet was both an upper court for the administrative lawsuits and it was also a committee established to perform the legislative duties in addition to preparing the legal and regulatory bylaws. This legislature which set the foundation of today’s Danıştay [State Council] carried out the duties of Conflict Court as well as possessing the authority of governmental auditing.71 Non-Muslims have participated alongside the Muslims, in such an important establishment, since its foundation. Eleven of the 38 appointees (almost one third) of the Şûra–yı Devlet at the time of its foundation in 1868 were non-Muslim. Four of these non-Muslims were Armenians of Catholic Sect, three were Rums, 2 Jews, 1 Gregorian Armenian and 1 was Bulgarian.72
1592, Private No: 15, t: 28 C 1310 (1892); Order [irade] regarding the assignment of Penafaki Efendi to the chairmanship position of the Kandiye Bidayet Court’s Legal Department, BOA, Adliye ve Mezahib İrade Catalogue, Row No: 167, General No: 2739, Private No: 9, t: 10 Z 1310 (1893). Order regarding the assignment of Agapius Efendi to the chairmanship position of the Bidayet Court’s Punishment Department for the of Burdur Sancağı, Adliye ve Mezahib İradeleri Catalogue, Row No: 763, General No: 149, Private No: 21 t: 17 M 1314 (1896); Order regarding the assignment of Kastantin Efendi, from the Müdde–i Umumi of the Dimetoka Kaza’s Bidayet Mahkemesi to the Chairmanship post of the Kavala Trade Court, BOA, Adliye ve Mezahib İradeleri Catalogue, Row No: 1392, General No: 1184, Private No: 13, t: 27 Ca 1325 (1907). 70 A few non-Muslims were immediately assigned to the membership of the Meclisi-i Vâlâ-yı Ahkâm-ı Adliye in 1856. Among these non-Muslims are some members of famous Armenian families like the Dadians and Düzyans. Davison, Roderic (1982) ‘The Millets as Agents of Change in the Nineteenth Century Ottoman Empire’, Christian and Jews in the Ottoman Empire The Functioning of a Plural Society, (Edited by: Braude, Benjamin / Lewis, Bernard), V: I The Central Lands, New York, Holmes &Meiers Publishers, p. 328. 71 Cin/Akyılmaz, p.193-195. 72 Davison (1968), p. 103; Davison (1982), p. 328; Bozkurt (1996), p. 148-149; Bozkurt (1989), p. 114-115. For example: Krikor Odyan Efendi, Ohannes Sakız Paşa, Bedros Kuyumcuyan are some of these people, Dabağyan, p.41-42, 52-53, 58.
| 372 | Gül AKYILMAZ
Armenians ascended to the top ranks of the civilian bureaucracy in the era reached with the Islahat Edict [1856] and were assigned to under-secretary and ministerial positions. Upon examining the ministerial positions, it becomes evident that the Armenians served in important ministries (between the years 1883-1917) as well as holding important ministerial positions like: Minister of Law, Minister of Internal Affairs, Finance Minister and various others. A few examples to be shown for the others are: Krikor Ağaton Efendi, Minister of Postage and Public Works; Agop Kazazyan Efendi, Minister of Finance and Treasury; Ohannes Sakız Paşa, Minister of Treasury who also served as the member of Government Advisory Board; Ogan Mardikyan Efendi and Garabed Artin Davud Paşa, Postal Service Ministers; Bedros Hallaçyan Efendi for Minister of Public Works; Mikayel Portakal Paşa, who has served as the Minister of Treasury as well as being given the Vizier [Prime Ministerial] position and who is also famous for the lectures he gave at the Mülkiye [Faculty of Civil Service and Foreign Affairs]; Noradokyan Efendi, who initially served as the counselor of Law of the Bâb–ı Âli, later became Minister of Trade and Minister of Public Works and in the year 1912 became the Minister of Foreign Affairs.73
73 Toros, Taha (1985) ‘Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Gayrimüslim Azınlıklar’, Tanzimat’tan Cumhuriyete Türkiye Ansiklopedisi, c. 4, İstanbul, İletişim Yayınları, p. 1009; Yumul, Arus / Balı, Rıfat B. (2003) ‘Ermeni ve Yahudi Cemaatlerinde Siyasal Düşünceler’, Cumhuriyet’e Devreden Düşünce Mirası, Tanzimat ve Meşrutiyet Birikimi, İletişim Yayınları, İstanbul, p. 36; Dabağyan, p. 33-75; It is seen that the number of Armenians is considerably high among the government civil servants assigned from the Center to the Rumeli Cities during the same timeframe. For example: Acemyan Efendi, an Armenian of İstanbul was assigned as an engineer of public works to the city of Manastır vilayeti. The Assistant to the District Head of Florina kaza, Bedros Efendi was one of the Sivas Armenians. For these examples and more, pls see: Ortaylı, İlber (2004) ‘II. Abdülhamit Devrinde Taşra Bürokrasisinde Gayrimüslimler’, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda İktisadi ve Sosyal Değişim, Makaleler I, Ankara, Turhan Kitabevi, p.193-199; Armenians took posts not only in the headquarters but in important positions at the administrative locations that can be labeled with self- governing status. For example: Nubar Paşa an Armenian who was born in İzmir and whose uncle Bogos Yusufyan had served as minister of Trade as well as Foreign Affairs in Egypt, rapidly rose in prominence in Egypt where he went in 1842 and started as the scriber of Mehmet Ali Paşa. The Ottoman Government issued him the position of vizier in 1873, and during the reign of Hidivan İsmail Paşa he became the Minister of Foreign Affairs, for detailed information on this subject pls see: Kızıltoprak, Süleyman (2003) ‘Kriz Döneminde Osmanlı Bürokrasisinde Ermeniler: Nubar Paşa Örneği’, Dünden Bugüne
| 373 | Gül AKYILMAZ
Armenian civil servants were assigned to administrative positions in the postal services, population registration offices, quarantine inspectorate, and administration of public debts, as well as vice [sanjak] governor aides, not only in İstanbul but also in rural districts. Research carried out by Findley, on the positions the non-Muslims held as government civil servants at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is worthy of mentioning. This research shows that the Armenians held a considerable presence among the ministry of Foreign Affairs personnel assigned to central positions or sent to outside posts. Findley examined the files of 366 of the Ministry employees who worked from 1850 to 1908. He found out that 107 of them were non-Muslims. Distribution of the non-Muslims according to their ethnicity was as follows: 30 Rums, 52 Armenians, 12 Jews, 7 Christian Arabs, and 6 European based non-Muslims. As can be seen, predominance of the Armenian personnel over the other non-Muslims is evident at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Most of the Armenian personnel were Gregorian, and a few Catholic Armenians were also present. None defined themselves as Protestant. Ninety present of the Armenians who worked at the Ministry were born in İstanbul.74 Another aspect attracting attention in this research is that whilst the number of non-Muslim personnel in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1850 was only 7, this number gradually increased in time. And this shows that the notion of legal equality gained foot in the Ottoman state. The unit that most Armenians were employed in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was the Tahrirat–ı Hariciye Kalemi [Editorial Office]. The number of Armenians in this unit was 69. At the translation office of the Bâb–ı Âli they numbered at 13 and in the consultation room 8. In the time period examined, 19 of the diplomats and 19 of the Consuls sent to Western Centers were of Armenian roots. The number of Armenians serving in other diplomatic centers was 31 and other consular centers: 26.75 The Armenians
Türk-Ermeni İlişkileri (Editörler: Bal, İdris / Çufalı, Mustafa), Ankara, Nobel Yayınları, p. 173-185. 74 Pls see: Findley, Carter V. (1996) Kalemiyeden Mülkiyeye Osmanlı Memurlarının Toplumsal Tarihi, (Çeviren: Çağalı Güven, Gül) İstanbul, Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, s. 95 vd.; Findley (1982), p. 343 and others. While researching the status of the Muslim and non- Muslim employees at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Findley took two criteria into consideration: equal chances to enroll in and equal pay for the same job done. 75 Findley (1996), p. 101 v.d.; Findley (1982), p. 353 and others. For detailed information on this subject pls also see: Çark, Y. G. (1953) Türk Devleti Hizmetinde Ermeniler- 1453-1953,
| 374 | Gül AKYILMAZ exceeded the Rums in climbing up to high positions at the Ministry of Foreign affairs too. The switch from tebaa [subject] to citizenship occurred in the Ottoman State on Jan 23, 1869 with the Tabiiyyet-i Osmaniye Kanunnamesi (Code of Citizenship) to go into effect as the first citizenship law. From then on, Western concepts were adopted to replace words like Muslim or dhimmi which derived their roots from the Islamic Legal System. The important point here is the evasion of identifying adjectives based on religion, sect and ethnic roots and preference of new definitions instead. According to the first article of the code, children born to Ottoman parents (both mother and father) or if only their father is an Ottoman citizen, are considered Ottoman citizens. Being Turkish, Muslim, Armenian, Rum, Christian or Jew has no significance. It is seen that the non-Muslims became more effective in political life during the First Meşrutiyet period. Three Armenian members participated in the 28 person commission that prepared the draft of the Kanun-i Esasi [Constitution].76 Appearance of the expression that “anyone belonging to the Ottoman tabiiyet [citizenship], regardless of their religion or sect without any exception is considered an Ottoman” in the 8th article of the 1876 Constitution symbolizes the transfer from tebaa to citizenship. From then on, Ottoman citizenship came first and the fact that the citizens are Muslim, Rum, Armenian or Jew held a back seat. “Tebaa–i Devleti Osmaniyenin Hukuk–i Umumiyesi” (General Rights of the Citizens of the Ottoman State) were established between articles 8 to 26 of the Kanuni Esasi [Constitution]. In here, especially article 17 holds key prominence. According to this article “All Ottomans are equal in front of the law with respect to rights and duties with the exception of religious and sectarian situations.”77 As can be seen, equality in front of the law is openly mentioned in the constitution. In a way to emphasize the rule of this issue, it is stated in articles
İstanbul, Yeni Matbaa. 76 Karal, Enver Ziya (1982) ‘Non-Muslim Representatives in the First Constitional Assembly, 1876-1877’, Christian and Jews in the Ottoman Empire The Functioning of a Plural Society, (Edited by: Braude, Benjamin / Lewis, Bernard), V: I The Central Lands, New York, Holmes &Meiers Publishers, p. 394. 77 Tanilli, Server (1976) Anayasalar ve Siyasal Belgeler, Sulhi Garan Matbaası, İstanbul, p. 27.
| 375 | Gül AKYILMAZ
18 and 19 that all Ottomans, provided that they can speak Turkish, will be accepted to government jobs according to their capabilities and talent. It is once more emphasized that no one’s religion or sect will be meddled in, by mentioning in the 11th article of the constitution that “Even though the religion of the State is Islam, carrying out sectarian privileges given to all other religions and to millets in the Ottoman State is under the guarantee of the State when followed without disturbing the order and general ethics”. Another subject that has been a source of complaint over the years, for bringing an added load on the non-Muslims was also solved by mentioning in the 25th article that “tax will be collected from all Ottoman tebaa irrespective of their religion or sect.” According to the Constitution, one representative was to be elected for each 50,000 male citizens in the Heyet-i Mebusan [board of representatives] elections. It had no significance if the men are Muslim or non-Muslim. However during the formation of the first parliament, the deputies were not designated by a general election, but by assignment of the title of deputy to the administrative assembly members who were previously elected.78 A different system was approved for İstanbul. The city was divided into 20 districts and for each district; one Muslim and one non-Muslim candidate were nominated. On election day, all 40 of the appointed candidates got together at the municipality and selected 5 Muslim and 5 non-Muslims – for a total of 10 among themselves as deputies.79 The first Meclis-i Mebusan [Ottoman Parliament / Assembly of Deputies elected by the people] consisted of 115 deputies; 67 were Muslim and 48 were non-Muslims.80 Representatives of the non-Muslim people were present in the parliament during the Second Meşrutiyet [Constitution] period as well. The number of non-Muslim deputies reached to almost 50% of the total number of parliamentarians during the three sessions (1908 – 1912 – 1914). Also, while the number of non-Muslims in the Ayan Meclisi [Senate / Lower House] in the year 1910 was only 10 out of the total of 49, in 1911 almost one third of the total of 53 were non-Muslims.81 In this period, the Ottoman non-
78 Ortaylı (1976), p. 439. 79 Karal (1982), p. 393. 80 Karal (1982), p. 394. 81 For detailed information on this subject pls see: Ahmad, Feroz / Rustow, Dankward (1976)
| 376 | Gül AKYILMAZ
Muslims, actively participated in political activities and the Armenians generally supported the Party of Liberty (Ahrar Fırkası)82 [a political party]. In spite of this, there are non-Muslims (including Armenians) who entered the parliament as deputies from the Party of Union and Progress (İttihat and Terakki Partisi)83. Upon Ahrar Fırka’s dissolving itself in 1910, some of the Armenians participated in the Freedom and Reconcilion Party (Hürriyet and İtilaf Fırkası)84 which was established in 1911. In the parliament formed after the 1912 elections, Armenians were elected as deputies from both the Party of Union and Progress (İttihat and Terakki Fırkası) and Freedom and Reconcilion Party (Hürriyet ve İtilaf Fırkası).
‘İkinci Meşrutiyet Döneminde Meclisler 1908-1918’, Güneydoğu Araştırmaları Dergisi, S. 4-5, İstanbul; Karpat, Kemal (1967) Türk Demokrasi Tarihi, İstanbul, İstanbul Matbaası. 82 Ahrar Fırkası [political party holding the British political party traditions as basis] was established on September 14, 1908 and it played an important role in the 31 Mart Vak’ası [mutiny held on 31 March 1325 = April 13, 1909 against the Ittihadists]. With its ideals of establishment of a system based on decentralization and demands on equality for non- Muslims, the Party of Liberty (Ahrar Fırkasi) made it clear that it was in a different political path than the Ittihadists. The Party of Liberty (Ahrar Fırkası) which was active from September 1908 to April 1909 gained an important place in the Turkish political life, by starting the first political opposition against the Pary of Union and Progress (İttihat- Terakki Fırkası). 83 The arguments of İttihadist Armenian repsentative Hallaçyan Efendi and his opponent Varteks Bey in the 1908 Meclis-i Mebusanı [Assembly of Deputies of the Ottoman Parliament] on the subject of basic rights and sovereignty of the citizens [hakimiyet-i milliye] are interesting. Especially the last words of Varteks Bey are noteworthy. “I know very well that the Armenians cannot live anywhere other than the Ottoman lands. But, you are misunderstanding me and calling me an old Armenian who thinks of nothing other than being an Armenian - ever! But I am more Turkish than you are – more Turkish than a Turk”, Özçelik, Ayfer (2002) “1908 Meclis-i Mebusanı’nda Temel Haklar ve Hakimiyet-i Milliye ile İlgili Bazı Tartışmalar”, Türkler, C: 14, Ankara, Yeni Türkiye Yayınları, p. 759. 84 The founders of the Freedom and Reconcilion Party (Hürriyet ve İtilaf Fırkası) which was established on Nov 21, 1911 are: Damat Ferit Paşa, Rıza Tevfik, Refik Halit Karay, Ali Kemal, Lütfi Fikri, Rıza Nur and Miralay Sadık Bey. Out of the opposition parties represented in the Meclis-i Mebusan [Assembly of Deputies - the Ottoman Parliament] Mild Freedom Wisher Party (Mutedil Hürriyetperverân) and the People’s Party [Ahali Fırka] joined the new party, majority of the Bulgarian, Rum, Albanian, Armenians and Arab repsentatives who opposed the nationalistic line of the İttihadists joined the Freedom and Reconcilion Party (Hürriyet ve İtilaf Fırkası), Shaw/Shaw, p. 350; Burçak, Rıfkı Salim (1984) Siyasi Tarih Ders Notları, Ankara, Gazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Yayınları, p. 63; Armaoğlu, Fahir (2014) 19. Yüzyıl Siyasi Tarihi (1789-1914), İstanbul, Alkım Yayınları, p. 901-902; Kodaman, Bayram (2002) ‘II. Meşrutiyet Dönemi’, Türkler, C: 13, Ankara, Yeni Türkiye Yayınları, p. 185.
| 377 | Gül AKYILMAZ
III. FIRST LEGAL ARRANGEMENTS RELATED TO THE GOODS LEFT BEHIND THE ARMENIANS Base reference points were attempted to be identified by examining the legal status of the Armenians in the Ottoman State, prior to and during the Tanzimat [Reform] period. The next main section of this study is reserved to the first legal arrangements related to the goods left behind the Armenians who were subjected to relocation and resettlement. As emphasized in the Introduction Section, since there are too many legal arrangements regarding the Emvâl-i Metruke [goods left behind the Armenians due to their relocation and resettlement], it seems impossible to examine all of them under this section. For this reason, only the three main adjustments made in 1915 will be examined. They constitute the first step in relation to this subject and can be listed as: • “Meclis-i Vükela Kararı” [Cabinet Decree] dated May 30, 1915; • “Ahval-i Harbiye ve Zaruret-i Fevkalâde-i Siyasiye Dolayısıyla Mahall-i Ahare Nakilleri İcra Edilen Ermenilere Ait Emvâl ve Emlâk ve Arazinin Keyfiyet-i İdaresi Hakkında Talimatname” [Cicular for the administration of the goods, property and lands belonging to the Armenians who were transferred due to out of control military and exceptional political situations] with 34 clauses and dated June 10, 1915; • “Ahar Mahallere Nakledilen Eşhasın Emvâl ve Düyûn ve Matlûbatı Metrûkesi Hakkında Kanun-u Muvakkat” [Law in regard to the goods, debts and receivables of the citizens transferred away] with 11 clauses and dated September 11, 1915. However, before examining these legal arrangements, some terminology in the Ottoman Legal system needs to be explained, for a better understanding of the contents of these rulings. Especially separation of movable goods [menkul] from immovable goods [gayrimenkul] and the kinds of lands in the Ottoman State as well as their ownership types carry high importance for our subject. These subjects will be clarified first, and then the legal adjustments will be presented.
| 378 | Gül AKYILMAZ
We especially wish to state that the backdrop and the reasons behind the political decision that the Ottoman State took to transfer and resettle some of its Armenian citizens in 1915 whilst World War 1 was continuing will not be dwelled upon, only the first legal adjustments made regarding the goods left behind the Armenians will be examined in this study.
A. Identification Of Movable [Menkul] And Immovable [Gayri Menkul] Goods Within The Ottoman State It is necessary to examine how movable goods [menkul] and immovable goods (gayri menkul) are defined in the Ottoman Legal System in order to examine the legal status of the goods left behind the Armenians who were relocated and resettled in 1915. In this regard, the arrangements of the Islamic Legal System prevailed in the Ottoman State. However, what needs to be remembered is that the definition could change with respect to different religious sects. A great difference of opinion came between the Hanefi jurists and the Maliki jurists on this subject. According to the Hanefi Sect which was the official sect of the Ottoman State, goods which can be moved from one place to another even if deformed by shape are accepted as menkul. For this reason, trees and buildings and hence houses and shops are defined as movable [menkul] goods. The immovable [gayrimenkul] goods named “akar” by the Hanefi jurists are those which are impossible to move from their location even by changing their form or shape. According to this definition, only the land is ‘akar’. Due to difficulties arising from the coverage of the movable goods being kept so constricted, the Hanefis exhibited a dual approach in relation to trees and buildings. When these goods were sold apart from the land, the rules of movable [menkul] goods became effective; when they were bought and sold together with the land, the rules of immovable [gayrimenkul] goods became effective.85 The Maliki Sect on the other hand, passed a different jurisprudence and considered the trees and buildings as immovable goods. According to the
85 Cin, Halil / Akgündüz, Ahmet (1989) Türk Hukuk Tarihi, C: 2, Konya, Selçuk Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Yayınları, p. 244; Karaman, p. 18.
| 379 | Gül AKYILMAZ
Maliki lawyers it is impossible to move these kinds of goods without destroying their important qualities. For instance: before the trees become fire wood or buildings become ruins, they cannot be moved. Protecting the quality of these goods depends on the land where they are standing. This definition causes them to be considered as immovable goods.86 Until the acceptance of the Mecelle [The civil code that became effective with the Tanzimat Era], the Hanefi opinion was accepted in the Ottoman State. In this respect, only the land was considered as immovable; trees, houses and shops were considered as immovable when they were sold together with the land but movable when considering them on their own. Mecelle on the other hand used the term ‘akar’ [land] together with ‘gayrimenkul’ and portrayed a view closer to that of the Maliki Sect. According to article 128, menkul (movable goods) are things that can be carried from place to place and includes: all kinds of money, measurable and weighable objects, and other durable merchandise that can be carried and animals.87 According to article 129, gayrimenkul [immovable goods or real estates] are those impossible to move to another location, like the lands or buildings which are called ‘akar’.88 However, it is seen that the Hanefi concept is accepted in articles 1019 and 1020 while defining the şuf’a [preemption] rights. Since the şuf’a rights are effective only on gayrimenkul [immovable goods], the adjustments made on these articles are an open reflection of the Hanefi jurisprudence. According to article 1019, if the possessed trees and buildings are located on lands belonging to a trust fund [vakıf arazi] or the government treasury [miri arazi], they are considered menkul [movable], therefore the right of şuf’a [preemption = to buy before everyone else] is not
86 Karaman, p. 19; Cin/Akgündüz, p. 245. 87 It is merchandise which is possible to carry from one location to another and it is applicable to nukud [money] and uruz [books, drapery, fabrics] and hayvanaat [animals] and ve mekilat [wheat, barley] and mevzuat [chest, sack, bin]. Mecelle article no: 128; Berki, Ali Himmet (1982) Açıklamalı Mecelle (Mecelle-i Ahkâm-ı Adliye), İstanbul, Hikmet Yayınları, p. 32; İlhan, Cengiz (2011) Günümüz Türkçe’siyle Mecelle (Mecelle-i Ahkâm-ı Adliye), Ankara, Yetkin Yayınları, p. 62. 88 Gayrimenkul [immovable] is what is called akar, it is what cannot be moved from its location. Mecelle article no: 129; Berki, p. 132; İlhan, p. 62.
| 380 | Gül AKYILMAZ possible.89 According to article 1020, when an owned land is sold together with the trees and buildings located on it, preemption rights [priority of purchasing] also become applicable on the trees and the buildings due to their location. In the case of sale of trees and buildings alone [without the land that it is located over], there cannot be any mention of şuf’a [preemption] rights.90 As it is well known that in the Ottoman State, because in the vakıf lands the ownership belongs to the trust fund and in the miri lands the ownership belongs to the government treasury, in such cases, it is impossible to sell the trees and buildings together with the land. For this reason, in article 1019, their property rights are considered menkul [movable] property within the Hanefi jurisprudence. In return, when the lands, trees and buildings belong to the same owner, if they are sold altogether they are considered gayrimenkul [immovable] goods but when sold separately they are considered menkul [movable] goods. Hence, the definitions of menkul [movable] goods and gayrimenkul [immovable] goods, with respect to items like buildings (house – shop), in articles 1019 and 1020 present a contradiction with articles 128 and 129. As can be understood from the definition of menkul [movable] goods and gayrimenkul [immovable] goods in the Ottoman Legal System, what is meant from gayrimenkul (real estate) is land. Status of houses, buildings and trees will change according to the status of the land. Therefore, the status of the buildings, trees and houses (and hence the buildings like a storehouse or factory) left behind the Armenians who were subjected to relocation and resettlement in 1915, need to be established depending on the kind of land they rested upon.
89 Goods like trees and estate buildings which are located over vakıf yer [land belonging to a trust fund] or araziyi emiriyye [land donated to the treasury] are considered menkul [movable], so şuf’a [priority purchasing] cannot be forced upon them. Berki, p. 201; İlhan, p. 308. 90 When a land of private property is sold including the eşcar [trees] and ebniye [buildings] on it, preemption (şuf’a) will be valid even on the goods over it due to the land. But if only the eşcar [trees] and ebniye [buildings] are sold, preemption (şuf’a) will not be valid over it. Berki, p. 201; İlhan, p. 308.
| 381 | Gül AKYILMAZ
B. Ownership Rights and Ottoman Land Law (Real Property Law) Islam and Ottoman jurists have subjected ownership rights into various classifications. Two of them are of utmost importance in terms of our topic. First one is “ayn mülkiyeti”. Ayn mülkiyeti means outright ownership of the goods. Ayn mülkiyet is also called “rakabe mülkiyeti”. The person who owns the ayn mülkiyeti also owns the right to use and benefit from it.91 However, it is possible that the sole ownership of an item (ayn mülkiyeti) may belong to a person, a trust fund or the government and benefical right may belong to another person as can be seen in the miri lands and vakıf lands in the Ottoman state. The other kind of ownership is benefiting ownership (menfaat mülkiyeti). benefiting ownership (menfaat mülkiyeti) means owning the rights to benefit from the goods. The right of the mutasarrıf [owner] in case of the miri [belonging to the government or its treasury] or vakıf [belonging to a trust foundation] land is an example of benefiting ownership (menfaat mülkiyeti). There are important differences between ayn [sole] ownership and menfaat [benefiting] ownership. Ayn [sole] ownership brings about menfaat [benefiting] ownership with exceptions but the reverse is not possible; menfaat [benefiting] ownership can never bring in ayn [sole] ownership. Ayn [sole] ownership is indefinite, but the menfaat [benefiting] ownership has time limitations. According to the Hanefi jurists, ayn [sole] ownership passes on through inheritance, but menfaat [beneficiary] ownership does not. However, jurists of other sects opt that benefiting [menfaat] ownership could also pass on through inheritance.92 In the system of miri [government treasury] land, the rights to ownership of the mutasarrif or the specialties of the usage rights (tasarruf hakkı) show some difference. Usage rights (tasarruf hakkı) of the miri [treasury] land is given without a definite end for its duration. As long as the mutasarrıf carries his obligations, the agreement
91 Ali Haydar (1330) Düreru’l Hukkam Şerhu Mecelleti’l-Ahkâm, C: I, İstanbul, p. 227-228; Karaman, p. 42-43; Cin/Akgündüz, p. 246-247. 92 Ali Haydar, p. 228; Cin/Akgündüz, p. 247.
| 382 | Gül AKYILMAZ
[akid] continues. Also the right of ownership [tasarruf hakkı] passes on to the inheritors as per the örfi inheritance law. Ownership right [mülkiyet hakkı] is divided into two parts according to the rights enables, as complete [tam] and partial [eksik] ownership. Full ownership or “mülkiyet-i kâmile” means collection of both ownerships: sole [çıplak] and benefiting [menfaat] ownership on the same person. On a mülk arazi [owned land], the land owner’s ownership right is mülkiyet-i kâmile [complete ownership]. The malik [owner], who possesses this kind of ownership right, can exercise all kinds of rights over his goods: legal and de- facto. Mülkiyet-i nakısa or eksik mülkiyet [partial ownership] on the other hand is to own only the rakabe [bare ownership] ownership or only the benefiting ownership of the goods. There are two kinds of partial ownership (eksik mülkiyet). First one is to have only the rakabe ownership. Right of ownership of the government over the miri land or the trusts’ over the waqf lands is the kind called rakabe ownership. This kind of ownership does not provide the owner with the right to use or benefit from his land. The second one is the benefiting ownership [tasarruf mülkiyeti] rights, which gives only the right to benefit and use the goods. The kind of rights the reaya exercises over the miri [treasury] land and the mutasarrıf exercises over the waqf [trust] land belongs to this category, and it restricts the actual / de facto [fiili] and legal rights of the owner over the land.93 In light of the information provided above, it is important to identify the kind of legal status the premises left behind by the Armenians who left the lands they lived in during 1915. Because, in case some of these lands had the status of miri or vakıf lands, they only owned the usage right/disposition right (tasarruf hakkı) in other words the right to use and benefit from those lands and cannot claim ownership because they did not have bare/sole ownership (kuru mülkiyet) of those lands. They can claim rights only on lands which were defined as “arazi-i memlûke” according to the 1858 Arazi Kanunnamesi [Land code] because on such named lands, they exercised both rakabe and
93 On the subject of land types and their legal arrangements in the Ottoman Law system, pls see: Cin/Akyılmaz, p. 507-550; Cin, Halil (1987) Mirî Arazi ve Bu Arazinin Özel Mülkiyete Dönüşümü, Konya, Selçuk Üniversitesi Yayınları.
| 383 | Gül AKYILMAZ tasarruf rights [the right to use and benefit from]. For example, in the law dated September 26, 1915 lands belonging to icareteynli vakıfs are mentioned, however the Armenians do not have the right of ownership but only tasarruf [benefiting and usage] rights over this kind of lands.
C. Decision of the Meclis-i Vükela (Cabinet Decree) While the revolt that started in Van in April of 1915 continued with all its might, news reached İstanbul that the Armenians had started rebellions in other areas, that they had massacred innocent people by holding up the roads and by attacking Muslim villages. There was no opportunity to send security forces to the areas of instability in order to suppress the internal mutiny, to prevent massacres and to re-establish public security because the Turkish Army was fighting on many fronts at the same time. In his effort to find a solution, Enver Paşa who was the Minister of War and Assistant Supreme Commander sent a note which can be considered to be the first sign of the relocation and resettlement resolution to the Minister of Internal Affairs - Talat Paşa, on May 2, 1915. In his letter, Enver Paşa wished the Armenians to be distributed to different locations in such a way that they could not start new riots. Instead of being held altogether he wrote, if the Armenians were dispersed in small groups to different locations, they would lose the ability of getting together to start revolutions. It is understood from the note that tis application was only for the Armenians in places where riots broke out.94
94 The exact wording of the letter goes like this: “The Armenians located around the City of Van, and those in specific locations known to the Governor of Van are staying altogether and are ready to combat at all times to carry out their riot. I am thinking that those Armenians staying altogether should be removed from these districts and their rebellion center should be dissolved. According to information given by the 3rd Army Commandership, the Russians have pushed the Muslims living within their borders through our borders in a miserable and wretched situation. As a response to this and also to achieve the aim that I have mentioned above, it is necessary to either send these Armenians with their families through the border into Russia or these Armenians and their families should be spread out to various locations in Anatolia. I request the suitable option to be selected and carried out. If there is no objection, I prefer the families of the rioters and the people of the area of riots to be sent outside our borders and the Muslim population that were pushed inside through our borders to be settled in their places.” Halaçoğlu, Yusuf (2002) ‘Ermeni Tehciri ve Gerçekler’, Türkler, C: 13, Ankara, Yeni Türkiye Yayınları, p. 483-484; for the original of the document pls see: Askerî Tarih Belgeleri Dergisi, S: 81,
| 384 | Gül AKYILMAZ
Talat Paşa who noticed the sensitivity of the situation in response to the letter sent by Enver Paşa, took the responsibility upon himself and started the tehcir [resettlement] of Armenians before passing a law on the subject and without asking for a resolution from the Meclis-i Vükelâ [Council of Ministers]. In his effort to have the Armenians living in Van, Bitlis and Erzurum to be moved away from the war zone, Talat Paşa first ordered the governors of the aforementioned districts to take immediate action in collaboration with the commanders of the 3rd and 4th Armies. With the letter that he sent to the Command of the 4th Army, dated May 23, 1915 [10 May 1331 with the old Ottoman calendar], and the memorandum that he sent to the Sadaret [Prime Ministerial Office in the Ottoman State], dated May 26, 1915, he determined the places to be evacuated as: • Provinces (Vilayet) of Erzurum, Van and Bitlis • excluding the city centers of Adana, Mersin and Sis [Kozan], but including the Sanjaks of Adana, Mersin, Sis [Kozan] and Cebel-i Bereket, • excluding the city center of Maraş, but including the Sanjak of Maraş, • from the Aleppo Province[Halep Vilayeti]: excluding the central kazas, but including all of the villages and boroughs [kasabalar] from the kazas of: İskenderun, Beylan (Belen), Cisr-i Şugur, and Antakya. The Armenians who were moved out of the Provinces [Vilayets] of Erzurum, Van and Bitlis were to be settled in the south of Mosul Province [Vilayeti], the Sanjak of Zor and the Sanjak of Urfa excluding its center. Armenians who were moved out of the vicinity of Adana, Halep and Maraş were to be relocated and settled in the locations to be determined by the government in the eastern sections of the Suriye Province and the eastern and south eastern sections of Aleppo Province
Aralık 1982, Document No: 1830; BOA, DH. ŞFR, No: 52/282.
| 385 | Gül AKYILMAZ
Officials would be sent from the head office to supervise the relocation [“nakil” being the exact word used in those days].95 In the note sent to the 4th Army Command post, it is asked to settle the Armenians upon reaching their destined locations, either in newly constructed houses depending on the situation or to the villages to be established anew in the locations specified by the government. The provision was to have the Armenian villages at least 25 Km away from the Baghdad Railroad. The relocation and resettlement was to be carried out by the local administrators. Protection of lives and goods of the Armenians, and providing food and rest areas for them were left to the responsibility of local officials along their journey. The relocated Armenians could take all of their menkul [movable] goods with them and on the subject of their gayrimenkul [immovable/real estates]; a circular was going to be prepared. Whilst these precautions were being taken with regard to the Armenians, the British, French and Russian governments issued a common declaration on May 24, 1915. In this declaration, they defined a specific area in the east and southeast as “Armenia” and claimed that the Armenians in these areas had been killed. The problem having gained international character, Talat Pasha understood that he could no longer carry the weight of the responsibility all by himself, so he sent the tezkire [memorundum] number 270 to Sadaret [Prime Ministry] on May 26, 1915 in order to prepare the legal foundation for it. In this official certificate it was mentioned that the invaders who desired to capture some Ottoman lands were instigating the Armenians of the Ottoman tebaa and the revolting Armenians were placing all possible hurdles to complicate the Turkish army’s operations against the invading enemy forces; they obstructed transportation of supplies and ammunition to the Turkish soldiers, they collaborated with the enemy, some of them joined the fight along the enemy army lines, attacked the Turkish soldiers and innocent civilians with weapons, massacred civilians in the cities
95 Halaçoğlu, p. 484; Göyünç, Nejad (2001) ‘Ermeni Tehciri ve Soykırım İddiaları’, Yeni Türkiye Ermeni Sorunu Özel Sayısı, C:I, Y. 7, S: 37, Ankara, p. 297-298; Gürün, Kamuran (1983) Ermeni Dosyası, Ankara, Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, p. 213-214; For the original of the documents pls see: BOA, MVM, No: 198, Karar No: 163; BOA, DH. ŞFR, No: 52/282; 53/48, 93, 129; 54/51, 54.
| 386 | Gül AKYILMAZ and towns and looted them, they provided goods to the enemy naval forces and spied important/critical locations (müstahkem mevkileri) to the enemy forces. After specifying that deep rooted precautions are needed for the good of the government, it is informed that for this purpose the decision was made to relocate the Armenians, who were creating disturbances in the war zones, into other areas. Following that, a list was made as to where the Armenians should be relocated to and from where, as explained above, besides mentioning other aspects like: from the muhacirin [immigration] budget new land and estates in their new locations should be allocated in commensurate with their previous status; aid would be provided to those in need; the government would help them with tools and seeds necessary to continue in the lines of farming and manufacturing; the goods left behind would be recorded in books and that a legal arrangement would be prepared on this subject.96 Talat Pasha’s memorandum was submitted to the Sadaret on May 26, and the next day, on May 27, 1915 “Vakt-i Seferde İcraat-i Hükümete Karşı Gelenler İçin Cihet-i Askeriyece İttihaz Olunacak Tedâbir Hakkında Kanun-ı Muvakkat” [Law concerning the precautions to be taken by the military about the people revolting against the government’s applications during war campaign], in simpler terms the Law of Relocation and Resettlement was enacted. Thus, the job which was started by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was passed on to the army. This law was published in the Takvim-i Vekâyi on May 27, 1915 (19 May 1331) and so got into effect.97 The adjustments made in this law are:98 1) In the course of the war, powers are conferred to the commanders of the army, army corps, and divisions to take immediate military
96 Halaçoğlu, p. 485. 97 For the original article, pls see: Takvîm-i Vekâyi, 18 Receb 1333/19 Mayıs 1331, 7. sene, No: 2189; Kardeş, Salâhaddin (2008) Tehcir ve Emvâl-i Metruke Mevzuatı, Ankara, Maliye Bakanlığı Strateji Geliştirme Başkanlığı Yayınları, p. 17-19. 98 Gürün, p. 214; Halaçoğlu, s. 485-486; Esat, Uras (1988) The Armenians in History and the Armenian Question, İstanbul, Documentary Publications, p. 868; Çiçek, Kemal (2014) ‘I. Dünya Savaşı’nda Ermeniler: Bir Zorunlu Göç Hikâyesi’, Yeni Türkiye Ermeni Meselesi Özel Sayısı, C: IV, (Editör: Güzel, Hasan Celal), Y: 20, S: 63, Ankara, p. 2779.
| 387 | Gül AKYILMAZ
precautions against those who defy the governmental orders, stand against the defense of the country or protection of public order and to those who carry armed rebellion or resistance; and also during an incursion or attack, the rebels and resisters could be eradicated. 2) Power was given to the same commanders, to send for relocation on an individual basis or in groups, those village or district residents discovered of spying or betraying the country. As can be seen, there are signs showing that some arrangements were going to be prepared in the future about the goods of the Armenians in Talat Pasha’s writings (upon the letter of Enver Pasha) both in the letter that he sent to the 4th Army Command on May 23, 1915 and the tezkire [memorandum] that he sent to the Sadaret on May 26, 1915. While it is mentioned in both documents that the relocated Armenians could take all of their menkul [movable] goods with them, it is emphasized that a circular was going to be prepared in regards to their gayri menkul [immovable] goods. Also in the tezkire [memorandum] No: 270 sent by Talat Pasha to the Sadaret on May 26, 1915 for preparing the legal foundation of the relocation of the rebellious Armenians, and for preparing legal arrangements related to the subject, it is indicated that the goods of the Armenians that were left behind in their homeland were going to be registered in government books and that a legal arrangement was going to be prepared on this subject. These statements give us the impression that the Ottoman State was aware of the problems that the goods of the relocated Armenians could cause, from the day their relocation and resettlement came into question and so would act sensitively in regards to the legalities to be prepared on this subject. However, no provision was included in the Law of Relocation and Resettlement dated May 27, 1915 in relation to the goods left behind the Armenians who were subjected to relocation and resettlement. General feeling is that the Heyet-i Vükelâ [Council of Ministers] decision dated May 30, 1915 is the first arrangement on this subject. The Ministry of Internal Affairs’ tezkire [memorandum] dated May 26, 1915 together with another tezkire written by the Sadaret was passed on to the Meclis-i Vükelâ [Council of Ministers] on May 29th. Both were accepted after
| 388 | Gül AKYILMAZ being discussed in the Meclis-i Vükelâ on May 30, 1915. In the decision of the Meclis-i Vükelâ, No: 163 dated May 30, 1915 the principles were established on how the relocation and resettlement was to be carried out as well as the situation of the goods left behind. Because the arrangements related to the fundamentals of relocation and resettlement are beyond the scope of this paper, emphasis will be concentrated only on the arrangements related to the goods left behind as apparent in the Ministers’ decision. In the Ministers’ decree explanation is given and principles are established regarding the situation of the movable and immovable goods of the Armenians who were subjected to relocation and resettlement. According to the decree, the menkul [movable] goods that they left behind or their equivalent value will be forwarded to them, and after assessing the value of the real estate and lands left in the villages, they will be distributed among the immigrants to be settled there. Businesses that the new immigrants have no experience of like: vineyards, berry and citrus orchards or olive groves as well as structures that bring income like: workshops, inns, factories and storehouses are going to be sold in public auctions or rented and their values will be recorded in government books in order to be paid to their owners. Expenses incurred during this process will be paid from the coffers of the immigration appropriations. Commissions reporting directly to the Ministry of Internal Affairs comprising of three assigned members, one chairman and two members (one of the members to be selected from the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the other from the Ministry of Finance) are to be established and sent to the necessary locations to carry out the rules of the manual on this subject and the orders regarding the protection as well as ensuring the administration of the abandoned goods. In locations where one of these commissions cannot be consigned, the rules stated in the circular will be applied by the governor.99
99 The Ministers’ decision translated above is given below in the exact wording as written in the Ottoman document: “ve terk etdikleri memleketde kalan emvâl ve eşyalarının veyahud kıymetlerinin kendilerine suver-i münasibe ile iadesi ve tahliye edilen köylere muhacir ve aşâyir iskânıyla emlâk ve arazinin kıymeti takdir edilerek kendilerine tevzî‘i ve tahliye edilen şuhûr ve kasabâtda kâin olup nakledilen ahaliye aid emvâl-i gayr-ı menkûlenin tahrîr ve tesbit-i cins ve kıymet ve mikdarından sonra muhacirîne tevzî‘i ve muhacirînin ihtisâs ve
| 389 | Gül AKYILMAZ
It is seen that the basic arrangements were made in the Heyet-i Vükelâ [Council of Ministers] decree dated May 30, 1915, regarding especially the immovable properties of the Armenians to be subjected to relocation and resettlement, and also the skeletal foundation of the legal arrangements to follow were laid out. In this decision a few points come forward. Before all else, type, quantity and value of the immovable goods left behind were to be assessed. Next, as understood from the text, Muslim refugees (muhacirler) were to be settled in the houses and farm lands. Properties which were thought to be beyond the usage capability of the refugees (like: olive ranches, mulberry gardens, vineyards and orange groves as well as structures that bring income like: shops, inns, factories and storehouses) were not planned to be given to them, but were to be auctioned off or rented out after their values were assessed, and their price was to be deposited in the custody of trust coffers in order to be paid to their owners. Commissions comprising of three members reporting to the Ministry of Interior were going to be established for all of the activities to be carried out in an orderly and legal manner, so that the goods left behind were not to be damaged and all work could be properly administered. However, no name was given to these commissions in this
iştigâlleri haricinde kalacak zeytinlik, dutluk, bağ ve portakallıklarla dükkân, han, fabrika ve depo gibi akârâtın bi'l-müzâyede bey‘ veyahud îcârı ile bedelât-ı bâliğasının kendilerine i‘tâ edilmek üzere ashâbı nâmına emâneten mal sandıklarına tevdî‘i ve muamelât ve icraât-ı mesrûdenin ifası zımnında vuku bulacak sarfiyâtın Muhacirîn Tahsisâtı'ndan tesviyesi zımnında nezâret-i müşârunileyhâca tanzim edilmiş olan talimâtnâmenin bi-tamamihâ tatbik-i ahkâmıyla emvâl-i metrûkenin te’min-i muhafaza ve idaresi ve muamelât-ı umumiye-i iskâniyenin tesrî‘ ve tanzimi ve tedkik ve teftişi ve bu hususda talimâtnâme ahkâmı venezâret-i müşârunileyhâdan ahz ve telakki edilecek evâmîr dairesinde mukarrerât ittihâz ve tatbiki ve tâlî komisyonlar teşkili ile maaşlı memur istihdâmı vazife ve salâhiyetlerini haiz olmak ve doğrudan doğruya Dâhiliye Nezâreti'ne merbût bulunmak ve bir reis ile biri memurîn-i dâhiliyeden ve diğeri memurîn-i maliyeden intihâb ve tayin edilecek iki azâdan terekküb etmek üzere komisyonlar teşkil edilerek mahallerine i‘zâmı ve komisyon gönderilmeyen mahallerde mezkûr talimâtnâmenin valiler tarafından icra-yı ahkâmı tensîb edilmiş olduğunun cevaben nezâret-i müşârunileyhâya tebliği ve devâir-i müte‘allikaya malumât i‘tâsı tezekkür kılındı”,Osmanlı Belgelerinde Ermenilerin Sevk ve İskânı (1878-1920), Başbakanlık Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü Osmanlı Arşivi Daire Başkanlığı Yayınları, Ankara 2007, p. 156-157; pls also see: Güner, Hasan (2014) “Ermenilerin Geride Bıraktığı Mallar Hakkında Yapılan İlk Düzenlemeler ve Emval-i Metruke Komisyonları, Yeni Türkiye Ermeni Meselesi Özel Sayısı, C: IV, Y: 20, S: 63, (Editör: Güzel, Hasan Celal), Ankara, p. 3146-3147; Gürün, p. 214-215; Halaçoğlu, p. 485; Göyünç, p. 298; Çiçek, p. 2779-2782; Akçam/Kurt, p. 33-34; Kaiser, p. 132-133.
| 390 | Gül AKYILMAZ directive. In spite of this, mentioning of liquidation commissions for the first time is noteworthy. Another point that creates attention in this decree is the indication that a circular would be prepared on the subject matter. Even in places where a commission cannot be sent, the liquidation process was to be carried out by governors according to the decisions of the circular. As is understood from the language used, the government had no intention to confiscate the goods, on the contrary it can be said that it was exerting effort to solve the problem through legal means without causing financial harm to the Armenians and without seizing their rights.100 Moreover, for the Armenians to be able to continue with their lives in their new places of residence, land and buildings were going to be allotted to them in accordance with their previous standards; those in need would be helped to build a home; and also seeds and tools were going to be provided to the needy farmers and craftsmen. In spite of this, the fact that refugees would be settled in some of the real estate left vacant and that the immovable goods would be rented or sold out shows that no planning was made about the return of the Armenians. Even though there are detailed rules in relation to the immovable goods left behind, the same has not been done for the movable goods, it is only mentioned that these goods or their equivalent costs will be given to their owners. There is no clarity about how these items would be transmitted to their owners or how the procedure would be carried out if they were to be sold. Another important point is related to the estates like olive ranches, mulberry gardens, vineyards and orange groves which are said not to be allocated to the refugees but to be rented or sold out. Because, as stressed previously, the land that these gardens were established upon can yield different conclusions depending on if they are located on: miri [government treasury] land, vakıf [trust fund] land, or mülk [owned] land.
100 For example in a telegram dated on June 9, 1915 sent from the İskân-ı Aşayir ve Muhacirin Müdüriyeti [Administration for Settlement of Clans and Refugees] to [the vilayet of] Erzurum, because the value of the goods left behind the Armenians will be paid to the owners, their protection and sale on behalf of the owners is asked. In exact wording: “Ermenilerin birlikte götüremeyecekleri eşyanın kıymeti hükûmet tarafından ashâbına te’diye edileceği [cihetle] emvâl-i metrûkenin muhafaza ve ashâbı nâmına bi'l-müzâyede bey‘i icab eder. Bu hususdaki talimât-ı mufassala postadadır.” Osmanlı Belgelerinde Ermenilerin Sevk ve İskânı, p. 161-162.
| 391 | Gül AKYILMAZ
With the Meclis-i Vükelâ decree, the “Ahval-i Harbiye ve Zaruret-i Fevkâlede-i Siyasiye Dolayısıyla Mahalli Ahire Nakilleri İcra Edilen Ermenilerin İskân ve İaşesiyle Hususat-ı Saireleri Hakkında Talimatname” [Directive Regarding the Relocation and Sustenance of the Armenians who are Subjected to Relocation because of the Ongoing War and Necessities of Extraordinary Political Conditions] comprising of 15 articles was prepared and put into action by the İskân-ı Aşair ve Muhacirin Müdüriyeti [Directorate for Resettlement of Clans and Refugees] of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, on the same day – May 30, 1915. Virtually, under which principles the relocation and resettlement will be accomplished has been established in this directive. The only article relevant to the subject of this presentation is the second article and it has been specified in here that “the relocated Armenians were allowed to take all of their movable goods and animals with them”. Again the point worthy of attention here is that the Armenians will be provided with suitable sized lands in their new settlement areas, taking into consideration their previous economic status and their current needs. Thus while the Armenians leave behind their immovable goods, the government distributes to them in their new areas of settlement, miri lands [belonging to the government treasury] or mülk lands [owned by individuals] which became miri because their owners passed away without leaving any inheritors behind. Suitable amount of capital and tools would also be given to the craftsmen and farmers in need.101
D. Circular dated June 10, 1915 and Establishment of the Emvâl-i Metruke [Abandoned Properties] Commissions As emphasized above, no verdict was passed regarding the immovable property (real estates) left behind the Armenians in the regulations dated May 30, 1915. Only the second article of the Directive states that Armenians can take their movable belongings and animals with them. However, a substantial amount of personal property were still left behind as it was impossible, under the conditions of those days, for the Armenians who were subjected to relocation and settlement to take all of their movable goods with them.
101 Güner, p. 3147-3149, Akçam/Kurt, p. 34-35; Kaiser, p. 133-134.
| 392 | Gül AKYILMAZ
Moreover, neither this directive nor the decree of Meclis-i Vükelâ [Council of Ministers] which was taken on the same day [May 30, 1915] includes any arrangements about the credits and debts of Armenians. In addition, the issue of these debts and receivables turned into an international problem, because the business enterprises and banks of German and Austro-Hungarian Empire were having economic relations with the Greeks and Armenians of the Ottoman Empire. Especially the Armenian tradesmen living in İstanbul and those living and engaged in agriculture and trade in the South of Anatolia used a substantial amount of credit, commercial goods, bonds and stock advances from these business organizations. Among the German business enterprises, Deutsche Bank offered the most loan facilities to Armenians. As of August 25, 1915, the Armenians owed 216,857.69 Turkish Liras to the Istanbul Branch of the Deutsche Bank. The total amount of the receivable debts that the Adana and Mersin branches of Deutsche Bank and Deutsche Orient Bank, Deutsche- Levantinischaft Baumwoll Gesellschaft and Fankhaenel & Schifner Mersin Trade Association was around 57,000 Turkish Liras. The total amount of debt the Ottoman Armenians owed to the Austro-Hungarian enterprises and banks was 4,697,211 Franks102 as of August 1915. Since they could not collect their debts due to the relocation of the Armenians, these organizations began to apply pressure on the Ottoman Empire to pay these debts and entered into serious diplomatic problems with the Allies of the Ottoman Government whilst the war continued in full force. Therefore, it became essential for the Ottoman Empire to establish legal arrangements regarding the Armenians’ goods and real estate property left behind and their debts and receivables. In line with this need, “Ahval-i Harbiye ve Zaruret-i Fevkâlede-i Siyasiye Dolayısıyla Mahalli Ahire Nakilleri İcra Edilen Ermenilere Ait Emvâl ve Emlâk ve Arazinin Keyfiyet-i İdaresi Hakkında Talimatname” [Circular for the administration of the goods, real estate and lands belonging to the Armenians who were transferred due to war situation and necessities caused by extraordinary politics]103, comprising of 34 articles, was ordered and implemented on June 10, 1915 (28 May 1331).
102 Duman, Önder (2006) ‘Ermeni Emval-i Metrukesi ve Borçları’, Ermeni Araştırmaları, S: 22, p.117-162. 103 For the full text of the Ordinance pls see: Askeri Tarih Belgeleri Dergisi, Y. 31, S: 81, Ankara 1982, p. 147-148; Onaran, p. 326-331.
| 393 | Gül AKYILMAZ
This Circular consisting of 34 articles includes details about the goods left behind the Armenians and it seems to revolve around three main headings. 1. The outstanding topic of the Circular causing intense debate in the days to follow was in relation to the establishment of the commissions which would manage the property left behind the Armenians, as stated in the Meclis-i Vükelâ decision of May 30, 1915 and their duties as well as the level of authority bestowed on them. Moreover, these commissions were given a name in article 3 of the Circular as: “Emvâl-i Metruke [abandoned property] Management Commission”. 2. Detailed arrangements about the movable and immovable goods of the Armenians subjected to relocation are included in this Circular. 3. There are provisions regarding the settlement of the refugees [Muslims arriving into Ottoman territory] and allocation of some of the goods left behind by the Armenians to these refugees. 4. The Circular does not include any rules about the debts and credits of Armenians which became an international problem. The first article of the Circular is about the commissions to be established. It mentions that specially established commissions will be formed to carry out and handle (according to the rules of this Circular) the real estate, land and other goods belonging to the Armenians who were sent to other locations. In the second and third articles, these commissions were named as ‘Emvâl-i Metruke Management Commissions’. In article 23, it is stated that these commissions are responsible with the management of the property left behind in all deserted villages and counties, according to the rules. Their duties are mentioned as management of all property left by the Armenians, without discriminating between movable and immovable goods. The Circular also includes the terms on the establishment, duties and authorities of the commissions. According to article 24, Emvâl-i Metruke Management Commissions are affiliated with the Ministry of Interior; they will work in line
| 394 | Gül AKYILMAZ with the orders of this Ministry and inform the local administrators about their decisions and duties. According to article 25, establishment of these commissions depends on the permission of the Ministry of Interior. The Emvâl-i Metruke Management Commissions are entitled to appoint paid officers and arrange instructions and briefings according to the orders and decisions of the Ministry of the Interior. They are also directed to submit one copy of the regulations and explanations to the provincial authorities. Article 27 states that the Commissions have to inform the Ministry of the Interior and the respective provincial authority about their reports, research results and activities within 15 days. Article 28 specifies that Emvâl-i Metruke Management Commissions will manage the Armenians’ properties left behind, in accordance with the arrangements of this Circular, and the local officials will be responsible for submitting the official letters to the related authorities. According to article 29, commission members are equally responsible for the settlements to be issued regarding the management and protection of the property and lands left in the regions that they are appointed to. Article 30 is related to the terms on how the Emvâl-i Metruke Management Commissions will be established. It indicates that the commissions will be composed of three people: one specially assigned chairman, one officer from territorial affairs and another from financial affairs. It is specified in article 31 that communication and exchange of official letters should be carried out either by the chairman himself or by a member appointed by the chairman. Article 32 states that the chairman of an Emvâl-i Metruke Management Commission can appoint any of the members that he deems suitable for carrying out research or auditing of an issue within the scope of this Circular. According to article 33, on condition that the allowance of the immigrants would be used, the chairman of the commission will be paid 1.5 and each member 1 TL per day. On days that they have to travel to carry out their duties, extra allocations are to be paid. Article 34 specifies that the decisions of the Circular will be administered by the local governments in places where a commission is not assigned.
| 395 | Gül AKYILMAZ
As mentioned above, the establishment of commissions to settle and manage the property left behind the Armenians, the structure of these commissions, their duties, level of authority and responsibilities and working principles were clearly arranged in the Circular. Furthermore, the name of the commissions was for the first time mentioned as Emvâl-i Metruke [Abandoned property] Management Commission. What is remarkable in the Circular is the fact that these commissions were directly affiliated to the Ministry of the Interior and at the same time, they were to work in coordination with the local administrations. In order to prevent the arbitrary behavior of the commission members, they were subjected to supervision and were expected to inform within 15 days the Ministry of the Interior and the provincial authorities on their decisions and work accomplished. Not only the commission members but also the paid officers were to be kept under supervision and thus injustice and abuse of authority were attempted to be prevented. The fact that the commissions had to inform both the Ministry of the Interior and the provincial authorities shows that they were subjected to the supervision of two different institutions. The reason for continuously emphasizing the Commission to work in accordance with the rules set forth in the Circular is due to the concern to have the Armenian goods managed in line with the legal rules avoiding arbitrariness. Another issue arranged in detail in the Circular is the condition of the movable and immovable property left behind the Armenians. Protection of the movable goods is arranged in Article 2 of the Circular. According to this article, after a village or town has been vacated, all the belongings of the people relocated and all buildings containing goods should be immediately locked up and protected by the officers or special committees appointed by the Emvâl-i Metruke Management Commissions. After recording in detail the type, quantity and estimated price of the goods taken under their custody they will be sent to places such as churches, schools and inns that are suitable for storing these items. Article 3 states that they should be properly protected and placed separately so that their owners would be able to sort them out. It also orders official records to be kept indicating these goods’ features, quantities, and owner’s name, the location where they were found and where
| 396 | Gül AKYILMAZ they are stored. The original copies of these reports were to be submitted to the local authorities and a certified copy was to be sent to Emvâl-i Metruke Management Commission. According to article 4, the movable goods for which the owners could not be identified were to be registered and saved on behalf of the villages they were found in. Goods that could perish in time and live stock [needing to be fed and protected ] were to be sold in auction by a committee deemed suitable by the Commission and their sale values were to be kept on behalf of their owners; in cases when their owners were unknown the goods were to be recorded under the names of the villages or towns they were found in. Thus the type, quantity, value, owner, purchaser and sale value of the goods sold were to be registered in official letters in detail (article 5). Those official letters would be stamped and sealed by the committee selling the goods; the original of the book would be sent to the Emval-i Metruke Management Commission and the certified copy to the local government. According to article 6, the goods, pictures and holy books found in Churches were to be registered in detail and kept on location. Later, they were to be sent by the local governments to the places where the residents of the village the church is located-in has moved to. In case there are crop and produce in the abandoned lands, they were to be sold in auction by a committee composed of people specified by the Emvâl- i Metruke Management Commission. The sale value of these items was to be submitted to the subdivision of treasury on behalf of their owners. Moreover, this process would be registered in official reports and the original copy was to be submitted to the local authorities while the certified copy to the Emvâl-i Metruke Management Commission (article 8). Article 9 ensures that in case a buyer is not found for the crops not harvested or existing produce left on the cultivated lands; they should be given to the volunteers through bails, contracts and sharecropping. Rent and profit gained by means of this were to be submitted to the subdivision of treasury on behalf of their owners.
| 397 | Gül AKYILMAZ
These were the arrangements specified in the Circular dated June 10, 1915 regarding the movable [menkul] property that the Armenians could not take with them while departing. When analyzed in detail, it is possible to deduct some inferences from these clauses. First of all, the only authority that can protect and discharge the property left by the Armenians was Emvâl-i Metruke Management Commissions. In fact, as deemed necessary, these commissions could appoint officers and committees that would be responsible for counting, registering, moving to suitable locations, protecting and selling of these properties by auction. The fact that commissions were established for determining the property of the Armenians left behind, registering them in official letters regarding their type, number, and value, storing them in such an organized fashion so that their owners can easily locate them, registering their sales values in official letters, not only registering them but also keeping official logs of the registered items, securing the sales value of the items in the name of their owners, preparing each document in two copies and submitting one of the reports to the local authorities while the other was kept by the commissions shows that the Ottoman administration gave great importance to this issue. The government tried to develop effective control mechanisms in order to prevent the possible arbitrary behavior, misconduct in the workplace and loss of rights as could happen under similar circumstances. The aim was not only to protect Armenians from financial loss but also to show that the government did not have the intention to confiscate their property104. The Circular also includes detailed arrangements regarding the real estates that the Armenians left behind. For example, according to article 7, the type of land or estate property left behind by each relocated resident, their description, quantity and value were all to be registered in official logs with the details of their owners’ name. Furthermore, abandoned property and lands from each village and town would be registered in different logs and submitted to the Management Commissions. Likewise, article 16 ensures that
104 It has been discovered that the Armenians subjected to resettlement have entrusted some of their valuable property to their neighbors, foreign missionaries, consulars or tradesmen, and later took them back through various means once they settled down. See Çiçek, p. 2783-2784 for the examples.
| 398 | Gül AKYILMAZ income yielding buildings such as workshops, inns, caravanserais, bathhouses, factories and storehouses as well as buildings which would not be suitable for the settlement of refugees and those buildings and lands left over after the refugees were settled down and those farm lands which were not among the specialty profession of the refugees such as vineyards, berry and citrus orchards or olive groves as described in article 18 were to be sold in auction by the Emvâl-i Metruke Management Commissions or committees that were under the supervision of these commissions that were composed of the administrative and financial officers of the area. According to article 20, Armenians’ property and lands left behind could be rented for a maximum duration of two years if nobody wanted to buy them. However, the tenants were to guarantee to compensate any damage they caused to the property during their tenure. Article 21 indicates that information regarding the type, size, location, sale or rent procedure, and names of the persons purchasing or renting the property and lands were to be registered in detailed tables. Article 22 specifies that income generated by the sale and rental was to be saved as deposit in subdivisions of the treasury, and later transferred to the accounts of their owners as information became available. The last arrangement about the real estate left behind the Armenians is stated in article 10. It ensures that no action will be taken in regards to power of attorney about the use of property and lands left behind by the relocated people, in cases when the documents were prepared after their owners left. As can be seen, real estate left behind the Armenians were also registered carefully just like their personal property. According to the rules set by the Circular, real estates and lands were to be registered in similar fashion to that carried out for the movable goods with their type, variety, quantity, value and names of the owners. Income yielding buildings such as shops, inns, bathhouses, factories and storehouses as well as the fields not assigned to the incoming refugees like vineyards, citrus orchards, and olive groves were to be sold by auction; the ones which could not be sold were to be rented under special conditions and their sale and rent values were to be saved as deposit in
| 399 | Gül AKYILMAZ subdivisions of the treasury, and later transferred to the accounts of their owners as information became available. The rules regarding the immovables included precautions to prevent financial loss to the owners as well. However, the way these property and real estates were discharged shows that no planning was yet thought about the return date of the Armenians. The arrangements made on this topic, in article 10, is interesting because some researchers argue that they ensure that the Armenians became unable to execute their legal rights over their goods not even through a power of attorney; the Emvâl-i Metruke Management Commissions became the sole body wielding executive powers over the property left behind the Armenians.105 On the other hand, it is possible to draw a conclusion that this article was prepared in order to protect the Armenian goods from abuse. Yet, it should be kept in mind that under the prevailing conditions, legal procedures could be followed with the power of attorney that might have been obtained from the Armenians [by force] without their intention. Moreover, legal procedures through letter of attorney were prevented not for all Armenian goods but only for their immovables. The third main issue of the Circular dated June 10, 1915 was about the domicile of incoming refugees in the real estate properties left behind by the Armenians. Anatolia received great waves of migration from the Balkans following the Balkan Wars and from the Caucasus after the World War-1, which caused a serious problem for the Ottoman Government because finding shelter for all these refugees with a roof over their heads and allocating lands so that they could survive were quite difficult. Believing that it could bring an effective solution to this problem, it was decided to use the real estates and lands left vacant by the Armenians. The first explanations regarding this solution took place in the decision of the Meclis-i Vükela dated May 30, 1915. It was specified that refugees and clans could settle in the empty villages left vacant after the relocation of the Armenians. The details of the settlement were explained in the 11-19th articles of the Circular. 106
105 Akçam/Kurt, p. 36-37. 106 Güner, p. 3153.
| 400 | Gül AKYILMAZ
Article 11 specifies that refugees would be settled in the empty villages; existing building and farm lands would be distributed through interim certificates considering the needs and abilities of each refugee family. Article 12 indicates that the refugees at each residential building were to be registered in official logs with their names, places they came from, places they were settled into and dates of their settlement. Similarly, the type, class, quantity, value and location of the property and lands given to them were to be registered in detail. Article 12 requires that a document was to be submitted to these refugees, stating the quantity of the property and farm land given to them. It is stated in article 13 that all refugees settled in the same village were jointly responsible for protecting the property and trees located on the fields; and in the case of a downfall or destruction, the damage was to be compensated from all of them jointly regardless of the suspects or guilty parties. Furthermore, the guilty ones were to be promptly expelled from the village and lose their refugee rights. Article 14 indicates that neighboring nomads were to be settled into the villages left vacant after the refugees were sheltered; and they would be subjected to the same procedures as the immigrants. According to article 15, refugees coming from towns and cities were to be primarily settled in towns and cities. They would be given adequate lands considering their previous financial status and construction abilities (building power). Article 17 requires proper registration of the refugees who were settled down in towns and cities so that their names, type of land allocated to them, the size and value of the lands can be recorded in detail. According to article 18 vineyards, citrus orchards, olive groves and similar lands could be allocated to the refugees who could prove their proficiency and ability to take care of such farms provided that they could show a guarantor and come up with written proof in proportion with their needs and capacity for the undertaking. After recording in official logs the size of land and estate and names of the people they were given to; a
| 401 | Gül AKYILMAZ document stating this situation was given to the purchasers. Lands that were not allocated to the refugees were to be sold by auction in line with the requirements of article 16. Article 19 requires that people who would be settled in vacated villages and towns as refugees with the order of the Ministry of the Interior and the decision of the local authorities or those who wanted to be settled in these places with a letter of application were to prove that they were refugees, they were not sent to other places nor settled down anywhere else or they should provide an official document showing that they were sent there as immigrants. Articles of the Circular related to the immigrants show that some (not all) of the property and lands left behind the Armenians were allocated to refugees. However, as is the case in other issues, strict rules were established and everything was reported in official logs. For instance, immigrants would be settled either in villages or towns or cities in commensurate with their previous socio-economic situation and occupations. They would be given property and land in line with their needs and proficiencies. Vineyards, citrus orchards, olive groves and similar farm lands could be allocated to people who could prove their capabilities through vouchers and guarantors. If this was not possible, these properties and lands were to be sold by auction. Any kind of building or land accorded was to be registered in detail with the names of the assignees and the immigrants had to own official documents showing their status. In the case of any destruction to the assigned property, all immigrants in that settlement were jointly responsible for reimbursing the damage and those found guilty of the destruction would lose their immigration status. It is clear that the government did not distribute among the refugees in a random manner arbitrarily but tried to be fair and strict in allocating property by considering the expertise level of the immigrants, ensuring the protection of the property and registering everything in detailed official records. It should be marked that the immigrants were not given the right of possession but given only the tenure of the property, which takes into consideration the possibility that the owners of the property could come back and the property could be returned to the true owners. Indeed, the telegraph sent to the Governorship of Trabzon by the Ministry of the Interior on July
| 402 | Gül AKYILMAZ
12, 1915 required that the immigrants coming from Batumi and neighboring areas were to be settled in the property left by Armenians, but these properties were not allowed to be sold. They could only be rented on condition that the rental income and building costs were equally shared107. Ottoman Archives include numerous examples about this issue and some of them are going to be analyzed in the results section of this study. However, all of these examples display that the Ottoman Empire paid great attention to protect the rights of the original owners of the immovable properties. It is evident that the Ottoman State took strict measures about the property left behind the Armenians, in order to prevent the financial losses of their owners and keep everything under the control of the government. However, during the chaos of World War-I, complaints about some illegal procedures and malpractices of Emvâl-i Metruke Management Commissions reached İstanbul. A telegraph was sent on August 11, 1915 by the Minister of Interior Talat Bey to the heads of the Emvâl-i Metruke Management Commissions in each region following the complaints that personal property and real estate sold especially by auction were undercharged. The telegraph specified that the property left behind the relocated Armenians were sold below their market value, the real owners suffered losses through sales of some goods to the black marketers and that all the procedures had to be carried out according to the principles of the Circular. It also included the following measurements: strangers, suspicious looking wanderers or outsiders should not be allowed in the locations that were to be evacuated and such people that had already entered to these locations should be sent away. If there
107 This document also includes items regarding other important issues. For instance, personal properties that could spoil in time and animals left by Armenians were to be sold according to the rules of the Ordinance. Furniture and belongings collected from the Armenian houses were to be registered in the name of the owners, if possible, but if not they were to be registered in the name of the settlement they were found in. Under no circumstances could real estate property be assigned to any individual or institutions. Watches and jewelry were to be registered with their value and description in the name of their owners, and in case the owners are not known in the name of the settlement they were found in, and then placed in separate bank safe deposit boxes in front of a committee while registering in a separate log, BOA. DH. ŞFR, No: 54/420, Osmanlı Belgelerinde Ermeniler (1915-1920), Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi Genel Müdürlüğü Osmanlı Arşivi Daire Başkanlığı Yayınları, İstanbul 1995, p. 64.
| 403 | Gül AKYILMAZ are people who purchased the goods below their fair value, illegal profiting was attempted to be prevented by cancelling those sales agreements and reselling the goods at their fair value. Armenians should be allowed to carry along whatever goods they wanted. Out of the goods that they could not carry along, the items which could deteriorate in time and those urgently needed were to be sold in auction while the ones which would remain intact for some time were to be protected in the name of their owners. Among the immovable goods, if there were some ongoing agreements which did not cancel the owners’ rights like: renting, holding as collateral, vefaen ferağ (owner passing his usage ownership right to someone else until he can complete the payment of his debt to that person), confiscation of ownership if a debt is unpaid in due time, they were to be outlawed and such agreements done after the start of dispatch were to be nullified. Collusion was not going to be allowed in legal procedures. Sales of property or lands to foreigners was going to be forbidden; however, firm sales and giving up on one’s own wish were going to be permitted.108 Thinking that it could cause misconduct and misunderstanding, the Ottoman Government prohibited the government officers from buying the Armenians’ property and announced that the involvement of especially those in the legal departments would be unsuitable with business ethics. However in time, permission was granted to the government employees to purchase these goods at their fair value.109
E. The Code dated September 26, 1915 (13 September 1331) The last legal regulation to be examined in this research is the Coe dated September 26, 1915: “14 Mayıs 1331 Tarihli Kanûn-ı Muvakkat Mûcibince Ahar Mahallere Nakledilen Eşhasın Emvâl ve Düyûn ve Matlûbatı
108 BOA. DH. ŞFR, No: 54/381, For full text of the telegraph, pls check: Osmanlı Belgelerinde Ermeniler, p. 73; Güner, p. 3155-3156. 109 BOA. DH. ŞFR, No: 55/107, Telegraph dated August 19, 1915 sent from the Ministry of Interior “Me’mûrîn, fiy’ât-ı hakîkiyyesiyle ve peşîn para ile Ermenilerden hâne satın alabilirler.” [Civil servants can purchase real estate from the Armenians by paying the goods’ fair value in cash], Osmanlı Belgelerinde Ermeniler (1915-1920), p. 83.
| 404 | Gül AKYILMAZ
Metrûkesi Hakkında Kanun-u Muvakkat”dir110 [Law regarding the goods, debts and receivables left behind the people transferred to other locations according to the law dated 14 May 1331.] Although the Circular dated June 10, 1915 included detailed arrangements regarding the personal property and real estates of the Armenians who were subjected to forced migration, it did not include any arrangements about their debts and credits. When the debts of Armenians to foreign banks and companies caused serious problems for the Ottoman Government, a code consisting of 11 articles about these issues was legislated a few months after the Circular. According to Article 10 of this code, which is called the ‘liquidation law’ especially by the defenders of the Armenian Genocide thesis, the ministries of Interior, Justice and Financial Affairs as well as the Ministry of Islamic Law and Trust Funds were assigned for its application. This code clearly specifies that settlement procedures were going to be administered by the Emvâl-i Metruke Management Commissions, which were established and given this name in the Circular dated June 10, 1915. According to the first article of this law, the property, debts and receivables left by the real and legal persons [corporations] settled to other districts in compliance with the Relocation and Resettlement Law dated May 27, 1915 (14 May 1331) were going to be liquidated by courts according to the legal report to be prepared individually for each person by the commissions to be established for this purpose. The goods saved up by the persons mentioned in Article-1 during their relocation: the icareteynli müsakkafat and müstagallat-ı111 should be registered
110 For the full text of the law, see Kardeş, p.27-31; Elbeyoğlu, Ali (2014) Osmanlı’dan Günümüze Tapu ve Emval-i Metruke, Ankara, Adalet Yayınevi, p. 96-99; Onaran, p. 323- 325. 111 Icareteynli Waqf, which we frequently see in the Ottoman Sate’s history, is a kind of foundation that was the subject of long term renting which was accepted as a rarity in the Hanefi Sect of Islamism. Icareteyn means double rent contract. Two rents are collected from the tenant(s) under the names of icare-i muaccele and icare-i müeccele. İcare-i muaccele is paid in advance during the first leasing and is equal or close to the true value of the property. On the other hand, İcare-i müeccele is a periodic payment which is paid at the end of each year or month. In these foundations, the ownership of the buildings and trees belong to the legal entity of the trust foundations. The renters from such foundations could pass on their right of disposition to someone else by taking the permission of the board of the trustees. Upon death of the renter, his rights over the property that he rented
| 405 | Gül AKYILMAZ in the name of Waqfs (trust) exchequers and the other immovable properties in the name of Finance exchequers. Consequently, the value for both kinds of immovable properties will be paid by the said exchequers and the amount left after their liquidation will be paid to their owners. Land registry officers were to be the drawee [adverse party], in the legal actions to arise for recovery of property and other court cases in regards to the abandoned property. As long as there is no suspicion of collusion, documents other than the title deeds would also be admissible to prove the possession of these properties. As for the transfer of ownership procedures completed within the last 15 days prior to the transfer date of the aforementioned people, these contracts were to be revoked and cancelled if collusion or excessive deception were determined in court (article 2). According to article 3, cash and movable goods left behind as well as deposits and receivables of the Armenians who faced relocation were to be collected by either the heads of the Emvâl-i Metruke Management Commissions or their deputies and the movable goods [property] against which a court case did not come up were to be sold by auction. The income gained from these was to be deposited in the name of the owners, to the subdivisions of treasury, for safe keeping. People who claimed possession on the abandoned properties and asserted that they had money owed by those who were relocated could present their demands in person or by proxy to the Emvâl-i Metruke Management Commissions within two months. This period was set to four months for those living outside the Ottoman Empire. In order to complete the procedures in a speedy fashion and with ease, those who wanted to collect their debts were to provide an address in the area where the concerned
passes down to his inheritors according to the örfi law Cin/Akyılmaz, p. 353-354; The relocated Armenians who had rented Icareteyn Endowments held only the right of disposition, but not the right of possession. Moreover, possession right of the buildings and trees on these fields also belong to the foundation. While Müsakkafat means revenue generating building, müstegallat refers to property such as farms, houses, commercial building, groves and orchards from which income is benefited from. In this regard, it should be kept in mind that the relocated Armenians had only the right to use these real estates, not their possession.
| 406 | Gül AKYILMAZ commission was stationed. General provisions were to be enacted for the lawsuits brought after the specified dates and those who were justified by these court cases could not demand any rights over the abandoned property which was already liquidated in compliance with the rules of this law (article 4). According to article 5, the commissions were supposed to accept and register the petitions they found justifiable after examining the documentary evidence, then prepare a balance sheet of the deposits and credits of the indebted persons and issue two copies of these certificates. One of these copies was to be posted in public areas so that all concerned could see the verdict while the other copy was to be submitted to the related prosecution office for them to pass it on to the lower court of the related district. The payee [the person to whom the money is owed to] had the right to object to the information on the list within 15 days. At the end of this period, the lower courts were supposed to discuss the case in the presence of the public prosecutor, the demurrer [person objecting to the case] in case there is one, the payee [creditor] and the head of the dissolution commission. After hearing the concerned parties, court boards were to render a judgment and submit their sentence to the Emvâl-i Metruke Management Commission to be processed in compliance with article 6. This judgment was definitive and could not be appealed (objection, restitution, applying to a higher court for this decision’s reversal and appeal were not possible). In compliance with the definitive judgments, primary and subordinated debts were to be collected from the deposits of the indebted. If the cash deposits of the indebted were not enough to pay the whole debt, preferring to pay the primary debt at first, the payment was to be made in the form of garamaten (total deposits of the indebted were to be allocated among all the payees, in proportion to the amount owed to each claimant). Emvâl-i Metruke Management Commissions were responsible for these procedures, but when their term of office came to an end, bailiff Execution Offices became in charge of carrying out these proceedings (article 6). The distrainers, who confiscated the property left behind the relocated Armenians, as if there was no precautionary distraint or continuing confiscation by courts or governmental authorities before this Law was
| 407 | Gül AKYILMAZ enacted, were subjected to the enforcement of this Law. Among the aforementioned people, those against whom court cases were continuing could apply to the Commissions, or if they wished could pursue the lawsuits in compliance with the general provisions. For those people who did not apply to the Commissions, the provisions in the last clause of article 4 would be enacted. Cases seen in favor of these people would be pursued and concluded by the chairman of the Commissions or their deputies, also according to the general rules (article 7). According to the Law dated September 26, 1915, icareteynli müsakkafat and müstagallat vakfiyeler and other real estates which were registered in the name of Foundations and Finance Treasuries could be transferred [tefviz] and distributed [tevzi] to the refugees, without any payment in return, in compliance with the existing Regulations for Immigrants (article 9). The word ‘tefviz’ [transfer] used here is a technical term which specifies that only the tenure of a real estate can be assigned to the refugees. That is to say, refugees would not gain ownership rights to these lands, because their ownership belongs to the foundations. The relocated Armenians as well, did not possess ownership rights on these lands; but they possessed only the right of use. In Article 8 of the Law it was specified that the method of establishing the Emvâl-i Metruke Management Commissions and the method of application and execution of the enacted laws were to be determined through legislation. Thus, “Kanun-u Muvakkatin Suver-i İcraiyesini Mübeyyin Nizamname dated 13 September 1331” [Regulation informing the application form of the law dated 13 Sep 1331] was enacted on November 8, 1915 (28 October 1331). Establishment of Emvâl-i Metruke Management Commissions began around the same time when the notification of the laws and legislations about these issues were sent to the provinces. Tekfurdağı Settlement Commission started on November 16, 1915; Kayseri Settlement Commission on December 25, 1915 and Bitlis Settlement Commission on January 17, 1916. As of January 1916, the number of Emvâl-i Metruke Management Commissions reached 33. While these commissions were carrying out the settlement procedures in accordance with the aforementioned law and Circular, Ministry
| 408 | Gül AKYILMAZ of the Interior - through newspaper advertisements - simultaneously informed the public about the locations of the commissions and the procedures to be followed by claimants. It seems that the Law enacted on September 26, 1915 included fewer details than the Circular dated June 10, 1915. It mainly focused on the debts left behind the Armenians who were relocated, collection of these debts and settlement of legal disputes which may arise in relation. However, it is necessary to highlight a few very important points that cannot be ignored. The first item specifies that Emvâl-i Metruke Management Commissions were to be authorized to carry out the affairs regarding all kinds of property left behind the Armenians; those who would not apply to these commissions could lose their rights on their property. Besides, not only the Armenians who were the true owners but also the payee was also supposed to apply to these commissions in order to solve their dispute, because all debts were going to be paid by these commissions. The first article of the Law specifies that abandoned property, debts and credits of natural and legal persons transferred to other locations were to be liquidated by courts, in accordance with the official reports prepared individually for each person, by the commissions assigned for this issue. However, it is not clear which properties are referred to: if it includes both the movable and immovable goods. Article 3 provides necessary information about the movable goods and clarifies that they would be sold by auction and the value received would be saved in subdivisions of treasury. Yet, it does not include a similar explanation about the immovable goods [the real estate]. In continuation of the first article an arrangement was made saying that only the goods left in their possession during the transfer of the Armenians: the icareteynli müsakkafat and müstagallat-ı vakfiye were to be registered in the Treasury of Foundations and other real estates were to be registered in the name of the Treasury of Financial Affairs; and following the payment for both kinds of immovables by the aforementioned treasury institutions, the amount remaining was to be given to the owners. Article 9 specifies that icareteynli müsakkafat, müstagallat-ı vakfiye and other real estates could be delegated and distributed to the refugees free of charge in compliance with the
| 409 | Gül AKYILMAZ
Immigrants’ Legislations. It is understood from the first and ninth articles that the value of the relocated Armenians’ personal lands and those of their foundations was to be paid to the Armenians by the Treasury. Later if they wanted, Treasury of Finance and Foundations could allocate these lands to the refugees [evicted from the Balkans and the Caucasus] for free. The terms tefviz and tevzi, used in the text of the Law, are important in that tefviz refers to the transfer of only the usage right of the immovable property in which case the absolute possession could not be transferred to the refugees. It is quite natural for icareteynli waqf, because the bare ownership belonged to the foundations and only the usage rights could be transferred. However, it is not clear if only the right of use or also the right of possession for the other immovable properties could be assigned to the refugees. Another important issue is the ambiguity about whether all of the lands-apart from the foundation lands left by Armenians was personal property. Could some of them be miri lands [belonging to the government treasury]? Apart from all of this, if all Armenian goods –movable and immovable were to be liquidated, it means that they would have no real estate left behind. In this case, how is it going to be possible to explain the official letters asking for the evacuation of the refugees from the Armenian properties and settlement of their Armenian owners who returned back? Such questions await clarification.
CONCLUSION Armenians constituted an important group among the non-Muslim subjects within the multinational Ottoman Empire. They were living within the Ottoman millet system as Gregorian Armenian millet along with the Orthodox Greek millet and Jewish millet. As was the case for the other non- Muslim groups within the Ottoman State, their legal status was decided by the rules of the Islamic Law. They had guarantee for their lives, property and honour, as well as freedom of practicing their own religion and communal conscience. They also benefited from autonomy of jurisdiction in certain fields of law. Their legal suits regarding marriage, divorce and inheritance were solved by their religious officials in Cemaat Courts according to the rules of their own religion. They could protect their own language, religion and
| 410 | Gül AKYILMAZ culture within the millet system. On condition that they possess the necessary requirements, just like the Muslim subjects, they too could execute all legal procedures with full authority on their movable and immovable goods. However, they faced some restrictions because their religions were different from the official religion of the Empire. The legal status of the non-Muslim subjects and hence the Armenians was not equal to that of the Muslims, due to the legal rules adherent until the Tanzimat Reform era. The most important restraint was that Armenians, just like the other non-Muslim groups, could not be employed as civil servants, could not testify in courts and had to pay higher taxes than the Muslim subjects while maintaining their identity. It should be emphasized in here that the acquaintance of the European Continent with the principle of equality before the law came about only after the French Revolution of 1789. The Ottoman State tried to compensate the deficiency of equality before law between Muslim and non-Muslim subjects with the concept of justice. In this sense there came about an application, which could be called the subjects’ right to demand “justice from the state” or “erasure of injustice”. All subjects without any discrimination regarding their gender, religion or liberty could apply to the Divân-ı Hümayun, by writing a letter of complaint (arzuhal) in order to resolve the injustice. Moreover, this right was adopted by the subjects so much that they could claim their rights by applying to different courts such as the İkindi Divanı [cases conducted by the Sadrazam (the Sultan’s chief administrator) following the afternoon prayers], Cuma Divanı [cases conducted by the Sadrazam on Fridays], Paşa Divanı [cases conducted by the Governors and Viziers in the provinces]. Ottoman archive documents indicate that the non-Muslim citizens, including the Armenians have claimed their rights by applying to various courts - foremost to the Divân-ı Hümayun.112
112 Cin/Akyılmaz, p. 143-144; Mumcu, Ahmet (1986) Divan-ı Hümayun, Ankara, Toplum ve Birey Yayınları, p.97; Akyılmaz, Gül (1999) ‘Osmanlı Devleti’nde Reaya Kavramı ve Devlet-Reaya İlişkileri’, Osmanlı, C: 6, Ankara, Yeni Türkiye Yayınları, p. 50-51; For documents and statistical information, pls see: Gümrükçüoğlu Okur, Saliha (2014) ‘Osmanlı Devletinde Divan’a Gönderilen Şikâyetler’, I. Türk Hukuk Tarihi Kongresi Bildirileri 21-22 Aralık 2012, (Editör: Gedikli, Fethi), İstanbul, XII Levha Yayıncılık, p. 385- 409; Köse, Ensar (2014) ‘Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Toplu Hak Arama: XVIII. Yüzyıla Ait 100 Örnek Mahzar’, I. Türk Hukuk Tarihi Kongresi Bildirileri 21-22 Aralık 2012, (Editör:
| 411 | Gül AKYILMAZ
Upon approaching the 19th Century, an ‘Armenian problem’ arose due to the impacts of nationalism which emerged as a result of the French Revolution and the Western Countries’ provocations of the Armenian subjects of the Ottoman State for independence within the scope of the ‘Eastern Question’. Since the Ottoman State had experienced similar problems with other non-Muslim groups, it tried to find solutions that could prevent disintegration. In order to achieve its most important foreign affairs goal of becoming a European country and to create a mutual Ottoman identity, the Empire took legal actions for maintaining legal equality between the Muslims and non-Muslims. The first step was the announcement of the Tanzimat Edict in 1839. Equality of non-Muslims to Muslims was gradually achieved during the period starting with the Tanzimat [Reform] Edict. In fact, the concept of equality generally referred to the equality between Muslim and non-Muslim subjects in the Ottoman Empire. Although this equality was not clearly highlighted in the Tanzimat Edict, legislations which indicate that rights and assurance were to be valid for everyone regardless of their religions implied the principle of equality even in a concealed way. Equality of all subjects [citizens] before the law became possible only with the declaration of Islahat Edict in 1856 when all legal restraints regarding the non-Muslims and hence the Armenians were abolished. Thus, it became possible for the Armenians to testify in courts, to enter into public service, and hence become soldiers, judges, ministers and hold similar governmental posts. Moreover, these did not remain in theory, but were practiced in social life as explained in detail within this study. While a large number of Armenian judges were assigned to the newly established Nizamiye Courts, many Armenians were employed as officers in various Ministries and were promoted to high positions there; a lot of Armenians were appointed as ministers while a lot of them as administrators to many provinces. There were a lot of Armenians among the ambassadors and consuls sent abroad. The fact that the Minister of Foreign Affairs during the critical period of the First Balkan Wars was
Gedikli, Fethi), İstanbul, XII Levha Yayıncılık, p. 411-429; For sample lawsuit petition written by non-Muslim subjects, pls see: Akyılmaz, Gül (2014) ‘Osmanlı Hukukunda Masuniyet-i Şahsiyye İlkesi’, I. Türk Hukuk Tarihi Kongresi Bildirileri 21-22 Aralık 2012, (Editör: Gedikli, Fethi), İstanbul, XII Levha Yayıncılık, p. 205-216.
| 412 | Gül AKYILMAZ
Naradokyan Efendi of Armenian origin and that a considerable number of the officers in the Ministry of the Foreign Affairs were also Armenian indicates that the Ottoman Empire trusted the Armenians and considered them as equal citizens. Furthermore, Armenians were among the members of the Meclis-i Ahkâm-ı Adliye ve Şurâ-yı Devlet which were the newly established courts authorized with important powers. Garabed Artin Davud and his career path splendidly display the state of affairs for the Armenians during the Tanzimat period. Born as the son of a Catholic Armenian family, originating from Ankara but living in İstanbul during his birth in 1816, Garabed Artin completed his primary education in İstanbul and then went to Berlin to study law. He embarked on his government post in 1840 when he was only 24 years old and started to work as a clerk and translator at the Berlin Embassy. He was deemed worthy of various awards by the Kingdom of Prussia and Academy of Berlin for his publication “Histoire de le législation des anciens Germains” (History of Old German Law) in 1845. He was appointed as charge d’ affaires to the Vienna Embassy, in 1852. Afterwards, he was assigned as the consul in Vienna in 1856 and stayed in that capacity for more than two years. He participated in the conference held in Paris to negotiate the legal status of Eflak and Boğdan [parts of today’s Romania] accompanying Fuad Pasha in 1858. Returning to İstanbul in 1859, he was appointed to the Directorate of Censorship Office and was subsequently appointed to the Directorate of Postal Establishment in 1860. When the appointment of a Catholic mutasarrıf [governor of an Ottoman province] to Cebel-i Lübnan [Mount Lebanon, where people from different religious and ethnic backgrounds lived] came up, his close relations with Ali Pasha and Fuad Pasha and the necessity to assign a loyal and reliable person to this administration which was given autonomy made Garabed Artin Davud the first candidate for the position. He was promoted to the “Vezier” position according to the Regulation of Cebel-i Lübnan with a salary of forty thousand kurush and appointed as the first executive of this autonomous administration. Although he was appointed for five years at the beginning, upon his success, his tenure was extended to ten years by Sultan Abdulaziz and he was dignified with first class Order of Osmanieh. When the Grand
| 413 | Gül AKYILMAZ
Vezier (Sadrazam) Ali Pasha-in line with the principles of Tanzimat, decided to include a non-Muslim minister in the council of ministers for the first time, Artin Davud was assigned as the Ministry of Public Works (Nafia Nazırı) in 1868. Thus, besides being the first governor of the autonomous Cebel-i Lübnan, he became the first non-Muslim minister in Ottoman History.113 While leaving behind the concept of subject and moving on to citizenship with the Code of Citizenship in 1869, new terminologies were preferred in an effort to refrain from statements related to religion, sect and ethnic background. No discrimination of Muslim or dhimmi [non-Muslim] was made. According to this law, the children were accepted as Ottoman citizens at birth, if both of their parents or only their father was an Ottoman subject (Osmanlı tebaası). Certain statements of the 1876 Constitution show that the Ottoman Empire adopted the concept of equal citizenship regardless of the religion and ethnic background of their citizens. For instance: article 8 specifies that “Everyone under the Ottoman nationality is called ‘Osmanlı’ regardless of their religions and sects”. Likewise, it is specified in article 17 that “All Ottomans are equal before the law in terms of their rights and responsibilities, except in issues related to their religions or sects”. Armenian representatives became members of parliament during both the I. and II. ‘Meşrutiyet’ [Constitutionalist] periods and freely expressed their views and opinions on all subjects.114 Moreover, some of them clearly stated that they considered themselves as Ottoman, during their parliamentary speeches. For instance, when Russia enacted a war in 1877 with the disguise of protecting the non-Muslims of the Ottoman Empire, the speeches made by the Dhimmi deputies in the parliament indicate that the endeavors to create an Ottoman
113 Dadyan, Saro (2013) ‘1861 Cebel-i Lübnan Nizamnamesi ve Özerk Cebel-i Lübnan'ın İlk Mutasarrıfı Garabed Artin Davud Paşa’, Toplumsal Tarih, S: 239, Kasım, p. 66-70. 114 For example: the argument of Artin Boşgezenyan, the Armenian Deputy from Aleppo are remarkable, on the subject of adultery during the rearrangements for Criminal Law 1858 were being discussed in the Cabinet in 1911. Boşgezenyan criticized the Criminal Law, specifying that the Islamic Law had an equalitarian approach towards adultery and its punishment, whereas the rearrangement of the Criminal Law was protecting men and penalizing women more severely. For the interesting statements of Boşgezenyan about this issue, see Özkorkut Ünal, Nevin (2009) Türk Hukuk Tarihinde Zina Suçu, Siyasal Kitabevi, Ankara, p.143-145. His speech shows that he considered himself a citizen of the Ottoman Empire and he was ready to take on responsibility and work hard for a better future.
| 414 | Gül AKYILMAZ nation by maintaining equality between the Muslims and non-Muslims was partially successful.115 When the Ottoman Empire entered World War-I, the Armenians and the other non-Muslim groups were carrying on with their lives holding equal rights along with the Muslims. As explained in detail in this study, the Armenians who were called Millet-i Sadıka [the Loyal Nation] could hold important positions by being accepted to public services and also gained financial power due to the successful Armenian tradesmen and businessmen, and in fact, a bourgeoisie class of Armenians emerged. However, a cultural awakening followed by a national awakening started among the Armenian community due to the impact of the ideology of nationalism which spread all over Europe after the French Revolution, and the provocation of Western powers - especially that of Russia and England under the name of Eastern Question combined with the opportunities provided by the Armenian Amira Class. When a group of Armenians staged rebellions one after another especially in the Eastern Anatolian areas where they were densely populated and started to take action against the Muslim people, the Ottoman Government introduced the ‘Sevk ve İskân Kanununu’ [the Law of Relocation and Resettlement] on May 27, 1915 and subjected the Armenians of certain locations to forced migration. With this evacuation, fate of the movable and immovable goods left behind these Armenians surfaced as an important legal problem. Almost thirty regulations, some in the Republic era, were enacted regarding the Armenian goods called “Emvâl-i Metruke” [abandoned
115 While the Russian attacks were being discussed in the Ottoman Parliment, the deputy from Damascus, Mr. Aleppo stated the following: “As Armenians and Christians, we claim that we do not need protection. It is not possible to accept such a protection under any circumstances.” Correspondingly, a group of Bulgarian deputies declared “our only desire as Bulgarian citizens of the Ottoman Empire is to work for the Ottoman nation within the principles of the constitution act.” Mr. Nufel from Syria expressed the opinion of Christians about this issue: “History shows that Christians have always been content with the Ottoman government. Protecting us is only a disguise for the Russians. Their intention is to use us as tools against the upcoming fire.” Likewise, Mr. Vasilaki from İstanbul confirmed that “Discrimination is against the constitution. Let us forget about terms such as Muslim, non-Muslim, Greek and Armenian. Let us not use these words anymore.” Deputy Mr. Manok had the last word: “We did not become Ottomans recently; we have been Ottomans for 600 years”. Karal (1982), p. 396–397.
| 415 | Gül AKYILMAZ properties]. These laws have raised controversy and continue to do so, until present times. Among these, the first three regulations enacted in 1915 were analyzed within the scope of this study. The first is the decree of the Heyet-i Vükelâ [Council of Ministers] dated May 30, 1915. It included the basic principles, particularly about the immovable goods of the Armenians who would be subjected to relocation and settlement and it also formed the mainframe of the legalities to be carried out later. A few points draw attention in this decree. First of all, the type, quantity and value of the immovable goods left behind the Armenians would be determined. Afterwards, refugees and migrants would be settled in their houses and agricultural lands as understood from the text. Places [that the refugees would not be able to utilize] such as olive ranches, berry fields, orange groves and vineyards and places which could bring income such as shops, inns, factories and storehouses were not to be given to the refugees, but they were to be sold in auction or rented and their income would be saved in subdivisions of treasury in order to be paid to their owners. Commissions connected to the Ministry of the Interior, comprising of three officers would be established for the abandoned property not to be damaged, all of the necessary procedures to be completed in proper and legally justifiable format. A name was not specified for these commissions in this decree, but mentioning of liquidation commissions for the first time is noteworthy. Another issue worthy of attention is declaration that a circular would be prepared regarding this matter. Indeed, the circular enacted in June was based on the principles of the Meclis-i Vükelâ [Council of Ministers] decision. As can be understood from the language of the decree, the Ottoman Government did not have any intention to confiscate the Armenians’ goods; on the contrary, it is evident that they showed every effort to solve the problem within legal statutes and without causing any financial loss to Armenians or seizure of their rights. The second adjustment about the Emvâl-i Metruke” [abandoned property] is “Ahval-i Harbiye ve Zaruret-i Fevkâlede-i Siyasiye Dolayısıyla Mahalli Ahire Nakilleri İcra Edilen Ermenilere Ait Emvâl ve Emlâk ve Arazinin Keyfiyet-i İdaresi Hakkında Talimatname” [Circular for the administration of the goods, property and lands belonging to the Armenians who were transferred
| 416 | Gül AKYILMAZ due to out of control military and exceptional political situations] with 34 clauses and dated June 10, 1915. This circular is possibly the most detailed arrangement and includes precise arrangements about the movable and immovable goods of the Armenians who were subjected to relocation and resettlement. Besides these, two other issues gain prominence in the circular. The first one is the establishment of commissions to manage the goods left behind the Armenians and arrangement of the duties and authorities of these commissions. Moreover, these commissions were named as Emvâl-i Metruke Management Commissions in this circular. The other important issue is the presence of some provisions regarding the settlement of refugees and allocation of some of the Armenian goods to them. Although there are detailed adjustments in the circular, it did not include any rules regarding the debts and credits of the Armenians which had become an international problem. According to the circular, the Emvâl-i Metruke Management Commissions were to be composed of three officers, one chief, and two members, one from the civil service and the other from finance. They were to work in direct affiliation to the Ministry of the Interior116 and in collaboration with the local administrators. A tight control was attempted to be formed in
116 Establishment of a commission without wasting any time was asked by the Minister of Interior Talat Bey, in his letter to the Kayseri Mutasarrıflığı on June 28, 1915. This letter was registered in the Ottoman archives with cypher No: DH.ŞFR, 54/226. The commission should be comprised of employees from the civil and finance departments. Their duty was protection of the abandoned property and registration of it in books. It also mentions that the ordinance (dated June 10, 1915) on this subject was already on the mail. Osmanlı Belgelerinde Ermenilerin Sevk ve İskânı, p. 179; the Commissions of Emvâl-i Metruke Administrations were cut off from the Ministry of Interior and connected to the Ministry of Finance in May 1916, HR. SYS, 2873/3-35 and in the letter sent from the Ministry of Interior to the Ministry of Exterior on May 13, 1916, it is informed that from May 10, 1916 onwards, the Emvâl-i Metruke Commissions would continue to work under the Ministry of Finance. Mahall-i âhara nakledilen eşhâsa aid emvâlin kanun ve nizâmnâme-i mahsusuna tevfîkan tasfiyesiyle iştigâl etmek üzere icab eden mahallere i‘zâm kılınmış ve el-yevm muamelât-ı mezkûrenin takib ve intâcıyla mütevaggıl bulunmuş olan Emvâl-i Metrûke Tasfiye Komisyonları'nın Mayıs'ın onundan itibaren nezâret-i acizîden fekk-i irtibâtlarıyla Maliye Nezâreti'ne rabt ve ilhâkları takarrur eylemiş bulunduğundan hususât-ı mezkûreye müteferri‘ mevâdd hakkında ba‘demâ nezâret-i acizîye müracaat edilmeyerek nezâret-i müşârunileyhâ ile muhabere olunması mütemennâdır”, Osmanlı Belgelerinde Ermenilerin Sevk ve İskânı, p. 368.
| 417 | Gül AKYILMAZ order to prevent the arbitrary behavior of the commission members, so they were subjected to inform the Ministry of the Interior and the Governors within at least 15 days about their decisions and deeds. Thus, by keeping under control, the commission members and paid officers who would carry out the duties on behalf of them, precautions were taken to prevent unfair actions and abuse of power during liquidation of the goods. Moreover, the fact that the commissions had to inform not only the Ministry of the Interior but also the local governors show that they were liable to double inspection. Mentioning that the commissions had to conduct their activities in compliance with the arrangements of the Circular results from the concern that liquidation of Armenian property was to be carried out in accordance with due process of law and free from arbitrary attitudes. Upon examining the articles of the Circular dated June 10, 1915, regarding the movable goods that the Armenians could not take with them during their relocation, it is seen that the Emvâl-i Metruke Management Commissions were the only authority for protection and liquidation of the personal property. When necessary, these commissions also had the right to designate officers and committees so as to assign them the duties to keep records of the physical inventory of these goods, their transfer to suitable locations, protection and selling by auction. Likewise, ascertaining the movable property left behind the Armenians; registering them in official logs while paying attention to their type, quantity and value; storing them in such a way that their owners could easily be identified; recording in official logs the price obtained for the merchandise sold in auction; keeping detailed reports besides recording; securely keeping the sale amounts on behalf of their owners in the subdivisions of treasury; preparing two copies for each log and report; safekeeping of these copies – one by the local government and the other by the commissions shows how meticulously the Ottoman Government approached this process. The government tried to establish a strict control mechanism as much as possible, in order to avoid the possible discretionary approaches and misconducts under similar situations. Thus while it was aimed that the
| 418 | Gül AKYILMAZ
Armenians should not experience financial loss, the government also made it clear that it had no intentions to appropriate these goods.117 Just like their personal property, the Armenians’ real estates were also rigorously registered. According to the Circular, real estates and lands were to be registered listing their type, variety, quantity and value together with the names of their owners. Places that could generate income such as shops, storehouses, inns, bath houses and factories as well as lands that were not allocated to refugees such as vineyards, citrus orchards, olive groves which would be sold by auction and those that could not be sold but rented through special conditions were to be listed with their prices; all of this information was to be saved in subdivisions of treasury in order to be given to their owners later. Efforts were made to avoid financial loss to the owners of the immovable goods also. However, the way the movable and immovable goods of the Armenians were liquidated indicates that, in 1915 no plans were yet made for the return date of the Armenians. Yet, it is known that later, the Armenians who were formerly forced to migrate were allowed to return back.118
117 In a script dated September 1, 1915 which was sent from the Maliye Nezareti [Ministry of financial Affairs] to Erzurum province and registered as DH. ŞFR, 55/201 in Ottoman Archives, shows that after the movable property of Armenians who were subjected to migration from Erzurum were counted and registered, they were then sealed and protected in the depots of the Ottoman Bank. However, the Ministry of Finance had to warn the local administrators when the Ottoman Bank officials informed the central authorities about unsealing of the goods and some attempts of seizure - an information which was supported with similar notifications from the Deutsche Bank officials also. In this warning, the local administrations were warned for the safe keeping of the Armenian goods in good faith and that the official logs of the recording of the goods should be submitted by the bank officers to the local governments. Osmanlı Belgelerinde Ermenilerin Sevk ve İskânı, p. 239. 118 In the telegram sent from the Ministry of Internal Affairs to the provinces and sanjaks on October 22, 1918, it is informed that the safe return for those who desire to do so, among the Rums and Armenians that were relocated from their settlement areas to other places, due to emergency war conditions was allowed and their food and resettlement needs were to be provided on the roads. The names of the cities this order was communicated to can also be seen in the document as: “Dâhiliye Nezâretinden İstanbul, Adana, Hüdâvendigâr, Konya, Ankara, Kastamonu, Haleb, Ma‘mûretü'l-azîz, Diyârbekir, Sivas, Edirne, Aydın vilâyetleriyle, İzmit, Bolu, Kütahya, Karesi, Kayseri, Niğde, Menteşe, Antalya, Urfa, Canik, Eskişehir, İçel, Mar‘aş livâlarına keşîde edilen 21 Teşrîn-i Evvel sene 334 târîhli telgraf sûretidir. 1- Ahvâl-i harbiyye dolayısıyla karâr-ı askerî ile bir mahalden çıkarılarak diğer
| 419 | Gül AKYILMAZ
Another main issue arranged in the Circular dated June 10, 1915 was about the settlement of refugees in the Armenian real estates. As can be understood from the articles of the Circular regarding the immigrants, some (not all) of the buildings and lands left behind the relocated Armenians were allocated to the refugees. However, as was the case in the other articles of the Circular, this issue was subject to strict rules and everything was registered in detail. In fact, immigrants would be settled in either villages or cities and towns appropriate with their socio-economic situations and professions in the places they came from. They would be given buildings and arable land according to their needs and past proficiencies. Lands requiring special expertise such as vineyards, citrus orchards and olive groves would be allocated to those who could prove their expertise and give guarantee. If this was not possible, this land would be sold by auction. All kinds of building and lands distributed would be registered with the names of the people they were given to and the immigrants had to have a copy of the documents showing their situations. In the case of any destruction to the property handed over, all immigrants in that settlement were to be held responsible for compensation of the harm and the immigration status of the guilty ones was to be cancelled. It is clear that the government did not distribute the goods randomly, arbitrarily among the immigrants, but considered their expertise level, tried to provide careful usage ensuring safety of the properties; and everything was registered in detailed official letters. What is important here is the fact that the immigrants were not given the right of possession but given only the tenure of the property or in other words right of disposition. Under the circumstances, the possibility of the owners returning back was taken into account with the clause: if the owners of the property returned in the future, the immigrants were to vacate and the properties returned to their true owners. Although the
mahalle sevk edilmiş olan bi'l-umûm ahâlînin çıkarıldıkları mahallere avdetlerine müsâ‘ade edilmesi Meclis-i Vükelâca takarrur etmiş olduğundan avdete tâlib olanlara müsâ‘ade edilecekdir. 2- Erzurum, Trabzon, Van, Bitlis, Diyârbekir, Ma‘mûretü'l-azîz vilâyetleriyle Erzincan Mutasarrıflığı dâhilinde vesâ’it-i i‘âşenin adem-i kifâyesine binâ’en işbu mahaller ahâlîsinden avdet etmek isteyenler içün evvel-i emrde mahalleriyle bi'lmuhâbere selâmet-i seyr ve seyâhatleri ve i‘âşe ve iskânları esbâbı te’mîn edildikçe peyder-pey azîmetlerine müsâ‘ade edilmesi muktezidir.”, BOA, HR. MÜ. 43/34, Osmanlı Belgelerinde Ermeniler, p. 171.
| 420 | Gül AKYILMAZ
Circular dated June 10, 1915 included arrangements about the movable and immovable goods of the Armenians who were subjected to relocation, it did not include any arrangements regarding the owners’ debts and receivables. When the debts of the Armenians-especially to foreign banks and companies caused serious problems for the Ottoman Government, a law was passed to address these issues, a few months after the Circular. It included 11articles and was named: “14 Mayıs 1331 Tarihli Kanûn-ı Muvakkat Mûcibince Ahar Mahallere Nakledilen Eşhasın Emvâl ve Düyûn ve Matlûbatı Metrûkesi Hakkında Kanun-u Muvakkat” [Law regarding the goods, debts and receivables left behind the people transferred to other locations according to the law dated 14 May 1331] and it was enacted on September 26, 1915. This law dated September 26, 1915 included fewer details than the Circular dated June 10, 1915. It focuses on the debts of the relocated Armenians, encashment of these debts and the solutions for possible legal disputes that may arise about them. However, a few articles of the interim should be highlighted. The first one is the authorization of the Emvâl-i Metruke Management Commissions to arrange all kinds of procedures regarding the property left behind the Armenians and those people who do not apply to these commissions could lose their rights. Moreover, not only the Armenian true owners of the goods but also those who were the creditors of these properties had to apply to these commissions for their procedures, because the debts were to be paid by these commissions. The first article of the law specifies that the property, debts and credits left behind the real and legal persons who were transferred to other locations were to be discharged by the courts based on the registrations prepared for each individual by the commissions to be established for this purpose. However, it is not clear, if both the personal property and real estates is included. The necessary explanation regarding the movable goods [personal property] are mentioned in article 3, along with the information that they would be sold by auction and their sale value would be kept in subdivisions of treasury. But, a similar description was not specified for the immovable goods. In the continuation of the first article, an arrangement was made signaling that the revenue generating buildings [icareteynli müsakkafat] and
| 421 | Gül AKYILMAZ property such as farms, houses, commercial buildings from whose income is benefited [müstagallat-ı vakfiye], disposed by Armenians during their transfer were to be registered in the Treasury of Foundations and other real estates were to be registered in the name of the Treasury of Financial Affairs. It also indicates that the amount remaining, after the liquidation of the sales value paid by the aforementioned treasuries, would be given to the owners of the properties. According to article 9, the revenue generating buildings [icareteynli müsakkafat] and property such as farms, houses, commercial buildings from which income is benefited [müstagallat-ı vakfiye], and the other goods registered in the names of the Trust Foundations [Vakıf] and Finance Treasuries could be delegated (tefviz) and allocated (tevzi) to the immigrants for free in compliance with the rules of Immigrant Legislations. It is understood from the first and ninth articles that the worth of the lands belonging to the relocated Armenians (sole ownership or belonging to a waqf) would be paid to the Armenians by the treasury. Later, if necessary, the Treasury of Finance and Waqfs could allocate these lands to immigrants for free. The terms tefviz and tevzi, used in the Law, are important in that tefviz refers only to the right of use in which case the right of possession could not be assigned to immigrants. This is quite normal for icareteynli waqfs: since the sole ownership belonged to the waqfs, allowing transfer of only the usage rights. However, it is not apparent if only the right of use or also the right of possession could be assigned for the other real estates. Apart from all of these, it appears that if all (movable and immovable) belongings of the Armenians are being liquidated this could mean that no immovable goods [like real estate or land] would be left behind, for the Armenians. In this case, how is it going to be possible to explain the official letters requiring the evacuation of the refugees from the real estate of the Armenians who wished to return back and settle in their old dwellings and farm lands? There are numerous examples in the Ottoman Archives stating that the personal properties and real estate as well as farm lands of the Armenians who wished to come back would be returned to their rightful owners and that necessary precautions would be taken in regards to this procedure. For example, the letter written by Mustafa Arif, the Minister of Internal Affairs to Sadaret [like the prime ministry of today] on December 26, 1918, asked for immediate evacuation of the movable
| 422 | Gül AKYILMAZ and immovable goods of the Armenians which were being used by soldiers and officers. It also indicated that the properties allocated to the Muslim refugees were going to be evacuated gradually and given to their true owners as they returned. It is also emphasized that civil servants were ordered not to leave anybody who returned back without a home and that directors, officers and inspectors were appointed in order to guarantee absolute obedience to these rules.119
119 The original wording was: “Eşhâs-ı mebhûsenin emval-i menkûle ve gayr-ı menkûleleriyle eşhâs zimmetindeki matlûblarına gelince; mebânî-i metrûkeden cihet-i askeriye ile memurîn ve yerli ahalinin taht-ı işgalinde bulunanların avdet edecek eşhâsa tahsisleri zımnında hemen tahliyelerine ibtidâr olunduğu gibi evvelce muhacirîn-i İslâmiye'ye i‘tâ edilmiş olan emâkin-i metrûke ile bu vaziyetde bulunan emval-i gayr-ı menkûle-i sairenin de sahib-i hakikîleri vürûdetdikçe peyderpey tahliye etdirilerek ashabına iadesi ve hiçbir kimsenin açıkda bırakılmaması için memurîn-i mülkiyeye vesâyâ-yı lâzıme ve tebligât-ı kat‘iye icra ve haiz-i ehemmiyet mevâki‘e muhacirîn müdür ve memurlarıyla müfettiş de i‘zâm kılınmışdır, BEO,341055, Osmanlı Belgelerinde Ermenilerin Sevk ve İskânı, p. 412- 413; it is possible to give more examples on this issue. DH. ŞFR, 95/226 numbered script sent to Eskişehir Lieutenant Governor on January 15, 1919, by Ahmet İzzet, Deputy of the Ministry of Interior includes interesting details. Ahmet Izzet Bey mentions that because the restitution of the properties to their Armenian owners who came back was delayed, these people suffered misery. Armenian residents of the villages Bey, Virancık and Alınca of Eskişehir could not be settled in their own properties yet, and the biggest reason for this was that the immigrants who were living in those places could not be evacuated and the houses that could be evacuated had irreparable damage. Likewise, because the refugees living in the Artaki farm could not be moved out, their Armenian owners could not take over their properties. For this reason he wanted those Armenians to be accommodated in guest houses and food to be provided for them. Lieutenant Governor was warned that the claims of the refugees living in the Artaki Village were not valid, and the Armenians’ property should be given back to their rightful owners immediately, and those who delayed the process would be held legally liable. Osmanlı Belgelerinde Ermenilerin Sevk ve İskânı, p. 442-443. As can be clearly understood from the document, some of the Armenians who used to live in Eskişehir came back. Consequently, the government ignoring the claims of those refugees who were settled down in their homes asked them to vacate the premises and warned of legal liability for those who would delay this procedure. The governor also specified that the accommodation and nutrition for the Armenians would be supplied by the government until they were settled in their own properties; DH. ŞFR 96/117 numbered letter sent by Ahmet İzzet, Deputy of the Ministry of the Interior, to İzmir Lieutenant Governor on February 8, 1919 asked the authorities to return the Armenian property to their true owners without delay and avoid misbehavior that could lead to complaints, with the exact wording as: “Yalova ve Laledere'ye avdet eden Ermenilere emlâk ve arazileri teslim olunmadığı ihbar ve şikâyet olunuyor. Serî‘an tahkikât icrasıyla emvâl-i mezkûrenin avdet eden sahiblerine derhal teslim etdirilmesi ve kat‘iyyen mûcib-i şikâyet bir hâle meydan bırakdırılmaması ehemmiyetle tebliğ olunur.” The script included the following statement: “denouncement and complaints are received from the Armenians who returned to Yalova and Laledere about their real estate and farm lands were not returned to them. “It needs to be urgently investigated and the properties should be returned without any delay to the
| 423 | Gül AKYILMAZ
The telegraph sent by Ahmet İzzet, the Deputy for the Ministry of Interior, to many provinces on February 15, 1919 called for the return of the Armenian goods, compensation payments and disallowing or changing hands of the abandoned properties (emvâl-i metruke) through sales and pawn.120 Similarly, the telegraph sent from the Ministry of the Interior to Bitlis governance on May 4, 1919 indicates that in order to protect the rights of the Armenians who returned home after their forced relocation, owners of the property within the scope of abandoned property (emvâl-i metruke) could only be given to the owners themselves, not to their Muslim substitutes and trustees.121 Thus, corruption would be prevented and the rights of Armenians would be protected from malicious people. There may be a lot more of such documents, however the expected result is apparent. The real estates they left behind were given back to the Armenians who returned. As can be seen in the official letters, the real estate in use by the officers and soldiers were asked to be returned immediately122 and the ones used by the immigrants [who had
owning Armenians who returned back, and that it is substantially important not to cause such complaints.” Osmanlı Belgelerinde Ermenilerin Sevk ve İskânı, p. 448. 120 DH. ŞFR, 96/195, It is urgently informed that the real estates of the Rum and Armenians who were relocated should be returned urgently, the government should see to it that no difficulty will surface, and the decision regarding the compensation should be applied without any delay, all involved should be informed that time should not be wasted by selling the property between different people [passing from hand to hand] and all necessary precautions should be taken to avoid other dubious methods to be applied. The original wording: “Tebdîl-i mahal etdirilen Rum ve Ermenilere aidemvâl-i metrûkenin suret-i istirdâd ve iadesini ve verilecek tazmînât ve hususât-ı saire hakkında derdest-i vaz‘ kararnâmenin hîn-i tatbikinde daha ziyade müşkilâtama‘rûz kalınmamak üzere gerek hükûmet gerek efrâd tarafından mübâya‘a ve suver-i saire ile elde edilip el-yevmmevcud bulunan emvâl-i metrûkenin bey‘ ve terhîn ve saire gibi ukûdât ve muamelât ile elden ele geçmesine kat‘iyyen meydan verilmemesi lüzumunun icab edenlere tebliği ve bu bâbda tedâbîr-i serî‘a ve müessire ittihâzıyla hilâfında harekete meydan bırakılmaması ehemmiyetle beyân olunur.” Osmanlı Belgelerinde Ermenilerin Sevk ve İskânı, p. 450; 121 DH, ŞFR, 99/35, “In case the Armenians who were relocated came back to their original locations, their homes, personal properties and real estates could be given only to themselves. It is not possible to hand them over to their Muslim representatives or custodians in order to protect the real owners from possible malpractice. Original wording being: “Tehcir olunan eşhâsdanmahâll-i sairede bulunanların memleketlerine avdetleri hâlinde metrûkemvâl-i menkûle ve gayr-ı menkûlelerinin ancak kendilerine teslimi icab eder. Serd olunan mütâlaaya nazaran İslâm olan vekil ve vasîlerine teslimi muvâfık değildir.” Osmanlı Belgelerinde Ermenilerin Sevk ve İskânı, p. 481. 122 Letter sent by Ahmet İzzet, Deputy of the Minister of Interior on February 19, 1919 to governorships and Lieutenant Governors included the following statements: “The enquiry
| 424 | Gül AKYILMAZ been settled in Armenian property] were asked to evacuate the buildings soon. All of these documents confirm that not all of the goods left by Armenians were liquidated and the true owners’ right of possession was safely kept intact. Moreover, according to the examples given above, sales which spoiled the owners’ right of property, like sale and pawning of these goods were prohibited. Another significant issue that should be mentioned is about the lands that were left behind by the Armenians. It was not clear which group of lands they belong to within the scope of Ottoman Land Law. It is understood from both the legal arrangements and the letters sent from the Ministry of the Interior to different provinces and lieutenant governors, that some of these lands belonged to waqfs and some to the Ottoman treasury. In fact, it is not possible to take legal actions such as delegation [tefviz], assignment [ferağ] and assignment due to the owner’s will [vefaen ferağ] over property lands. Since a mutasarrıf [the person entitled to the use of a property, but not its ownership] possessed only the right to use the land owned by the government treasury [miri] or by a trust fund [vakıf], it is not possible for the inheritors to this day, to open up a law suit for claiming those properties. It should not be forgotten how the personal property and real estate were defined in the Ottoman Law in those days. According to the definitions in the Ottoman Law; real estate refers to land. Houses, buildings and trees were classified differently according to the land they were placed on. Therefore, the property class (as movable or immovable) of the buildings trees and houses (including storehouses and factories) of Armenians, who were forced to migrate in 1915, should be determined according to the type of lands they were located on.
and notification results showed that the abandoned property, which had been taken from the subdivisions of the treasury and temporarily transferred to the state offices, were not given to their owners but continued to be used. Since delaying the process of submitting these properties to their rightful owners would make the citizens and foreigners suspicious about the intention of the government, all personal properties should immediately be handed over to their owners. Property whose owners have not come back yet should be carefully protected until their owners return. BOA, DH. ŞFR, nr: 96/230, Osmanlı Belgelerinde Ermeniler (1915-1920), Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi Genel Müdürlüğü Osmanlı Arşivi Daire Başkanlığı Yayınları, İstanbul 1995, p.218.
| 425 | Gül AKYILMAZ
As mentioned in the Introduction, one of the main arguments of the defenders of the Armenian thesis is that transformation of capital from the Armenians to the Muslims was one of the basic aims of the decision behind the relocation of the Armenians. Their claim is based on the following two assertions. Their first argument is that the reports prepared by the 33 Emvâl-i Metruke Management Commissions are not open for viewing, but concealed. Their second argument is that the information regarding the sale value of the property sold by auction never reached their true owners.123 Therefore, these issues should be explained with some urgency and the official logs of Emvâl-i Metruke Management Commissions which were kept as two copies should be used for research. Thus, the scope and content of the property left behind the Armenians, who were subject to forced migration, can be learnt and speculations about these can be prevented. As can be understood from the first arrangements related to Emvâl-i Metruke, Ottoman authorities registered the abandoned properties in official logs and tried to take all kinds of precautions for their Armenian owners not to suffer financial losses. If the Ottoman government had been malevolent towards this issue and wished to confiscate these properties, it presumably would not think of assigning a countless number of officers to register information regarding them so meticulously. On the other hand, due to the confusion of the time weighed by the prevailing war conditions, the Government could have fallen short of achieving absolute control over the application of the procedures and there might have been authorities who abused their duties and powers. Indeed, as the archive documents illustrate, such people were put on trial and punished. However, it is not possible to conclude by using these examples that the Ottoman Empire confiscated Armenian goods by performing genocide.
123 Some of the documents in the Ottoman Archives indicate that Armenians took considerable amount of money abroad and used some of it for the activities against the Ottoman Empire. For example, the letter sent by Fuad Selim - Ottoman Ambassador to Bern- to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on February 16, 1916 mentioned that Armenians who had left Ottoman Empire and settled in Switzerland had taken substantial amount of money with them and were using some of it for the activities for the detriment of the Ottoman Empire. Moreover, claiming that these Armenians were continuing to transfer money from their account in the banks in Istanbul, he requested that necessary measurements be taken. HR. SYS, 2882/25-1,2, Osmanlı Belgelerinde Ermenilerin Sevk ve İskânı, p. 351-354.
| 426 | Gül AKYILMAZ
BIBLIOGRAPHY Ahmad, Feroz/Rustow, Dankward (1976) ‘İkinci Meşrutiyet Döneminde Meclisler 1908-1918’, Güneydoğu Araştırmaları Dergisi, S. 4-5, İstanbul. Akçam, Taner / Kurt, Ümit (2012) Kanunların Ruhu-Emvâl-i Metrûke Kanunlarında Soykırımın İzini Sürmek, İstanbul, İletişim Yayınları. Akyılmaz, Gül (1999) ‘Osmanlı Devleti’nde Reaya Kavramı ve Devlet- Reaya İlişkileri’, Osmanlı, C: 6, Ankara, Yeni Türkiye Yayınları. Akyılmaz, Gül (2000) Osmanlı Diplomasi Tarihi ve Teşkilatı, Konya, Tablet Basım Yayın. Akyılmaz, Gül (2001) ‘Tanzimat’tan Önce ve Sonra Gayrimüslimlerin Hukuki Statüsü’, Yeni Türkiye Ermeni Sorunu Özel Sayısı, Y: 7, S: 38, Ankara. Akyılmaz, Gül (2003) ‘Osmanlı Devleti’nde Zimmilerin Siyasi ve İdari Hakları ve Tanzimat ve Islahat Fermanlarının Getirdiği Yenilikler’, Dünden Bugüne Türk Ermeni İlişkileri, (Editörler: Bal, İdris/Çufalı, Mustafa), Ankara, Nobel Yayınları. Akyılmaz, Gül (2004) ‘Şark Meselesi Kavramı ve Günümüzdeki Yansımaları’, Stratejik Araştırmalar Dergisi, Y: 2, S: 4. Akyılmaz, Gül (2014) ‘Osmanlı Hukukunda Masuniyet-i Şahsiyye İlkesi’, I. Türk Hukuk Tarihi Kongresi Bildirileri 21-22 Aralık 2012, (Editör: Gedikli, Fethi), İstanbul, XII Levha Yayıncılık. Akyılmaz, Gül (2014) ‘Osmanlı Hukukundaki Düzenlemeler Çerçevesinde Yabancı Ülke Vatandaşlığına Geçen Ermenilerin Gayrimenkullerinin Hukuki Statüsü’, Yeni Türkiye Ermeni Özel Sayısı C: IV, Y: 20, S: 63. Ali Haydar (1330) Düreru’l Hukkam Şerhu Mecelleti’l-Ahkâm, C: I, İstanbul. Anderson, M. S. (1966) The Eastern Question 1774-1923, New York, Macmillan. Anderson, M. S. (1970) The Great Powers and the Near East 1774- 1923, London, Arnold Edward.
| 427 |
Gül AKYILMAZ
Armaoğlu, Fahir (2014) 19. Yüzyıl Siyasi Tarihi (1789-1914), İstanbul, Alkım Yayınları. Artinian, Vartan (tarih yok) The Armenian Constitutional System in the Ottoman Empire 1839-1863, İstanbul. Aydın, Mehmet Akif (1996) ‘Eski Hukukumuzda Gayrimüslimlerin Din ve Vicdan Hürriyeti’, İslâm ve Osmanlı Hukuku Araştırmaları, İstanbul, İz Yayıncılık. Aydın, Mehmet Akif (1999) Türk Hukuk Tarihi, İstanbul, Beta Basın Yayın Dağıtım. Barsoumian, Hagob (1982) ‘The Dual Role of the Armenian Class within the Ottoman Government and the Armenian Millet (1750-1850)’, Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire The Functioning of a Plural Society, (Edited by: Braude, Benjamin / Lewis, Bernard), V: I, New York, The Central Lands, Holmes &Meiers Publishers. Berkes, Niyazi (2010) Türkiye’de Çağdaşlaşma, İstanbul, Yapı Kredi Yayınları. Berki, Ali Himmet (1982) Açıklamalı Mecelle (Mecelle-i Ahkâm-ı Adliye), İstanbul, Hikmet Yayınları. Bozkurt, Gülnihal (1987) ‘İslâm Hukukunda Zimmîlerin Hukukî Statüleri’, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Kudred Ayiter Armağanı, C: III, S: 1–4. Bozkurt, Gülnihal (1989) Alman–İngiliz Belgelerinin ve Siyasi Gelişmelerinin Işığı Altında Gayrimüslim Osmanlı Vatandaşlarının Hukuki Durumu (1839–1914), Ankara, Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları. Bozkurt, Gülnihal (1996) Batı Hukuku’nun Türkiyede Benimsenmesi Osmanlı Devleti’nden Türkiye Cumhuriyeti’ne Resepsiyon Süreci (1839- 1939), Ankara, Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları. Braude, Benjamin (1999) ‘Millet Sisteminin İlginç Tarihi’, Osmanlı, C: 4, İstanbul, Yeni Türkiye Yayınları. Burçak, Rıfkı Salim (1984) Siyasi Tarih Ders Notları, Ankara, Gazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Yayınları.
| 428 | Gül AKYILMAZ
Cin, Halil (1987) Mirî Arazi ve Bu Arazinin Özel Mülkiyete Dönüşümü, Konya, Selçuk Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Yayınları. Cin, Halil (1987) Mirî Arazi ve Bu Arazinin Özel Mülkiyete Dönüşümü, Konya, Selçuk Üniversitesi Yayınları. Cin, Halil / Akgündüz, Ahmet (1989) Türk Hukuk Tarihi, C: 2, Konya, Selçuk Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Yayınları. Cin, Halil / Akyılmaz, Gül (2013) Türk Hukuk Tarihi, Konya, Sayram Yayınları. Clogg, Richard (1982) ‘The Greek Millet in the Ottoman Empire’, Christian and Jews in the Ottoman Empire The Functioning of a Plural Society, (Edited by: Braude, Benjamin / Lewis, Bernard), Vol. I The Central Lands, New York, Holmes&Meiers Publishers. Çark, Y. G. (1953) Türk Devleti Hizmetinde Ermeniler- 1453-1953, İstanbul, Yeni Matbaa. Çiçek, Kemal (2014) ‘I. Dünya Savaşı’nda Ermeniler: Bir Zorunlu Göç Hikâyesi’, Yeni Türkiye Ermeni Meselesi Özel Sayısı, C: IV, (Editör: Güzel, Hasan Celal), Y: 20, S: 63, Ankara. Dabağyan, Levon Panos (2010) Geçmişten Günümüze Millet-i Sâdıka-ı Osmanlı Ermenileri, Âmiralar, Devlet Adamları, Mimarlar-Hekimler-İlim Adamları, İstanbul, Yedirenk. Dadyan, Saro (2013)‘1861 Cebel-i Lübnan Nizamnamesi ve Özerk Cebel-i Lübnan'ın İlk Mutasarrıfı Garabed Artin Davud Paşa’, Toplumsal Tarih, S: 239. Dağlıoğlu, Emre Can ‘Kayseri’nin Gelişmesinde Emval-i Metrûke Vurgunu Çok Önemli Rol Oynuyor’,
| 429 | Gül AKYILMAZ
Davison, Roderic (1982) ‘The Millets as Agents of Change in the Nineteenth Century Ottoman Empire’, Christian and Jews in the Ottoman Empire The Functioning of a Plural Society, (Edited by: Braude, Benjamin / Lewis, Bernard), V: I The Central Lands, New York, Holmes &Meiers Publishers. Duman, Önder (2006) ‘Ermeni Emval-i Metrukesi ve Borçları’, Ermeni Araştırmaları, S: 22. Ebu Yusuf, (1982) Kitâb’ül Haraç, (Mütercim Mehmet Ataullah Efendi, Sadeleştiren: Karakaya, İsmail), Ankara, Akçağ Yayınları. Elbeyoğlu, Ali (2014) Osmanlı’dan Günümüze Tapu ve Emval-i Metruke, Ankara, Adalet Yayınevi. Ercan, Yavuz (2000) ‘Osmanlı Devleti’nde Müslüman Olmayan Topluluklar (Millet Sistemi)’, Yeni Türkiye Osmanlı Özel Sayısı II, Ankara. Esat, Uras (1988) The Armenians in History and the Armenian Question, İstanbul, Documentary Publications. Fahreddin Atar, (1991) İslâm Adliye Teşkilatı, Ankara, Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı Yayınları. Fidan, Yusuf (1998) İslam Hukukunda Ehl-i Kitab Kavramı ve Hükümleri, (Doktora Tezi) Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Konya. Findley, Carter V. (1982) ‘The Acid Test of Ottomanism: The Acceptance of Non–Muslims in the Late Ottoman Bureaucracy’, Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire The Functioning of a Plural Society, (Edited by: Braude, Benjamin / Lewis, Bernard), V: I, New York, The Central Lands, Holmes&Meıer Publishers. Findley, Carter V. (1996) Kalemiyeden Mülkiyeye Osmanlı Memurlarının Toplumsal Tarihi, (Çeviren: Çağalı Güven, Gül) İstanbul, Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları. Frank, Russel (1877) Russian Wars with Turkey, London, H.S. King&Co..
| 430 | Gül AKYILMAZ
Gencer, Mustafa (2002) ‘Osmanlı-Alman Münasebetleri Çerçevesinde Şark Meselesi’, Türkler, C: 13, Ankara, Yeni Türkiye Yayınları. Giritli, İsmet (1972) Superpowers in the Middle East, İstanbul, Fakülteler Matbaası. Göyünç, Nejad (2001) ‘Ermeni Tehciri ve Soykırım İddiaları’, Yeni Türkiye Ermeni Sorunu Özel Sayısı, C:I, Y. 7, S: 37, Ankara. Göyünç, Nejad (2001) ‘Osmanlı Devleti’nde Ermeniler Hakkında’, Yeni Türkiye Ermeni Sorunu Özel Sayısı, C: II, Y: 7, S: 38. Gümrükçüoğlu Okur, Saliha (2014) ‘Osmanlı Devletinde Divan’a Gönderilen Şikâyetler’, I. Türk Hukuk Tarihi Kongresi Bildirileri 21-22 Aralık 2012, (Editör: Gedikli, Fethi), İstanbul, XII Levha Yayıncılık. Güner, Hasan (2014) “Ermenilerin Geride Bıraktığı Mallar Hakkında Yapılan İlk Düzenlemeler ve Emval-i Metruke Komisyonları, Yeni Türkiye Ermeni Meselesi Özel Sayısı, C: IV, Y: 20, S: 63, (Editör: Güzel, Hasan Celal), Ankara. Gürün, Kamuran (1983) Ermeni Dosyası, Ankara, Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları. Halaçoğlu, Yusuf (2002) ‘Ermeni Tehciri ve Gerçekler’, Türkler, C: 13, Ankara, Yeni Türkiye Yayınları. Heffening, W. “Şâhid”, İslam Ansiklopedisi, C. XI, İstanbul, Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Yayınları. Hür, Ayşe ‘Ermeni Mallarını Kimler Aldı?’,
| 431 | Gül AKYILMAZ
Karal, Enver Ziya (1982) ‘Non-Muslim Representatives in the First Constitional Assembly, 1876-1877’, Christian and Jews in the Ottoman Empire The Functioning of a Plural Society, (Edited by: Braude, Benjamin/Lewis, Bernard), V: I The Central Lands, New York, Holmes &Meiers Publishers. Karal, Enver Ziya (1988) Osmanlı Tarihi Islahat Fermanı Devri (1856– 1861), C: VI, Ankara, Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları. Karal, Enver Ziya (1988) Selim III’ün Hatt-ı Hümayunları-Nizam-ı Cedid-1789-1807, Ankara, Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları. Karaman, Hayreddin (1986) Mukayeseli İslâm Hukuku, C: 3, İstanbul, Nesil Yayınları. Kardeş, Salâhaddin (2008) Tehcir ve Emvâl-i Metruke Mevzuatı, Ankara, Maliye Bakanlığı Strateji Geliştirme Başkanlığı Yayınları. Karpat, Kemal (1967) Türk Demokrasi Tarihi, İstanbul, İstanbul Matbaası. Kılıç, Davut (2003) ‘XIX. Asırda İngiltere’nin Ortadoğu Politikasının Osmanlı Ermenilerine Yansıması’, Dünden Bugüne Türk-Ermeni İlişkileri, (Editörler: Bal, İdris / Çufalı, Mustafa), Ankara, Nobel Yayınları. Kızıltoprak, Süleyman (2003) ‘Kriz Döneminde Osmanlı Bürokrasisinde Ermeniler: Nubar Paşa Örneği’, Dünden Bugüne Türk-Ermeni İlişkileri (Editörler: Bal, İdris / Çufalı, Mustafa), Ankara, Nobel Yayınları. Kodaman, Bayram (2002) ‘II. Meşrutiyet Dönemi’, Türkler, C: 13, Ankara, Yeni Türkiye Yayınları. Koyuncu, Nuran (2014) ‘Osmanlı Devleti’nde Sarrafların Mültezimlere Kefaleti’, I. Türk Hukuk Tarihi Kongresi Bildirileri 21-22 Aralık 2012, (Editör: Gedikli, Fethi), İstanbul, XII Levha Yayıncılık. Koyuncu, Nuran (2014) Osmanlı Devleti’nde Gayrimüslimlerin Din ve Vicdan Hürriyetleri Bağlamında Mâbedlerinin Hukuki Statüsü, Ankara, Adalet Yayınevi. Köse, Ensar (2014) ‘Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Toplu Hak Arama: XVIII. Yüzyıla Ait 100 Örnek Mahzar’, I. Türk Hukuk Tarihi Kongresi Bildirileri 21-22 Aralık 2012, (Editör: Gedikli, Fethi), İstanbul, XII Levha Yayıncılık.
| 432 | Gül AKYILMAZ
Külekçi, Cahit (2013) ‘Ermeni Kimliğinin Dönüşüm Süreci ve Âmira Sınıfının Oluşumu’, Hikmet Yurdu, Y: 6, C: 6, S: 12. Lewis, Bernard (1984) Modern Türkiyenin Doğuşu, Ankara, Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları. Lord Kinross, (1977) The Ottoman Centuries, The Rise and Fall of the Turkish Empire, New York, Morrow Quill Paperback. Macfie, A. L. (1989) The Eastern Question 1774-1923, New York, Longman. Marriot, J. A. (1958) The Eastern Question an Historical Study in European Diplomacy, Oxford, Clarendon. Mumcu, Ahmet (1985) Osmanlı Devleti’nde Siyaseten Katl, Ankara, Birey ve Toplum Yayınları. Mumcu, Ahmet (1986) Divan-ı Hümayun, Ankara, Toplum ve Birey Yayınları. Mumcu, Ahmet/Küzeci, Elif (2003) İnsan Hakları ve Kamu Özgürlükleri (Kavramlar, Evrensel ve Ulusal Gelişimleri, Bugünkü Durumları), Ankara, Savaş Yayınları. Onaran, Nevzat (2010) Emvâl-i Metrûke Olayı Osmanlı’da ve Cumhuriyette Ermeni ve Rum Mallarının Türkleştirilmesi, İstanbul, Belge Yayınları. Ortaylı, İlber (1974) Tanzimattan Sonra Mahalli İdareler (1840-1878), Ankara, Türkiye Amme İdaresi Enstitüsü Yayınları. Ortaylı, İlber (1976) ‘İlk Osmanlı Parlamentosunun Yapısında Eyalet İdare Meclislerinin Etkisi’, Türk Parlamentoculuğunun İlk Yüzyılı, Ankara, Ajans-Türk. Ortaylı, İlber (2001) ‘Osmanlı Ermenileri’, Yeni Türkiye Ermeni Sorunu Özel Sayısı, C: II, Y: 7, S: 38. Ortaylı, İlber (2004) ‘II. Abdülhamit Devrinde Taşra Bürokrasisinde Gayrimüslimler’, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda İktisadi ve Sosyal Değişim, Makaleler I, Ankara, Turhan Kitabevi.
| 433 | Gül AKYILMAZ
Osmanağaoğlu, Cihan (2004) Tanzimat Dönemi İtibariyle Osmanlı Tabiiyyetinin (Vatandaşlığının) Gelişimi, İstanbul, Legal Yayıncılık. Özçelik, Ayfer (2002) “1908 Meclis-i Mebusanı’nda Temel Haklar ve Hakimiyet-i Milliye ile İlgili Bazı Tartışmalar”, Türkler, C: 14, Ankara, Yeni Türkiye Yayınları. Özkorkut Ünal, Nevin (2009) Türk Hukuk Tarihinde Zina Suçu, Siyasal Kitabevi, Ankara. Sayın, Abdurrahman Vefik (1999) Tekâlif Kavaidi (Osmanlı Vergi Sistemi), (Transkripte eden Özkan, Hakan), Ankara, Maliye Bakanlığı Araştırma, Planlama ve Koordinasyon Kurulu Başkanlığı Yayınları. Shaw, Ezel Kural (1992) ‘Tanzimat Provincial Reform as Compared with European Models’, 150. Yılında Tanzimat, Ankara, Milli Kütüphane Yayını. Shaw, Stanford J. (1969) ‘The Origins of Representative Government in the Ottoman Empire An Introduction to the Provincial Councials 1839- 1876’, (Edited by: Winder, R. Bayly), Near Eastern Round Table 1967-1968, New York. Shaw, Stanford J. / Shaw, Ezel Kural (1983) Osmanlı İmparatorluğu ve Modern Türkiye, C: 2, (Çeviren: Harmancı, Mehmet), İstanbul, E Yayınları. Tahiroğlu, Tahiroğlu (1985) ‘Tanzimattan Sonra Kanunlaştırma Hareketleri’, Tanzimattan Cumhuriyete Türkiye Ansiklopedisi, C: 3, İletişim Yayınları, İstanbul. Tanilli, Server (1976) Anayasalar ve Siyasal Belgeler, Sulhi Garan Matbaası, İstanbul. Tanör, Bülent (1985) ‘Anayasal Gelişmelere Toplu Bir Bakış’, Tanzimattan Cumhuriyete Türkiye Ansiklopedisi, C: 1, İstanbul, İletişim Yayınları. Tanör, Bülent (1998) Osmanlı- Türk Anayasal Gelişmeleri, İstanbul, Yapı Kredi Kültür Sanat Yayınları. Toros, Taha (1985) ‘Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Gayrimüslim Azınlıklar’, Tanzimat’tan Cumhuriyete Türkiye Ansiklopedisi, c. 4, İstanbul, İletişim Yayınları.
| 434 | Gül AKYILMAZ
Tuncer, Seral (2014) İdari Teşkilat İlkeleri Işığında Osmanlı Devleti’nde Eyalet Sistemi, (Yüksek Lisans Tezi) Gazi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü. Ünal, Şeref (2013) ‘Ermenilerin Yabancı Devlet Mahkemeleri ve Uluslararası Yargı Organlarında Türkiye Cumhuriyeti ve Türk Vatandaşlarına Karşı Açtıkları Tazminat ve Ceza Davaları ve Hukuki Sonuçları’, Ufuk Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, C: 1, S: 2. Yumul, Arus / Balı, Rıfat B. (2003) ‘Ermeni ve Yahudi Cemaatlerinde Siyasal Düşünceler’, Cumhuriyet’e Devreden Düşünce Mirası, Tanzimat ve Meşrutiyet Birikimi, İletişim Yayınları, İstanbul.
| 435 | Gül AKYILMAZ
| 436 |
REFLECTIONS OF THE CONFLICTS WITHIN THE MAJOR WORLD POWERS TO THE ARMENIAN QUESTION DURING WORLD WAR - I∗
Dr. Bekir TANK**
ABSTRACT The Armenian Question continues to take precedence from time to time on the national and international stage, almost 100 years later. Even though the actual adversaries are the Turks and Armenians, research shows that the major world powers played a more decisive role in the augmentation of this problem as well as it remaining unresolved to our present time. The major powers, whose common denominator was to disassemble the Ottoman State and inherit its assets chose to take advantage of all of the different ethnic and religious constituents living within the Ottoman Empire - all the way from the Balkans to North Africa, the Middle East, Anatolia and the Caucasus - in their efforts to achieve their goal. Among all of the Ottoman constituents, the major powers were mostly interested in the Armenians and acted almost as if they were competing with each other over them. These powers who had elevated the Armenian Question and hence the Armenians to the international political and diplomatic arena with the Berlin Agreement of 1878, have played a role as a third party in the Armenian question since its creation to our present time. The fact that these powers remained on opposing sides during World War-I, did not stop them from taking pains not to spoil their relationships with the Armenians. In return, the Armenians carried on their relationship with the Central Powers to the exclusion of the Ottoman State. There is direct effect of the major powers in the expansion of the problems which arose between the Muslims and Armenians due to the Ottoman State’s incapability to provide security, as well as turning of the peace between them into a state of mutual and bitter distrust. In time, the major powers succeeded to convert their influence over the Armenian Question into a custodian relationship.
∗ This text is translated by Fatma Sarıkaya and Oya Uslu Çetin. ** Teaching Staff at the Istanbul Ticaret University, [email protected]
| 437 |
Bekir TANK
The involvement of the major powers with the Armenians is divided into three phases, according to their features. Their first stage relationships are limited to religious and cultural issues. In the second phase, these relationships gain a political dimension with the signing of the Berlin agreement in 1878. The feature of the third stage is the addition of a military extension during World War-I. This study examines the role created for the Armenians by the major powers in the second and third stages of their relationships, how the politics they carried out regarding the Armenian Question affected the conflicts among each other, and the cost of these policies to the Turks and Armenians.
SECTION-1: MAJOR POWERS AND THE ARMENIANS The relations of the European States with the Armenians have been initiated with the religious missionaries and are in general limited to religious, social and cultural topics. The 19th Century is also an era when new balance of power was established as well as colonies and occupations forged within the continent and across the ocean. While the Ottoman Empire was in the process of rapidly losing its hallmark as a power state, Germany, Italy, Britain, France and of course Russia have gained relative power, during these years. The key concept that the aforementioned countries used in order to dismantle the Ottoman Empire, which they saw as an obstacle in the expansion of their sphere of influence, is the Eastern Question. In spite of the competition and the frequent fights among themselves, the subject that they collaborated on most happened to be on this subject. It must be recognized that they were successful against the Ottoman Empire in using the concept of nationalistic and separatist feelings that came about with the 1789 French Revolution. The major powers used the missionaries as vanguards during this period. The missionaries did not feel uncomfortable about serving in accordance with the political desires of their states or in the politicizing of their activities. Anatolia turned into an important arena where many countries ran into fierce competition with each other, over their missionaries from the 1830’s onwards.1
1 Kieser, Hans-Lukas (2005) Iskalanmış Barış Doğu Vilayetlerinde Misyonerlik, Etnik Kimlik ve Devlet 1839 – 1938 (Translation), İstanbul, İletişim, p. 61.
| 438 | Bekir TANK
The Armenians educated in Europe returned back to their countries armed with nationalistic and separatist ideals besides their diplomas. They also had benefited from the support of Russia, England and France in their introduction with nationalist and separatist ideals, during their education in Europe.2 The circulation of these nationalist and separatist ideals among the Armenians originated with the establishment of a secret committee named “Hayk and Oriun” in Istanbul, in 1862. This club was the branch of a British Masonic Lodge named the Manchester Odd Fellows. An association named “Ser” was established in 1866, by the Masonic Lodge named: Loge Grand Orient de France.3
A. MAJOR POWERS AND THEIR RELATIONS WITH THE ARMENIANS FROM 1878 TO 1914 Ending the Russo-Ottoman War of 1877-78 with the triumph of the Russian State and signing of the Ayastefanos Agreement, whose stipulations were quite heavy against the Bab-ı Ali, promptly activated Britain and the other powers. The real reason prompting action of these powers was Russia’s expansion of its sphere of influence and grabbing her long-awaited opportunity to reach warm waters with this agreement. Such unexpected success of Russia endangered the interests of the other countries with Great Britain at the outset. The 16th article of the agreement obliged the Ottoman Empire to commit to reforms improving the condition of the Armenians.4 Britain, who saw this success of Russia as a major threat to its own interests, pioneered the establishment of a congress in Berlin, even before the ink dried on the Ayastefanos Agreement. The congress which started on June 13, with the participations of Germany, France, Britain, Italy, Ottoman State, Austro-Hungarian Empire, Russia, Romania, Greece and Serbia5 concluded with an agreement on July 13th.6
2 Sertçelik, Seyit (2015) Rus ve Ermeni Kaynakları Işığında Ermeni Sorunu Ortaya Çıkış Süreci 1678 – 1914, Srt, p. 265. 3 Ohandjanian, Artem (1989) Armenien der Verschwiegene Vökermord, Böhlau Verlag, Wien, Köln, Graz, p. 21. 4 HHSTA, BA Konstantinopel, 506, London, 20.10.1896. 5 PA AA, Türkei 133, Band 1, Armenier R: 13064,.Nr:7000; for more information pls see Geiss, Ima- nuel (1978) Der Berliner Kongress 1878: Protokolle und Materialien. Boldt, Boppard, am Rhein. 6 Tuğlacı, Pars (2004) Tarih Boyunca Batı Ermenileri Vol: II, İstanbul, p. 513.
| 439 | Bekir TANK
The 61st article of the Berlin Agreement dictated: “The Ottoman State pledges to carry out the reforms necessitated for the improvement of the areas inhabited by the Armenians and to protect the Armenians against the Kurds and Circassens. The Ottoman State also pledges to report to the Major Powers who will oversee the precautions taken in this regard and their enforcement.”7 “Major Powers” mentioned in here are Russia, France, Germany, Austro- Hungarian Empire and Italy. Altogether they are usually referred to as Major Powers. Even though the USA did not attend the Berlin Agreement, due to the role she played in the Armenian Question, it is also considered as part of the Major Powers. The 61st article of the Berlin agreement lays responsibilities not only on the Ottoman State, but also on all parties: the Ottoman State will accomplish the reforms and report at all stages to the interested countries, in return they will follow up these reforms and contribute to the solution of the problem throughout the processing phase. However, the powers used this article as a means to intrude in the internal affairs of the Ottoman State.8 In the meantime, naturally, the Armenians are expected to act responsibly and stay away from all kinds of violent activities. However, the Ottoman Empire was forced to take counter measures due to the Armenians spreading their terrorist activities throughout Anatolia and the Major Powers attempting to stage the same tactics they had performed in the Balkans once more - this time in Anatolia, using the Armenians. Establishment of the Hamidiye Regiments9 in Eastern Anatolia by Abdulhamid the Second in the year 1891 is for the prevention of Armenian attacks and establishment of security as well as for spoiling this game. Thus the Armenians, who had much bigger expectations, experienced their first disappointment regarding the Major Powers. In spite of this, they find solace in the fact that the events to follow up from then on would come
7 PA AA, Türkei 133 Band 1, Armenier R 13064, 13.07.1878. HHSTA, BA Konstantinopel 412, 28.01.1879, Nr. 35 C. 8 Ohandjanian, p. 24. 9 Kodaman, Bayram (1979) ‘Hamidiye Hafif Süvari Alayları. (II. Abdülhamit ve Doğu-Anadolu Aşiret- leri)’, Tarih Magazine, Issue: 32, p. 427–480; Klein, Janet (2013) Hamidiye Alayları- İmparatorluğun Sınır Boyları ve Kürt Aşiretleri (Translation) İstanbul; Günay, Sakıp Selçuk (1983) ‘Hamidiye Hafif Süvari Alayları: 1890-1918’ (PhD), Atatürk Üniversitesi Ed. Fak. Dept of History; Avyarov (1995) Osmanlı - Rus ve İran Savaşlarında Kürtler 1801 - 1900, Ankara, Sipan.
| 440 | Bekir TANK under the protection of the Major Forces. The Armenians consider the umbrella of the Major Powers as an important achievement, because the Armenian Question from then on gains an international dimension.10 The fact that the Armenians could not see some of the realities or preferred to overlook them must have drawn the attention of Forster, one of the Liberal parliamentarians of Great Britain that he found it necessary to caution the Armenian Delegation attending the Berlin Congress. He says the following to the Armenian Delegation headed by Peter Kirimyan (in summary): “Do not exhaust Russia by annoying it, as it is your neighbor. As far as Great Britain is concerned … due to the long distance in between, it is difficult for us to protect the Armenians. So, do not allow yourselves to become puppets in the hands of neither the Republicans nor the Liberals of Britain. Britain is capable of protecting only the coastline. But, there is no sufficient Armenian population south of the Black Sea coast. In spite of this I ask you: are you capable of protecting yourself, if a state is guaranteed to you in this region? Do the Armenians have such power? No! So, you should not depend on Britain’s aid or her promise for aid!”11 In fact, the events unfold just as Foster had speculated; while advocating more cunning promises to the Armenians on one hand, Britain tries to sever more concessions from the Ottoman State on the other hand, by using the Armenians as material for blackmailing. For example, while the Berlin Congress deliberations continued, Ambassador Layard of Britain in Istanbul tried to convince the Armenians during secret deliberations so as not to arouse suspicion of the Bab-ı Ali,12 by telling them: “the path to the reforms they expect to achieve passes from England”13 but used this situation of the Armenians as a lucky encounter and succeeded to gain some concessions from the Ottoman State in the meantime. An example of this is the secret agreement regarding the annexation and administration of the Island of Cyprus between the Ottoman State and Britain on June 4, 1878 in return for the military aid that the British would render to the Ottoman State.14
10 Tuğlacı, p. 516. 11 Barikian, Anahid (1948) Die Entwicklung der Armenischen Frage im 19. Jahrhundert. Diss. Wien, p. 138. 12 Barikian, p. 126. 13 Ohandjanian, p. 24. 14 Ternon, Yves (1981) Tabu Armenien, Frankfurt, p. 43.
| 441 | Bekir TANK
The following words of Salisbury, mentioned during his contacts at the Berlin Congress expose the intentions and final aims of the Major Powers: “I believe neither in the reforms in Turkey15 nor the effective precautions aimed to protect the Armenians. Our aim in here is to save the Armenian districts within Turkey from possible occupation of Russia.”16 The other powers think no different than Britain. The reason for the Armenians relying on Major Powers, in spite of all of this, is due to their hope and belief that every blow hammered down on the Ottoman State would bring them one step closer to their independence.17 Following the Berlin Agreement, the problems in the region continue to increase and spread instead of declining, because neither the Major Powers have any intention to solve the problem nor those who are involved in politics in the name of the Armenians have any imagination of a shared future with the Turks anymore. Whilst the talks on reforms continue between the Ottoman State and the Major Powers, the Armenians strategically organize within the country and outside. While organizations named Armenakans,18 Ermeni Silahlılar Derneği19 [Armenian Armed Association] and Kara Haç Cemiyeti20 [Black Cross Society] were established within the Ottoman borders, parties named Vatanseverler Cemiyeti21 [Patriots Society], Hunchak Party22, and Dashnak Party23 were established outside the borders. The Dashnak Party has close ties with the Russian extreme terror organization “Narodnaja Wolja” and is
15 While they referred to the “Ottoman State” and “Babıali” as the Ottoman Empire and Sublime Porte in the British sources, as “Das osmanische Reich”- “Die hohe Pforte”- “Pforte” in the German Archives previously, they started to prefer such names as “Asia Turkey”- “Turkey” and “Asiatische Türkei” – “Türkei” later, Klein, Hamidiye Alayları. There were times that they used only “Turkey” and “Türkei”. What Salisbury refers to with “Turkey” in here is the Ottoman State. 16 Barikian, p. 155. 17 Ohandjanian, p. 22. Pomiankowski, Joseph (1928) Der Zusammenbruch des Osmanischen Reiches, Leipzig, p. 156-157. 18 KG. ED, p. 129. 19 EU. TEEM, p. 430. 20 EU. TEEM, p. 430. 21 Ohandjanian, p. 21. 22 Şimşir, Bilal British Documents, Vol. II. p. 20. 23 Ohandjanian, p. 21; Uras, Esat (1987)Tarihte Ermeniler ve Ermeni Meselesi, İstanbul, Belge, p. 442- 443.
| 442 | Bekir TANK supported by this organization.24 Their common feature is favoring independence. Among these, the Hunchakian Revolutionary Party is set up in Geneva, Switzerland in the year 1887, under the leadership of Avedis Nazarbekian.25 The aim of the party which has a social democratic world view is to establish a united Armenia comprising of the Armenians living within the Ottoman State, Russia and Iran. Attention and participation to this party is extraordinary and “it was able to gather within its ranks seven thousand militants consisting mainly of educated Armenians as well as officials working in the consulates and marine enterprises within seven months, in Istanbul alone, which only was a mobility center.”26 Dashnak Party is founded in Tiflis in the year 1890.27 Carrying out an armed struggle in order to establish an autonomous Armenia within the Ottoman State and bringing together the other organizations under its umbrella are among the aims of this organization. They execute their first serious deed in Erzurum, in the year 1890.28 The demonstration in Istanbul’s Kumkapı district follows next.29 Activities which spread out and turn into rebellions in many locations of Anatolia continue until the year 1895.30 Major Powers’ relations with Armenians differ from each other: while Germany, Italy and Austro-Hungarian Empire restrict their relations and the sphere of influence they wish to establish over the Armenians to the subjects of religious-political-diplomatic relations and financial support, Russia, England and France enter a close military relationship and provocative activities, in addition to those listed above.
24 Lanne, Peter (1977) Armenien: Der Erste Völkermord des 20. Jahrhunderts, München, p. 94-95. 25 Lewy, Guenter (2012) 1915 Osmanlı Ermenilerine Ne Oldu? Çarpıtılan-Değiştirilen Tarih, İstanbul, Timaş, p. 35. 26 Ternon, Yves (2012) Bir Soykırım Tarihi (20 Yıl Sonra Ermeni Tabusu Davası), İstanbul, Belge, p. 124. 27 For more information regarding the mentioned parties pls see: Nalbandian, Louise (1963) The Ar- menian Revolutionary Movement. The Development Of Armenian Political Parties Through The Ni- neteenth Century, California. 28 Ohandjanian, p. 30-31; Von der Golz (1929) Denkwürdigkeiten, Berlin, p. 158; Gürün, Kamuran (2005) Ermeni Dosyası, Ankara, Remzi, p. 140,141; Küçük, Cevdet (1986), Osmanlı Diplomasisinde Ermeni Meselesinin Ortaya Çıkışı, İstanbul, Türk Dünyası Araştırmaları Vakfı, p.108. 29 Akgündüz, Ahmet (2008) Sorularla Ermeni Meselesi, İstanbul, OSAV, p. 286. 30 OBE, c. 11, b. 38, OBE, c. 12, b. 8; Gürün, p.164-165.
| 443 | Bekir TANK
It is true that the Armenians had problems stemming from security issues from the 1870’s onwards. Actually, such problems hold true for the other constituents of the Empire too, and each of these events has kept the Bab-ı Ali concerned in proportion to their size and level of severity. Major Powers, on the other hand, carried to the agenda only the problems that they could use to serve their benefit and turned these events into a means for pressuring the Ottoman State instead of finding a fair solution.31 According to Roth-München, the Armenian Problem is “another name for the competition and political desires that the Major Powers entered with each other in Asia Minor.”32 Major Powers open up new schools and consulates in many parts of Anatolia, immediately after the Berlin Agreement and start to report all developments of the region to their head quarters.33 Instead of encouraging the Armenians to calm down and be patient, as well as strengthening the hand of the Ottoman State so that they can apply the necessary reforms, they use the situation to gain more concessions from the Ottoman Empire on one hand while providing finances and armament to the Armenians on the other, whilst infusing provocative and separatist inspirations. Upon examination of the reform programs that they prepared and drew attention from time to time and presented to the Bab-ı Ali, it is seen that these programs lacked sincere content. Both in the reform programs that they prepared and in their selection of inspectors and commissions, they have followed a policy which in general violated the sovereignty of the Ottoman State. An example of this: The Armenians expand the wide scale actions that they first started in 1893 in Yozgat 34, later into places like Sason35, Zeytun and Bitlis. During these activities many people from both sides lose their lives. Consequently, ambassadors of the major powers decide to send a commission to these districts. However, the American Ambassador in Istanbul refuses to participate in the investigative commission which was to be established in Bitlis, and states that “if necessary, he will go there without consultation with
31 Nansen, Fridtjos (1928) Betrogenes Volk, Leipzig 1928, p. 290. 32 Roth-München, p. 2. 33 HHSTA, BA Konstantinopel 474, Konstantinopel, 5.12.1894. 34 HHSTA, BA Konstantinopel 474. Konstantinopel, 28.12.1893. 35 PA AA, Türkei 183 Band 8, Armenier R 14057, The Times, 17.11.1894.
| 444 | Bekir TANK the Ottoman authorities”.36 This action of the American Ambassador in itself is an infraction to the sovereignty rights of the Ottoman State. Upon examination of the relations of Major Powers with the Ottoman State, it will be seen that such an action was not restricted to the American Ambassador alone, but that all of the mentioned governments violated the sovereignty rights of the Ottoman State, at every opportunity. Archival documents show that the Russians engaged in provocative activities since the beginning, and the British and French did not refrain from the same.37 The British Vice-Consul Clayton reports in September 1880 that the Armenians were in preparation for rebellion in Van and the Russians were helping them.38 This coincides with the same time frame that the Russians send their officers to the region with the purpose of inciting the Armenians.39 Everett, the British Consul in Erzurum draws attention to the fact that the Armenians are in preparation of a rebellion in Erzurum too.40 The separatist Armenian Organizations do not restrict their activities to just Muslim targets alone; they apply pressure and even commit many murders of Armenians who do not side with them nor help them. According to the news of the Timpul newspaper dated March 31, 1894: an Armenian named Agop attempts to murder the Armenian Patriarch Horen Ashikian for being incapable and remaining indifferent to the cause41 and the execution of the Akhtamar Priest by a gang of five bandits42 are only two of hundreds of such events. Gangs from all ethnic groups are present in the area with the intent to steal, plunder, pillage and murder. Only the Armenian bandits differ from all others in their separatist ideals. Gangs with no claims to any religious ideals did not refrain from exploiting the religious card in order to earn legitimacy to their activities. Because the gangs selected their targets or their victims devoid of racial or religious concern in general, their activities towards those sharing their own belief are not few in number. In other words, it has been seen that
36 HHSTA, BA Konstantinopel 474. Konstantinopel, 5.12.1894. 37 HHSTA, BA Konstantinopel 300, Konstantinopel, 15.03.1878, Nr. 21/A-L. 38 Şimşir, Bilal (1895) Documents On Ottoman Armenians Volume I-IV, Ankara, TTK, Vol. II. p. XV . 39 OBE, c.4, b. 64. 40 Gürün, p. 127. 41 OBE, c. 18, b. 75. 42 HHSTA (Austrian Government Archieve), BA Konstantinopel, Karton Nr. 414, Trabzon, 16.12.1904.
| 445 | Bekir TANK the Armenian gangs targeted Armenians, Kurdish gangs the Kurds and the Circassen gangs the Circassens, from time to time.43 The archive documents show that the Russians were involved in many activities with their agents or soldiers, sometimes directly and sometimes indirectly. For example: Russian soldiers are among the Iranian Kurds who attacked the Kurds in Van.44 Another event is reported as: “the attacks of the Kurdish bands in Iran continues, one of the gangs crossed the border and robbed the Ottoman Kurds and since they cut-off the telegraph lines during the process, it became impossible to communicate by wire.”45 An activity from the Nestorians: “The Iranian Nestorian bands entered into the Ottoman Kurdish regions and returned back with hundreds of farm animals that they stole from them.”46 It looks as if the Major Forces landed in Anatolia so to speak, following the Berlin Agreement. They open up schools all around Anatolia and consulates in strategic cities. The missionaries, teachers and agents of each country cooperates amongst themselves and when necessary with each other. They report all of the developments of the region to all interested parties. In the meantime, the missionaries have played the role of a vanguard and showed interest in political rather than religious issues. Contented with the role bestowed on themselves, they put their churches under the services of the political command. Naturally, the influence of each country over the Armenians remained in proportion to the relationship they could establish with the Armenian people. The report which was printed in the second year of the war, but prepared prior to World War-I by the Eastern Mission of the Christian Church affiliated to Germany contains the following sentiments: “The schools belonging to the French educate 110,000 students, the American schools 18,000, Russians 12,000, the British 1,000, Italian 5,000 and the German schools (Catholic and other) educate 3,000 students. These numbers explain to us the advantages of these four countries and in which direction the
43 Pls see: Sertçelik, p. 60-71. 44 PA AA, Türkei, 183 Band 32, Armenier R 14081, Therapia, 3.08.1913. 45 PA AA, Türkei, 183Band 33, Armenier R 14082. Nr. 7105, Therapia, (İstanbul), 2.10.1913. 46 PA AA, Türkei, 183Band 33, Armenier R 14082, Nr. 7103. Therapia, 17.10.1913.
| 446 | Bekir TANK sympathy of the Christians in the East are directed towards and at the same time, it explains the damage the war has caused to the Catholic East Mission.”47 When explained without mincing words, the missionaries have been used by the countries they were affiliated with. Here is the paragraph related to this subject from Prof. Leonhard Lemmen’s book: “Elevation of Asiatic Turkey to the forefront of the European politics following the Crimean War of 1853-1856 as well as the Western Powers starting a competition for their own power and priorities in that region have been unlucky for the Eastern Mission. Some powers have brought their missions and schools into prominence. Because they provided financial aid for the missionaries, the missionary work faced the danger of being pulled into the worldly and political field. Missionaries were consciously or unconsciously becoming political agents, seeds of national jealousy were being sown among the religious envoys and the work carried out in the East almost turned religion and state into a worldly and political institution, inseparable from each other.”48 Spying carried out by the missionaries during the war is not seen as an extraordinary situation.49 Their involvement with politics to such a degree and actions like favoring those belonging to their sect rather than the needy50 while providing help has considerably overshadowed their respectability. Summarized from the German Ambassador’s report dated August 24, 1915: “The preparation time allowed to the Armenians of this region for their relocation has been reduced from 8 to 6 days and 2,000 people are to be relocated. The Armenian Archbishop requests me to inform via a telegraph that “all Gregorian Armenians wish to convert to the Protestant sect and they desire the Kaiser’s protection.” Also news is circulating all around that all of the Catholics have been exempted from relocation due to the Austrian King Franz Joseph’s efforts.”51 The Armenians who did not face any pressure and thus protected their religious-sectarian integrity while they were under the administration of
47 Diözsesenarchiv, MEV II, Bonn, 7.09.1916. 48 Lemmens Leonhard (1916) Die Franziskaner im heiligen Lande, Münster, p. 194,210-212, HHSTA, PA XII 463. 49 Gust, p. 199. 50 HHSTA, PA XII 209 Konstantinopel, 30.09.1915, Nr. 79; HHSA, PA XII 464 Konstantinopel, 8.01.1916, No: 2. 51 PA AA, Botschaft Konia / 170; A53a, 4857, 25.08.1915.
| 447 | Bekir TANK the Muslims lose their religious-sectarian integrity for the first time, due to the missionary activities. IE: the emergence of Catholic, Protestant and other sects among the Armenians is the result of missionary activities.52 At no time have these powers, who gained a political dimension with the Berlin Agreement to their relationship with the Armenians taken frank and tangible steps in the direction of solving Armenians’ problems. On the contrary, they have strived to convert the Armenians into a problem within the Ottoman State. Their fear that applicable reform proposals could become effective over the Armenians could be another reason for the other countries’ refusal of such offers.53 The topics not agreed upon and the alliances established among these countries overseeing the reforms, naturally reflected on their relations with the Armenians. Germany, Austro-Hungarian Empire and Italy who got together on May 20, 1882 to form the “Triple [Entente]-Alliance” front followed a moderate policy, relatively distant from agitation. On the other hand, with Russia at the helm, Britain and France encouraged the Armenians into violence, providing financial and political aid prior to, but especially after forming the Triple Entente front in 1907.54 It is observed that the Ottoman State’s losing of its lands in the Balkans and North Africa and thus withdrawing into Asia Minor, reflected upon the politics of the Major Powers and forced them to lay out new targets going forward. The Ottoman State is no longer secure within the boundaries of Asia Minor where it was forced to withdraw. Germany’s eye and priority lies on the fertile lands of Çukurova, the Baghdad Railway project and the trade district leading up to the Caucasus and Asia.55 It becomes apparent that Germany who quietly watched the policies and desires of the other powers who yielded signature authority over Asiatic Turkey, reminded the other powers of its presence in case of a possible carve up. From the report, dated June 13, 1913 of the Ambassador of Austria in
52 Similar to Mekitar (1676-1747) an Armenian from Sivas converting into Catholicizm and starting to spread this sect. For more information, pls see: Arat, Mari Kristin (1990) Die Wiener Mechitharisten: armenische Mönche in der Diaspora. Böhlau, Wien – Köln; Scherer F. (1892) Die Mechitaristen in Wien, Wien. 53 PA AA, Türkei 183 Band 31, Armenier, R 14080, Therapia (Tarabya-İstanbul), 06.07.1913. 54 HHSTA, BA Konstantinopel, 474, 28.12.1893. 55 HHSTA, PA XII 209, Adrianopel, 10.11.1915. Z. 100/P
| 448 | Bekir TANK
Istanbul: “In case Britain does not sincerely wish strengthening of Turkey, and acts unwilling to work in a collaborative fashion, there is no doubt that all efforts would go to waste and dismembering of the Ottoman Empire would become only a matter of time. Germany too targets to pick as much as possible from this partake.”56 “Following the Balkan Wars, Berlin changed its direction and Germany’s policies towards Turkey stepped out from its undivided solid state. Rather than the thought of protection of the Turks throughout the entire process, the thought of highest gain for Germany from a possible partitioning of Turkey took precedence.”57 There is no dissent among the Major Powers as far as demolishing the Ottoman State and dividing its remains among themselves, but only a matter of timing most suiting their own interests.58 The railroad project in Asia Minor seems enticing to the Russians and the French, as much as it is to the Germans. With her eyes set on the railway project in Anatolia, France is also making calculations to get involved in interest relations with Russia over Anatolia. Germany, on the other hand is not ready to absorb such a surprise.59 In spite of being uncomfortable with the calculations made over them by the Major Powers, the Armenians also cognizant that they cannot succeed without a strong backing. In the meantime, the job of convincing the Armenians falls on Lepsius. According to Lepsius: “By supporting the reforms, Germany would guarantee the sympathies of the Armenians and also become effective in the most dangerous regions, together with Turkey”.60 Conversion of Mechitar61, an Armenian from Sebastea (Sivas), into the Catholic sect and his followers’ carrying their center to Vienna in the year 1810, brought the relations of Austro-Hungarian Empire with the Armenians into a more advantageous status.
56 HHSTA, 3015- Yeniköy, 19.06.1913. 57 HHSTA, PA XII 207. Yeniköy, 24,06.1914, No: 46 / P. A-H. 58 HHSTA, PA XII 206, Konstantinopel 22.05.1913; HHSTA, PA XII 462, London, 30.05.1913; HHSTA, BA Berlin 202, Konstantinopel, 2.03.1914. 59 HHSTA PA XII 306, Yeniköy, 10.06.1913. 60 PA AA, Türkei 183 Band 33, Armenier R 14082, Nr. 7103, Potsdam, 1.10.1913. 61 Mechitar, (1676-1747) is an Armenian from Sivas who converts to Catholic Sect under the influence of a missioner named Jesuiten Jacques Villotte, whom he met in Echmiadzin. He greatly influenced ot- her Armenians’ conversion into the Catholic Sect; Inglisian, Vahan (1961) Hundertfünfzig Jahre Mechitaristen in Wien (1811-1961), Wien.
| 449 | Bekir TANK
Opening of over 40 schools in Anatolia by Austria hints about the extent of Austria - Armenian (Christian) relations.62 Graf Kalnoky,63 who signed up the Berlin Agreement representing Austria as its Minister of Foreign Affairs, informs Graf Kalrolyi, his Ambassador in London about a meeting he held in Vienna with Britain’s Ambassador to Istanbul like this: “According to Lord Dufferin’s observations, the Armenians of the Ottoman State have under no circumstances thought of cessation, even though their pain has gotten to an unbearable state within the Ottoman State whose economy has turned poor. In spite of this the conditions are suitable to cloud the thought process of the Armenians. If the Sultan does not take steps to improve the conditions of the Armenians nor provide confidence, he would have pushed them into the bosom of the Russians. Russia’s elevation to such a state in Asia-Minor is against the interests of British and European powers. As Austria, we favor separation of Armenians, but we do not want to occupy the Sultan with this problem. In order to protect our interests in the Balkans, we need a strong Turkey. Enormous finances are necessary to carry out serious corrections in the region. But we doubt that the government will provide necessary means and facilities for this. In return for our friendly approach to them on the problem of Egypt, England overlooks our falling behind in the Armenian problem, in other words acting unlike them.”64 Austria intentionally distances itself from suggestions, statements and actions that could be interpreted as intervention on the Ottoman State’s internal affairs. “By mentioning the Armenian unrest and the murders which took place in Anatolia, the American Ambassador has indicated to me a short time ago, that in case Turkey acted in unison with Austro-Hungaria and Germany, that disturbances and Armenian massacres could take place in Turkey. Esteemed Morgenthau tried to convince me to voice in the presence of the grand vizier my advocacy that provocations and serious consequences could take place if harsh precautions were not taken. I have no intention to do that. Because, besides such suggestions not being taken into consideration, it can be
62 Esenkal, Ebru (2007) ‘Yabancı Ülkeler Tarafından Osmanlı Coğrafyasında Açılan Okullar’, Edirne Trakya Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, p. 85-88. 63 Zamorsky, Georg / Kalnoky Gustav Graf (2008) die Jahre des Reifens zum k.u.k. Aussenminister, Wien, Universitaet Wien, Nr: A 312 295. 64 HHSTA, BA, Konstantinopel 412, Vienna, 31.05.1883.
| 450 | Bekir TANK interpreted as mingling in their internal affairs by Turkey. This would probably be the most unpleasant situation coming especially from an allied power.”65 Both, the desires of Russia to reach warm waters through Eastern Anatolia and the fact that some of the Armenians happened to be living in Russia, added greater importance to the Russian-Armenian relations. Sources reveal that Russia made calculations over the Armenian opposition activities towards the Ottoman State from XIXth Century onwards.66 The appearance of Armenians on an international agreement for the first time happened due to Russian efforts during the Ayastefanos Agreement. According to the 16th article of this agreement, Russia was accepted as the protector of the Armenians.67 It can be said that the widest communication network in the region belongs to Russia. That Russia had established by 1915, up to 15 consulates and diplomatic representatives, only in Anatolia and North West Iran is evidence enough about their activities in the region.68 The relations of the British with the Armenians goes back well before the Berlin Agreement. The British missionaries had established relations with the Armenians through the schools they opened up in places like Istanbul, Harput and Antep and had succeeded even to convert some Armenians to their sect.69 It stands out that Britain has an Armenian policy of its own. Britain has come to resist any changes which could increase Russia’s influence over the Armenians.70 At the same time, they have not stayed away from providing considerable material support to the Armenians. They never favored the idea of the Armenians gaining autonomy or independence due to the fear that Russia may annex it as a second step.71 Despite all of this, Britain succeeded to achieve maximum gain from the Armenian problem. What separates Britain from the other powers is that it viewed the Armenian problem as a double
65 HHSTA, PA XII 209. Konstantinopel, 25.04.1915. Nr. 32 / P-D. 66 Pls see: Sertçelik, p. 97 67 HHSTA, BA Konstantinopel 474, 20.10.1896. Şimşir, Bilal (2011) Osmanlı Ermenileri, İstanbul, p. 22. 68 Gust, Wolfgang (2012) Alman Belgeleri Ermeni Soykırımı 1915-16, (Translation) İstanbul, p. 185. 69 Ohandjanian, p. 24. 70 HHSTA, BA, Konstantinopel 412, London, 24.10.1883. No: 55/C. 71 Tansel, Selahattin (1991) Mondros’tan Mudanya’ya Kadar I, İstanbul, MEB, p. 104-105.
| 451 | Bekir TANK edged sword and used one side against Russia and the other against the Ottoman State. For example, while the Berlin Congress was being debated they succeeded to take administration of Cyprus from the Ottoman State.72 In a report that he sent from London, Von Hegenmuller mentions the reasons for such stances of Britain: “Besides not favoring that the six countries should act together to pressure the Bab-ı Ali to improve the conditions for the Armenians, Britain is not thinking of an autonomy or a special status for the Armenians."73 It is Britain who prevented the protector status that Russia had gained for all by himself over the Christians of the Ottoman Empire through the Ayastefanos Agreement, by the Berlin Agreement that it spearheaded and by sharing with the other countries the inspector status over the reforms. In order to be influential over the Armenians, just like the other countries, Britain has also used all methods possible, all the way from diplomacy to politics and from religion to education and to economy.74 In regards to its policy on the Armenian problem, on one hand it tried not to anger the Ottoman state and on the other hand with the multifaceted support that it provided to the Armenians it did not stay away from supporting the Armenians against the Ottoman State, throughout the process. For example, besides helping the Armenians to organize and to spread their ideas of nationalism and independence among themselves, it is also known that they provoked the Armenians’ religious-nationalistic feelings through its Eastern Intelligence Organization.75 Britain’s political relations with the Armenians started from the second half of the XIXth Century onwards. The Organization named “Hayk and Oriun” that the nationalistic Armenians established in Istanbul in 1862 is a branch of the Manchester Odd Fellows Masonic Lodge of Britain.76
72 HHSTA, PA III, 115, (Behind the Curtains during the Berlin debate of 1878) Über den Verlauf der Verhandlungen in Berlin 1878. 73 HHSTA, BA, Konstantinopel 412, London, 24.10.1883, No: 55/C. 74 HHSTA, KA AOK NA 1915, K 3527 Konstantinopel 19.05, 1915, No: 1685. 75 Wegener, Hans Ludwig (1942) Der britische Geheimdienst im Orient. Theorie u. Intrige als Mittel engl. Politik. — Berlin: Junker u. Dünnhaupt. p. 132. 76 Ohandjanian, p. 21.
| 452 | Bekir TANK
Italy’s first relations with the Armenians came about through its missionaries77 and the schools78 that it opened up in Benghazi in 1893. Later, Italy too chose to take advantage of the religious and ethnic minorities of the Ottoman State owing to its military and trade interests in the Mediterranean and its occupational desires in North Africa. Italy’s relations with the Armenians and approach to the Armenian problem are more like that of Germany and Austria. Italy tried not to create many problems with the Ottoman State in order to protect its own interests. Italy’s approach to the reform efforts was also more reasonable and more positive; it wanted the sovereignty of the Ottoman State to be adhered to, in the reforms to be attained. For example in response to Russia’s request of support, which was not adhering to this subject in the prepared reform plan, Italy replied: “With the condition that the reforms should not harm the unity of Turkey, and not harm the respectability and authority of the Sultan”.79 The only country which was involved in the Armenian Affair, even though she did not have signature in the Berlin Agreement of 1878 was the United States of America. The USA started its activities which centered on Protestant missionary activities in Anatolia around the 1800’s in Izmir80. However, its activity directly aimed at the Armenians is the school it opened up in Beyoğlu-Istanbul in 1834.81 The official acceptance of the Protestant Sect by the Ottoman Government in 1850 has increased both the influence of the USA over the Armenians and caused further spreading of this sect among the Armenians.82 Some of the claims still occupying the world public opinion in regards to the Armenian Question belong to Henry Morgenthau.83 Having served as
77 Lemmens, p. 194, 210-212. 78 Mutlu, Şamil (2005) Osmanlı Devleti’nde Misyoner Okulları, İstanbul, p. 51. 79 HHSTA, PA XII 463, Wien, 19.06.1913. 80 Esenkal, p. 110. 81 Kocabaşoğlu, Uygur (1988) Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda 19. yüzyılda Amerikan MatbPAA:ları ve Yayımcılığı, İstanbul, p. 60. 82 BOA (Ottoman Archieve of Ministry, Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi), OBE, Vol: 16, b. 27. For more information pls see: White, George E. (1995) Bir Amerikan Misyonerinin Merzifon Amerikan Koleji Hatıraları, (Translation: Cem Tarık Yüksel), İstanbul, Enderun. 83 Levy, Herbert (2010) Henry Morgenthau, Jr. The Remarkable Life of FDR's Secretary of the Treasury; Morgenthau Henry (2003) Ambassador Morgenthau Story, Wayne State University Press. (Original edition 1918).
| 453 | Bekir TANK the Ambassador of the USA in Istanbul from 1913-1916, Morgenthau has personally observed the relocation of Armenians on location at one time, and later prepared a report containing his observations, impressions and thoughts on the subject. Even though later research has shown that Morgenthau distorted some facts and some of the sources that he based his claims upon were unreliable84, continuous use of him as a source until now, by some fractions and governments in misleading the world public opinion can only be evaluated as an ulterior motive.
B. NEW TARGETS OF THE MAJOR POWERS FOLLOWING THE BALKAN WARS The Ottoman State with many nationalities, religions and sects becomes unable to defend its unity when faced with the thoughts of nationalism, which spread following the French Revolution. Major Powers contribute to the spread of this thought process and for the success of the movement opposing Ottomanism.85 These Powers who put into effect the sharing project, which they named the “Eastern Question” from the second half of the XIXth Century onwards, saw all the ethnic and religious constituents as tools on their path towards their goals and provoked them in a planned way against the Ottoman State. The first phase of the Eastern Question saw success by slipping of lands from the Ottoman hegemony, following the Balkan Wars of 1912-1913. Next it was the turn of Asia-Minor – in other words Asiatic Turkey, whose unity they had pledged among themselves to protect until then. The targets of the Major Powers from then on can be summarized as: Russia who yearned for reaching warm waters had two paths in front of it; the Balkans and Anatolia! Losing its hopes to reach the south through the Balkans, due to the establishment of new states in this region, Russia zeroed in on Anatolia. The major card held in his hand, for this region was the Armenians, since the beginning.
84 Gust, p. 170. 85 Afflerbach, Holger (2002) Der Dreibund. Europäische Großmacht- und Allianzpolitik vor dem Ersten Weltkrieg, Wien- Köln- Weimar, p. 596.
| 454 | Bekir TANK
France, one of the other members of the Triple Entente had set Syria as its target and Britain eyed the Arabian Desert (the Red Sea).86 Germany, who held strong relations and agreements with the Ottoman State, eyed the fertile lands of Çukurova and the railway projects. Italy who had invaded Libya, made calculations over the South shores of Anatolia, besides protecting its rights on the Mediterranean Sea. Austro-Hungarian Empire which had annexed Bosnia-Herzegovina on October 6th 190887, while solidifying its strength and presence in the Balkans on one side, was thinking of its self- interests in the Mediterranean in tandem with Italy88 on the other side while attentively following the calculations made over the Asia-Minor. While Russia was feeling serious discomfort by Austria’s annexation of Bosnia- Herzegovina, Britain recognized the annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina on 28 March 1909.89 The non-Muslims of the Ottoman Empire acquire new rights with the announcement of the IInd Constitution on July 24, 1908. However, this important transformation is far from satisfying the Major Powers, the Armenians and even the Ittihad-Terakki Party. With the Ittihad and Terakki Party’s coming to power, the Ottoman State enters a state of dissolution and starts losing its lands rapidly; lands in the Balkans and North Africa are lost. While the abolishing of the Hamidiye Regiments and bringing down Abdulhamit the Second from the throne by the Ittihad and Terakki gives breathing space to the Armenians, it causes the Kurds to feel offended and also leaves them open to the intervention of outside powers.90 Yet, the Hamidiye Regiments, in spite of some of its denominations’ engagement in unlawful activities had been effective in providing security in the region. However, abolishing of these regiments and no replacements coming into effect provided the Armenian Organizations a wider radius of action where they could become effective. The Armenians had
86 PA AA, Türkei 183 Band 28, Armenier R 14077, St. Petersburg, 23.01.1913. 87 Perlin, Kurt Konrad (2008) Der Zweibund Im Spiegel Der Annexionskrise, Wien, p. 86-87. 88 PA AA, Türkei 183 Band 28, Armenier R 14077, Wien, 30.01.1913. 89 Molden, Berthold (1917) Alois Graf Aehrenthal, Sechs Jahre äußere Politik Österreich-Ungarns, Stuttgart und Berlin, p. 104. 90 Türkmen, Zekeriya (2006) Vilayat-ı Şarkiye (Doğu Anadolu Vilayetleri) Islahat Müfettişliği 1913- 1914, Ankara, Türk Tarih Kurumu, p. 17.
| 455 | Bekir TANK collaborated with the Ittihad and Terakki against Sultan Abdulhamit II. After the Andulhamid era, instead of continuing with this cooperation, they discontinued their allegiance with the ITC and expanded their violent activities along the path of independence, which they had set as their goal.
C. WORKOUT/STUDIES OF THE VILAYÂT-I ŞARKIYE ISLAHAT MÜFETTİŞLİĞİ OF 1913-1914 It is still a subject of debate why the reforms could not be put into effect during the reign of Abdulhamid the IInd and who prevented their materialization. The major claim here is that Abdulhamid the IInd bided his time because he did not want the reforms, so he refused such suggestions with some sort of excuse each time. It will be sufficient to research the reforms suggested by the major powers and compare them with the subsequent suggestions of the Ottoman State, in order to understand if these accusations are correct. Upon examination of the reform programs and the suggestions submitted by the major powers, it will become obvious that they contained articles directly or indirectly invading the sovereignty of the Ottoman State. The Sultan naturally, resisted these reform suggestions which would directly provide a status of autonomy to the Armenians, or could lead to such end- results and thus vehemently spoiled their plans. After the dethroning of Abdulhamid IInd, the topics of reform and sharing of Asia Major resurfaced on the agenda of the major powers. Subjects of debate among the major powers are: which methods should be used to achieve unrest within the Ottoman Empire, through which means and methods could the religious elements be brought to action in the direction of independence, how they can use the wars and the economic disintegration of the state?91 Both the Bab-ı Ali and the signatory powers submit new programs. The Ottoman Government puts into effect decisions giving wide powers to the local administrations under the name: “İdare-i Umumiye-i Vilayat Kanun-i Muvakkati” on March 26, 1913.92 Next, the authority and
91 PA AA, Türkei 183 Band 29 Armenier, R 14078, Pera, 12.04.1913. 92 Takvim-i Vakayi, Nr.1416, 15 March 1329; Gürün, p. 185.
| 456 | Bekir TANK responsibilities of the judges is reestablished with the temporary law named: “Sulh Hakimleri Hakkında Kanun-i Muvakkat”, on April 24, 1913.93 Ottoman Ministers’ Cabinet (Meclis-i Vukela) discusses the subject of reforms in a secret session on April 15, 1913. Attention is drawn to the necessity that the region should be developed in all aspects, in order to protect the unity of the country.94 According to the information given by the Sadrazam (Grand Vizier) to the Commission of Ambassadors following the reform activities, the counties lying to the east of the Empire are divided into 6 administrative districts (Sanjaks). It was suggested that each one of these sanjacks would be administered by a general inspector. The cities within each sanjack were as follows: First Sanjak : Bursa, Ankara, Kastamonu, Izmit, Karasu and Chanakkale. Second Sanjak : Aydin (izmir), Konya and Adana. Third Sanjak : Erzurum, Sivas, Trabzon and Canik. Fourth Sanjak : Beirut, Aleppo, Sham (Damascus), Urfa, Zor and Kudus. Fifth Sanjak : Bitlis, Diyarbekir, Mamurat-ul Aziz (Harput) and Van. Sixts Sanjak : Baghdat, Basra and Musul.95 The Major Powers bring in new suggestions, while debating this offer of the Bab-ı Ali. As usual, Russia works multifaceted. While working on new suggestions of reform, they continue with their provocations on the side. Russia, who brings in the idea of “Constituting an Action in order to improve the conditions of the Armenians living in Anatolia” on the subject of reforms, applies to the Catholic Armenians in Etchmiadzin and solicits their support and participation for this purpose. According to the Russian plan, Armenians from various parts of the world should gather in Paris and the former Patrick Ormanian should be appointed to the leadership of this Movement. While Italy prefers not to respond to Russia’s request of contribution, France finds it acceptable and Britain states that it will participate.96
93 Türkmen, p. 33. 94 BOA, YEE, Sadrazam Kamil Paşa Evrakı, DS: 86/39. Nr. 3873. F. 1,2,3. 95 PA AA, Türkei 183 Band 31 Armenier, R 14080. Tarabya, İstanbul, 06.07.1913. 96 PA AA, Türkei 183 Band 28 Armenier, R 14077, Pera, İstanbul, 02.01. 1913.
| 457 | Bekir TANK
In his report about this initiative of Russia, Germany’s Ambassador to Istanbul, Wangenheim’s remarks can be summarized as: “Germany’s interests in the Asiatic Turkey are too important to leave the fate of the Armenians in the hands of the Triple Entente. So, action should be taken with the Allies”97. However, Ormanian informs that he would accept the offer for the leadership position of the Movement under the condition that the Armenian public and the Bab-ı Ali Government approves and elects him.98 Consequently, Zimmermann from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs replies to Wangenheim: “French Ambassador who saw the Russian plan suitable, pressured Ormanian to travel to Paris immediately, without waiting for acceptance of the conditions that he had put forward. Due to the necessity of our interests in Asiatic Turkey, we will not leave the fate of the Armenians in the hands of the Triple Entente.”99 Germany tries to develop a policy and take necessary precautions, not to leave the fate of the Armenians in the hands of the Triple Entente. In Weggenheim’s report of February 24, 1913, many precautions are listed ranging from support for the reforms to improvement of education activities in Anatolia and intensifying of relations with the Armenians, in addition to such observations as: “The German media needs to drop off its indifference towards the Armenian events, which was carried on until now and should approach the Armenian demands with measured understanding. This would be effective on the many Armenian intellectuals who are living in France, England and the USA and working for their media.”100 Also, one year prior to this, V. Kevork, the Armenian Catholicos in Erivan asked his help for the appeasement of the hardship of the Armenians in the letter that he wrote to Tsar Nikola.101 The major objection to this reform plan of the Ottoman State comes from Russia. With due care, it will be noticed that the Ottoman State did not suffice with only the six provinces (Erzurum, Van, Mamuret-ul Aziz, Diyarbekir, Sivas and Bitlis) but submitted a reform plan including the Armenians living in other areas as well. Bab-ı Ali’s fear in here was: If a
97 PA AA, Türkei 183 Band 28 Armenier, R 14077, Konstantinopolis, 10.01.1913. 98 PA AA, Türkei 183 Band 28 Armenier, R 14077, Konstantinopolis, 10.01.1913. 99 PA AA, Türkei 183 Band 28 Armenier, R 14077, Berlin, 10.01.1913. 100 PA AA, Türkei 183 Band 29 Armenier, R 14078, Pera, İstanbul, 24.02.1913. 101 Türkmen, p. 21.
| 458 | Bekir TANK reform was made administering all Armenians from one center, this could become an example which could be used against the Ottoman State in Mesopotamia and Syria as well. This way, the administrations would have gained the right to announce their independence as a second step. Whereas, the reform which was in the form of the six provinces and also the reform including the Armenians left outside the six provinces would have prevented the Armenian’s approach towards an autonomous structure. It is not surprising that the biggest diatribe came from Russia, because, establishing of the reform region as six sanjaks instead of being controlled from a single center possessed a feature which could shatter the influence of the other powers - especially that of Russia’s over the Armenians.102 However, both Russia and the other powers refused this reform program which they deemed unsuitable to their interests.103 In response, Russia, who did not want the European States to obtain any controlling power over the Armenians was on one hand trying to cultivate its own reform plan, was on the other hand contorting the events taking place in the region and spreading unfounded news which could create distrust and panic among the people.104 While the Major Powers were so much concentrated over the fate of Armenians, the Armenians themselves were in a state of tremendous confusion. According to the report of Leopold Graf Berchtold, Austria’s Consul in Trabzon: “Some of the Armenians wish the control of Russia and some others wish the control of France. But, according to the majority, both of them seem impossible. The same majority does not see a way out and shows the worsening economy as an example to this.” Berchtold, does not refrain from adding his personal opinion and observations at the continuation of his report: “Personally, I think the Armenians do not know what they want. (. . .) According to the information from my messengers in Van and Erzurum, there is an activity among the Armenians. According to the authorities, the Armenian Committee is in preparation of some activities that could necessitate the intervention of major powers. As understood from some of the assaults, the Armenians are not behaving themselves.”105
102 PA AA, Türkei 183 Band 29, Armenier, R 14078, Pera, İstanbul, 12.04.1913. 103 Lewy, p. 73. 104 HHSTA, PA XXXVIII 361. Trapezunt, 12.06.1913. Z. 69 / P. 105 HHSTA, PA XXXVIII 361. Trapezunt, 12.06.1913. Z. 69 / P.
| 459 | Bekir TANK
Russia does not want the Bab-ı Ali to regain control over the Armenians. Russia, who thought that he would lose his influence over the Armenians and hence not bring to realization the aims he wishes to reach over the Armenians, in the case that Bab-ı Ali’s plan gains acceptance, includes Germany into the reform plan that he was working on, in his effort to strengthen his hand,. Some of the articles from the draft over which Germany’s ambassador Wangenheim and Russia’s Ambassador Giers came to agree upon and present on November 7, 1913 are:106 1) The Eastern Anatolian counties that Russia defines as “Armenia” should be divided into two districts and the Bab-ı Ali should appoint inspectors to these regions according to the recommendations of the signatory countries and these inspectors as well as the other officials appointed should be deposable. 2) The authority to assign high ranking officials and judges should be given to the sultan. 3) The assembly of each district should be composed of equal number of Christians and Muslims. 4) Also, the officials should be of equal stature. 5) The period should be controllable by the signatory states and this could be done via the consuls and ambassadors in the region. 6) The Ottoman State should inform that it would cooperate with the signatory countries over the reforms to be enacted in these regions.107 In the case these suggestions would be accepted, Russia would have gained tremendous influence and power over the Armenians. Even though in appearance, this offer aims to solve the problems of the Armenians, Russia would be the real beneficiary. However, Germany does not support this report with the rationale that “this project of Russia would damage the interests of Germany”108. Russia, Britain and France, help each other reciprocally throughout the war, on the subject of Armenians. Russian agents spend the money given by the British,
106 Bayur, Yusuf Hikmet (1991) Türk İnkılabı Tarihi, Vol: II, Ankara, TTK, p. 146. 107 PA AA Türkei 183 Band 34, Armenier R 14083 Konstantinopel, 10.01.1913; Türkmen, p. 48. 108 HHSTA, PA XII 463, Yeniköy, 23.06.1913, No: 311.
| 460 | Bekir TANK both on instigating the Muslims against the Ottoman Government and also to support the Armenian action.109 Lepsius explains the aims that Russia wishes to reach with this plan, in the report that he presented to the Prime Minister Bethmann Hollweg, on October 1, 1913 as: a) The British should not be accommodated among the inspectors. b) Sympathy of the Ottoman Armenians should be gained. c) A sphere of influence should be gained in Eastern Anatolia. d) So that its annexation can be easier in the future, all of the counties reformed should be administered with only one mayor to be assigned. e) In the same report Lepsius explains Germany’s opposition measures as follows: f) Russia’s obtaining a sphere of influence in Eastern Anatolia should be prevented. g) Bab-ı Ali should be assisted to materialize the reforms.110 Russia does not find the support that it had hoped for; while France supports with condition, Britain and Germany oppose the plan.111 Again according to Lepsius, “Russia has considerably changed its Armenian policy from 1906 onwards; Russia took utmost care not to suppress the Armenians, tried to reconcile its Caucasian Armenians with the state through the Orthodox Church, but on the other hand did not want the Armenians’ problems to be solved through reforms and used the topic of reform only as a means of political pressure. But, the Armenians are in favor of strengthening their ties with the Ottomans, instead of cutting them off, because in comparison to Russia, their existence as well as the independence of their churches is more secure with the Ottomans.”112 Lepsius concludes his report with these sentences: “Upon the failure of their reform initiatives, the Armenians have no expectations of the British, France and Russia. All their hopes lie with Germany’s bringing their ally
109 HHSTA, PA XL 272, Konstantinopel, 29.04.1915, No: 165. 110 PA AA Türkei 183 Band 33, Armenier R 14082. 01.10.1913. 111 PA AA Türkei 183 Band 33, Armenier R 14082, Petersburg, 24.10.1913. 112 PA AA Türkei 183 Band 33, Armenier R 14082, 1.10.1913.
| 461 | Bekir TANK country Turkey to act reasonably and along with the vital needs of Armenians. At that time Germany would come out a double winner; both for supporting the reforms will gain the Armenian support and at the same time will become effective for securing Turkey’s power in this region which has taken a dangerous stance.” Bab-ı Ali, takes multifaceted intense relations with the Armenians, during this time. Both Talat Bey, the Minister of Interior at the time and Enver Pasha take initiatives with this purpose. Talat Pasha enters dialogue both with the Armenian deputies in the parliament and the senior people of the Dashnaksutiun Association and says to them in summary: “. . . This precaution is a trap of Russia; neither you, nor should we fall for it. Russia would never desire the formation of an Armenia, which is dependent on international aid, along its path to the Mediterranean. Please give up, let us achieve this reform together.”113 Enver Pasha reminds that “in case they turn to rebellion and revolution activities, they would be forced to take forceful precautions” during his meeting with the Patriarch.114 However, he cannot convince the Armenians. While the other powers take no initiative on the subject of reforms lately, it is observed that Germany makes a considerable shift in the policy it held until then. Germany approaches the Bab-ı Ali and asks approval for the reform plan that they presented together with Russia. More openly, applies pressure for the acceptance of the proposal.115 The reason behind Germany’s insistence lies with the German interests in Asia-minor as expressed in a statement published by the German- Armenian Association recently established in Berlin.116 After the Russian-German proposal is refused, this time Bab-ı Ali works on a new plan together with Russia. Following long arguments, the articles that the Ottoman state and Russia came to agree upon are accepted and signed on February 8, 1914 known with the names: Sait Halim Pasha – Coulkevitz or the Yenikoy Agreement.117
113 Babacan, Hasan (2001) Birinci Dünya Savaşı Sırasında Ermeni Sorunu, Tehcir Meselesi ve Talat Bey, Ermeni Meselesi Üzerine Araştırmalar, (Prepared for Publication by: Erhan Afyoncu) İstanbul, p. 155. 114 Talat Paşa’nın Anıları, (Prepared for Publication by: Alpay Kabacak) İstanbul 1991, p. 71. 115 PA AA Türkei 183 Band 34, Armenier R 14083, Konstantinopel, 20.12.1913. 116 PA AA Türkei 183 Band 34, Armenier R 14083, Berlin, 22.02.1914. 117 Türkmen, p. 53.
| 462 | Bekir TANK
With a memorandum dated April 24, 1914, the Ottoman Minister of Interior announces the assignment of Norwegian Major Nicolas Hoff as the Inspector General for the Van-Bitlis-Harput and Diyarbekir districts and as the Inspectorate of Sivas region one of the officials who was assigned to its colonies in East India by Holland.118 Russia who already had a major influence over the Armenians due to its continuing activities concerning them within the Ottoman State and because the Orthodox Center for Armenians is located in Etchmiadzin, solidifies its effect with this last agreement and starts being seen as a savior in the eyes of the Armenians. This is the reason why the Armenians do not take the advice given to them seriously. Another glaring aspect of the signatory powers in their reform studies is their insistence on equal representation, ignoring the fact that the Muslims are a majority in the region. Upon dismissal of the above mentioned proposal by the Bab-ı Ali, Russia and Germany resubmit it on November 26, 1913, after making some revisions to it. According to the proposal consisting of 16 articles, the Sultan will assign the commissioners, but the consultants of the commissioners will be assigned by the signatory countries. The power to assign all the other officers will be in the hands of these consultants.119 Russia who prefers the continuation of the problem over its solution, so that he can hold on to his excuse for applying pressure on the Bab-ı Ali, this time tries to provoke the Muslim population against the reforms through the agents that he sent to the region.120 It is recorded in German sources as well that, in spite of such provocative efforts of Russia, the reform plan which took precedence showed its effect immediately and a perceivable tranquility dominated in the region.121 Another important achievement that Germany quietly accomplished during this time is the agreement with the Ottoman State dated December 4, 1913 on the topic of the army’s training and military cooperation.122 But it
118 BOA, DH, KMS, Dosya: 2-2/5, F: 20-1. 119 Bayur, Vol: II, p. 108-111. 120 PA AA Türkei 183 Band 34, Armenier R 14083, Konstantinopel, 27.02.1914. 121 PA AA Türkei 183 Band 34, Armenier R 14083, Erzerum, 24.02.1914. 122 Mühlmann, Carl (2014) İmparatorluğun Sonu 1914, Osmanlı Savaşa Neden ve Nasıl Girdi? (Transla-
| 463 | Bekir TANK also lends itself to the Triple Entente too. Germany could see that the Triple Entente who had taken Asia Minor, in other words Asiatic Turkey on their agenda and were going to dismember it when the conditions are ripe and she too wanted a piece to be given to her.123 Another salient subject in here is that the major powers did not look after a fair representation and ignored that 80% of the population in the Six Vilayets were composed of Muslims.124 While most of the references showed the population of Armenians in the aforementioned Six Vilayets as 17.3%125, some showed it as 20%.126 But, no matter what the population of Armenians in these counties may be, it is incomparably smaller than those of the Muslims. On the other hand, the Muslims are the majority even in the city centers where most Armenians are gathered like Van and Harput.127 In spite of this, the major powers did not shy away from suggesting that chairmanship and important government positions should be given to the Armenians. Another subject that could not be agreed upon was the establishment of the judicial, gendarmerie and police organizations as well as how these organizations should be formed.128 The reason why they demanded lopsided powers for the Armenians and unreasonably high say-so in comparison to their population numbers while shying away from asking autonomy for the Armenians was due to their fear that the Muslims could attain the administration due to their majority status in the region, in case of a possible referendum. The question yearning for an answer is why the necessary reforms were not put into force and who blocked the application of the reforms. As can be seen, the major powers diverted the target in here and showed the Ottoman State as the responsible party for it. In the report that Wangenheim, Germany’s Ambassador in Istanbul sent to Prime Minster (Bethmann Hollweg), he claimed: “The lack of organized aptitude among the Turks to
tion), İstanbul, Timaş, p. 27. 123 HHSA, PA XII, 206, Konstantinopel, 28. 01.1913 124 Fort the population demographics of the region pls see: MacCarthy, Justin (1998) Müslümanlar ve Azınlıklar (Translation), İstanbul, İnkılap. 125 Türkmen, p. 30. 126 PA AATürkei 183 Band 32, Armenier R 14081, Therapia, 31.07.1923. 127 PA AATürkei 183 Band 32, Armenier R 14081,Therapia, 31.07.1923. 128 PA AA Türkei 183 Band 33, Armenier R 14082, Band 13, Armenier, Berlin, 01.10.1923.
| 464 | Bekir TANK accomplish radical reforms in the modern sense came out in the open so much that the relations between the Turks and Armenians will definitely be affected by this.” 129 The lack of organized aptitude in the Ottoman State is probably the last thing that could be mentioned. The most important reason why the reforms were not carried out, more correctly: could not be carried out was that the great powers held their self interests above and beyond the solution of the Armenian problem. For example: in spite of giving hopes for an independent state to the Armenians all throughout the process, their sincere opinion was, “establishment of a large and independent Armenia remained as utopia, under the existing conditions”130.
SECTION II: COMMENCEMENT OF WORLD WAR – I AND EXPECTATIONS OF THE ARMENIANS IN SUSPENSE World War-I starts on July 28, 1914, with the Astro-Hungarian Empire’s attack upon Serbia, due to its considering the murder of Prince Ferdinand in Sarajevo [Saraybosna] by a Serbian - a casus belli. While Russia, Great Britain and France enter the war on the side of Serbia; Germany and Italy remain on the side of Austria. The Ottoman Empire remains indifferent for the time being. Germany, who enters the war, makes calculations to surround Russia from the south and also to attack if necessary. For this purpose, a secret agreement is signed with the Ottoman State on August 2, 1914.131 With this agreement, Germany who knows that Russia has plans and efforts to include the Ottoman State among the Allied Powers, acts earlier and leaves Russia empty handed.132 The Ottoman State announces armed mobilization on August 8, 1914 and immediately puts an end to the duties of the two inspectors due to these developments.
129 PA AA Türkei 183 Band 28, Armenier R 14077, Pera, 24 February 1913. 130 PA AA Türkei 183 Band 28, Armenier R 14077, Pera, 24 February 1913. 131 PA AA, Die deutschen Dokumente zum Kriegsausbruch, Nr. 726. Mühlmann, p. 84. PA AA Türkei 183 Band 36 Armenier R 14085, Nr. 406. Therapia, 02.08.1914. 132 Pls see: Mühlmann, Carl (1929) Deutschland und die Türkei, 1913-1914: die Berufung der Deutschen Militärmission nach der Turkei, 1913, das deutsch-türkische Bündnis, 1914, und der Eintritt der Tür- kei in den Weltkreig, W. Rotschild Verlag. (Turkish translation was published in İstanbul in 2014 by Timaş Publications.)
| 465 | Bekir TANK
The German Government, who wishes the Ottoman State to enter the war right away, asks Wangenheim, its ambassador in Istanbul “if the Ottoman State is in a state of readiness to attack Russia in an active and powerful way?” Wangenheim who contacts Marshall Liman von Sanders and Enver Pasha receives the response directly from Enver Pasha himself that “the Ottoman State possesses this power; however its achievement of a successful result is possible with the mobilization of the united armies of Bulgaria and Romania in the direction of Odessa.”133 Because the Armenian attitude is of dire importance for both sides, each one tries to gain their support on his row. Germany, aware of the fact that clamping down Russia from its south will not be at the desired level in the case that the Armenians side with the Allied Powers, just about mobilizes all its power to convince the Armenians. Even though he is a religious figure, Johannes Lepsius, who acts in regards to German-Armenian political- religious relations and who is such an influential person that can be said to be the architect of his country’s Armenian politics springs to action. He commissions Dr. Liparit to contact with the Armenian Patriarch, Dashnaksutiun Party Administrators134 and the notable Armenians of Istanbul. Dr. Liparit explains to the Armenians that they should stand by the Ottoman state, mobilize their forces for the success of its army and that their interests hinge on this.135 Even though they have been provoked over the past 40 years, a considerable portion of the Armenians had not yet been convinced to rebel against the Ottoman State. This fact reflected on Wangenheim’s report as: “The Patriarch states that, all intelligent Armenians in general wish to remain within the Turkish authority and that he himself refuses the thought of the relevant districts moving under the jurisdiction of a foreign power, but that it is imperative that the reforms planned in Eastern Anatolia should come on stream with subjects like equality in front of the law and security of life and property ensured.”136
133 PA AA Türkei 183 Band 36, Armenier R 14085 Nr. 407. Therapia, 02.08.1914. 134 PA AATürkei 183 Band 36, Armenier R 14085, Konstantinopel, 24.12.1914. (Gust, p. 191-192.) 135 PA AA Türkei 183 Band 36, Armenier R 14085, Armenier, Nr. 2408, Potsdam, 22.12.1914. 136 PA AA, Türkei 183 Band 36, Armenier R 14085, Armenier, Konstantinopel, 29.12.1914. (Gust, p. 193)
| 466 | Bekir TANK
Again on another report Wangenheim states: “For the defense of our interests in Asia Minor, the local Armenians’ standing behind us will gain great importance.”137 In spite of Germany’s efforts to convince the Armenians, the Central Powers cannot win the Armenians to their ranks, because the Allied Powers also have intense activities. For example, their propaganda that: “in case Germany comes out victorious from the war, they will move the Armenians out of Anatolia”138 becomes effective. The Armenians are in search of a positive way out for themselves, from the skirmish between the two sides - actually, they are trying to establish a republic for themselves. They find the Entente Powers’ promises important and convincing.139 At the zero hour of the war, Armenians of all walks - from the Patriarch to assemblies like the Dashnak Organization announce that they are standing by the Ottoman State, but these announcements are only for hiding their real intentions.140 In reality, “Majority of the World Armenians, supported not the Central Powers, but the Allied Powers.”141 Almost with a debt of gratitude to their saviors, Armenians do not refrain from reporting the developments in the region to the Allied Powers.142 One of the Armenian historians, Dadrian openly states: “Majority of the Armenian Community wished the Turks to be heavily defeated and to lose their hegemony.”143 Armament of the Armenians in the later stages is striking enough to find its way into the reports. Germany’s Counsel in Trabzon informs that the Armenian Dashnak Committee is in the process of sending weapons towards the central districts and is exercising armament.144
137 Gust, p. 189. 138 PA AA Türkei 183 Band 36, Armenier R 14085, Konstantinopel, 04.01.1914. 139 Gust, p. 185. 140 Uras, p. 593; Lewy, p. 150. 141 Lewy, p. 149; Hovannisian, Richard G. (1967) Armenia on the Road to Independence, 1918 Hardco- ver– September 1, p. 42. 142 Sarınay, Yusuf (2012) 24 Nisan 1915’te Ne Oldu? Ermeni Sevk ve İskânının Perde Arkası, İstanbul, İdeal Yayınları, p. 163. 143 Lewy, p. 150. (Dadrian, The secret Young-Turk Ittihadist Conference, p. 188). 144 PA AA, Türkei 183 Band 35, Armenier R 14084, Trabzon, 13.03.1914.
| 467 | Bekir TANK
For the Armenians, the month of September 1914 is excitingly, busy and active: a time when formation of voluntary units is decided.145 Participation to these units is intense, including the students who drop out of their schools with such purpose.146 It is observed that Antranik Pasha, who had volunteered to fight against the Ottoman State alongside the Bulgarians during the Balkan wars of 1912-1913, crossed the border to the Caucasus this time and again formed volunteer units.147 Armenians hastening their armament with the help of Russians, hence start assembling in groups.148 Again, in this month, one of the Russian Marshalls, Loris Melko’s son, who arrives in Van instructs the Armenians “not to strike up rebellion unless the Ottoman State enters the war.”149 Also, the Armenian intellectuals come to a decision not to take action until the Ottoman State enters the war.150 At the same time, it is seen that Germany exerts pressure over the Ottoman State to join the war on its side at once, because their only option for both breaking Britain’s advancement and opening up new fronts against Russia, hinges on the Ottoman State’s joining the war.151 The groundwork for such a possibility was already prepared with the secret agreement of August 2, 1914. The Ottoman State, seeing its interests by the side of the Central Powers, enters the war on November 14, 1914. The biggest concern of the Central Powers - especially the Bab-ı Ali’s is what kind of a stance the Armenians will hold. For this reason, even after the start of the war, both Germany and Bab-ı Ali tried to obstruct the Armenians’ inclination towards Russia. According to Wangenheim’s report: the Armenians “do not trust Germany either, because Abdulhamid is following a policy on the side of Germany.”152 Wangenheim ends his same report with these sentences:
145 Çelebyan, p. 170. 146 Çelebyan, p. 170-171. 147 Çelebyan, p. 172. 148 Gürün, p. 201 149 Arşiv Belgeleriyle Ermeni Faaliyetleri (ABEF) [Armenian Activities as per Archive Documents] Arşiv Belgeleriyle Ermeni Faaliyetleri (ABEF) (2005), C: I, Ankara, Genelkurmay Basımevi, p. 29. 150 ABEF, C I, p. 35. 151 PA AA, R 22402, 07.09.1914. 152 PA AA Türkei 183 Band 33, Armenier R 14085, Pera, 04.01.1915.
| 468 | Bekir TANK
“It seems impossible to cause the Germans to be loved by the Armenians through the mediation of their Patriarch, because the “Ramgawar” Party does not have a suitable party establishment for this. However, maybe the publications of the other parties may be won for our interests. I will touch upon this topic, after I gain tangible initiatives.”153 Wangenheim touches upon the following in his report dated March 7, 1915, which we can label as “the calm before the storm”: “Germans’ friendship with the Turks is automatically seen as an animosity by the Armenians. In all of my open-hearted communications with the Armenians around here, I have observed that all of the evidences of the new sympathy felt by the Germans towards the Armenians do not create the desired effect. I guess our aim was too obvious and the methods used took place in too fast maneuvers that this caused an unavoidable mistrust. I have tried to batter down the Armenians’ mistrust through friendly means and private relations during my stay in here. I have put to good use every time I found the chance to address the community, whether during the victorious moments of the Armenian side, or at the memorial services organized by the Armenian Church upon an Armenian civilian’s death by a British canon shot. I have collected donations for the wounded lying in the hospitals and alike and whenever I found the opportunity, I went to visit them. Eventually, I understood that these small drops evaporate upon splashing over the hot stone of mistrust. Another question is, whether the Germans need the friendship of the Armenians.”154 Close examination reveals that the Armenians’ not showing their true color as to which side they will support has seriously distressed the Germans. But according to the report informed by Wangenheim from Adana: “. . . One thing for sure is the appearance of the military boats and their engagement in warfare is received with joy among the Christians in here and especially among the Armenians. If the British or the French succeed to land over here, all the Christians in here will welcome them with delight.”155 While the attacks of the Entente Powers which started from the sea on February 1915 continue escalating, the Armenians start their attacks in many
153 PA AA Türkei 183 Band 33, Armenier R 14085, Pera, 04.01.1915. 154 Gust, p. 197. Botschaft Konstantinopel, İskenderun, 07.03.1915. 155 Gust, p. 199. Botschaft Konstantinopel, Adana, 13.03.1915.
| 469 | Bekir TANK locations, especially in Zeitun. Internal security is threatened with the British and French forces attacking from Chanakkale, because the Armenians, who are filled with great hopes, wish to take advantage of this (according to them) golden opportunity, which has arrived at their fingertips. For this purpose, tens of thousands of Armenians rushed to participate along the enemy lines and entered the war against the Ottoman forces either as fighters or messengers. While the British and French forces were storming the shores of Chanakkale, tens of thousands of Armenians, together with the Russians and at the same time acting as their couriers started to occupy the cities. Even though some of the Armenians that were living all over Anatolia refrained from violence, the violence and terror activities carried out by the others, created a major anger and indignation among the public opinion and also forced the government to take more effective precautions. It is observed that the Armenians became active not only in Anatolia, but also in the Balkans and the Caucasus, wherever they happened to live. Also, the Dashnak and Hinchak committees became active to convince the Armenians to volunteer along the front lines of the Russians. The report of the German Ambassador dated June 17, 1915, based on information obtained from an agent also verifies this. According to the said report, 2,000 Armenians joined the Russian army, as a result of these efforts, up to March 1915.156 The churches too played an active role in the collection of volunteers. According to the same report, the priest of the Armenian Church in Bucharest had also sent 70 volunteers to the Russian front lines. With a decree enacted on April 24, 1915 Dashnak, Hinchak and other committees as well as associations are closed down, their documents seized, those responsible were arrested and the suspects were kept in certain locations.157 But, the increased intensity of the war and the terror activities that the Armenians spread all around the country in parallel to this, forces more effective precautions to be taken.158 Thus on May 27, 1915, "Vakt-i seferde icraat-ı hükümete karşı gelenler için cihet-i askeriyyece ittihaz olunacak tedabir hakkında" kanun-ı muvakkat kabul edilerek yürürlüğe konması hakkında
156 PAA AA, Türkei, 183 Band 37, Armenier R 14086, Pera, 17.06.1915. 157 Sarınay, p. 186; Ohandjanian, p. 89. 158 ATBD (Askeri Tarih Belgeleri Dergisi), December 1982, Issue: 81, belge 1830.
| 470 | Bekir TANK kanun” known as the law of deportation is issued.159 This decision, which was taken by the parliament of representatives [Meclis-i Vükela] includes precautions like “relocation towards some regions like Musul, Zor, Halep, and some parts of Syria of those Armenians who collaborate with the enemy forces, massacre innocent civilians, and engage in dangerous activities like starting rebellious activities...”160 The articles of the law are: 1) The commanders of the army, army corps and divisions as well as their representatives and independent district commanders are authorized and obliged to completely suppress those people who during the relocation oppose, resist and attack with weapons to the government orders, defense of the country, existing peace and security issues, with the help of the armed forces, immediately and to completely eradicate such attacks and resistances. 2) The commanders of the army, independent army corps and divisions, can send and resettle the populations of districts where they feel are engaged in spying and rebellious activities due to war situations, individually or altogether to other regions of the country. 3) This law is applicable from the date that it is published.161 At the beginning, all activities remain within these rules and those who did not get involved in crime are left untouched. For example: “It is deemed unnecessary to send off the Armenians residing in Erzurum because it is close to the Russian border, and unnecessary to relocate the Armenians of Diyarbakir, Harput and Sivas.”162 But, due to the war continuing in too many fronts and because the increase of activities could not be prevented, those who did not get involved in criminal activity are also moved away from their locations.
159 YHB, TĐT, c. 3, ks. 3, s.37, 40.Takvim-i Vakayi, Nr. 2189, 1 Haziran 1915. Sarınay, p. 208. 160 BOA. Meclis-i Vükelâ Mazbatası, 198/163. 161 BOA. DH. SFR, nr. 53/152. 162 BOA. DH. SFR, nr.53/129.
| 471 | Bekir TANK
Upon examination of the conditions of those days, it is seen that relocation of the Armenians to secure regions was the most suitable choice to provide anew the public security and to prevent all parties’ strangulation of each other. Otherwise, it seems impossible for the state who had loaded all of its strength along the frontlines to prevent a possible Turkish-Armenian civil war. Hovhannes Katchaznouni, who was the first prime minister of Armenia, is one of those who finds the law of relocation and resettlement acceptable due to these reasons. At his speech delivered to the Dashnak Congress in 1923 at Bucharest, Katchaznouni expresses his thought that the relocation decision of the Ottoman State was inevitable.163 No matter how persistently claims are put forward that the Turks have systematically wiped out the Armenian population during this time, evidences proving such claims have not arisen. The result that we derive from the documents at hand and from the flow of events that took place, is that the purpose was on one hand to be protected from the evil of the Armenians and on the other hand prevention of the Armenians from possible massacres. As Guenther Lewy also stated, “none of the existing evidences attest to a plan of physical annihilation.”164 The Entente Powers welcome the Armenians’ decision to join their ranks with great pleasure. Later, the Daily Chronicle expresses this joy on their September 13, 1915 issue by referring to the Armenians in the title of their article as “Our Seventh Ally”.165 When the attacks and rebellions of the Armenians find reprisals from the Ottoman State, the Triple Entente (France, Britain and Russia) starts an immediate besmirching campaign, and comes up with the following explanation in order to turn the truth inside out: “The Turkish and Kurdish populations living in Armenia have been massacring for almost a month the Armenians en-masse with the overlooking and frequent support of the Ottoman soldiers. Such massacres have taken place since mid April, in Erzurum, Tercan, Eğin, Bitlis, Muş, Sason, Zeytun and all over Çukurova. It is estimated all
163 For more information, pls see: Katschaznouni, Hovhannes (2008) Für Die Daschnakzutjun Gibt Es Nichts Mehr Zu Tun, İstanbul, İTO. 164 Lewy, p. 243. 165 PA AA Türkei 183 Band 38, Armenier R 14087. Daily Chronicle, 23.09.1915.
| 472 | Bekir TANK residents of almost hundred villages around Van have been killed. At the same time, the Ottoman Government behaved violently against the defenseless Armenian population in İstanbul. The Allied Powers announce that they hold all of the members of the Turkish Government and all officials involved in the massacres personally responsible, for this new murder of Turkey against humanity and democracy.”166 But the reality is not like that and also the British and French forces started attacking through the Dardanelles on those same days, with Istanbul at their target if they could not be stopped. On the other hand, tens of thousands of Ottoman Armenians have joined the Russians voluntarily and invaded some regions of Turkey. Again in many localities of Anatolia, the Muslims face unexpected attacks of Armenian bandits. Armenians fighting alongside the Russians against the Turkish army and also acting as couriers to the Russians naturally created a feeling of betrayal and a feeling that they were stabbed on the back among the Muslims. As such, this feeling naturally caused them to consider all Armenians as potential danger. The financial aid and arms supply of the Entente Powers to the Armenians continued during the war too. For example, the Armenians were distributed arms by Russia in places like Oltu, Sarıkamış, Kağızman, Erzurum, Pasinler, Van and Bitlis.167 When the Russians occupy Erzurum on February 15, 1916, Muş on February 20, Trabzon on April 18, Bayburt on July 16 and Erzincan on July 20, there are Armenians in their ranks. Also upon reaching the end of August of that same year, the entire Armenian plateau is occupied by Russian- Armenian armed forces.168 All of these events should be kept in view, while examining the reactions of the Turks and the decisions taken by them. It is also mentioned even in foreign sources that the general population of the Turks never approved either the relocation order, or the tragedy that took place following it, and that they did not feel comfortable with those events and felt remorse for all of this, in spite of all the negativities exhibited by the Armenians.
166 Gust, p. 252. 167 Arşiv Belgeleriyle Ermeni Faaliyetleri (2005), C: I, Ankara, Genelkurmay Başkanlığı Publication, p. 98- 99. 168 Ohandjanian, p. 124.
| 473 | Bekir TANK
Bergfield, the Concul in Trabzon wrote in his report dated July 9, 1915: “The Turks proved that they were impartial towards the Christians, but the Christians responded to this action badly. They did not hide the hatred they felt towards the Turks and the sympathy they felt towards the Triple Entente and especially to the Russians. Also they came up with the nonsensical rumors that the Dardanelles, Istanbul and Erzurum had fallen into enemy hands, that Russians had landed in Midia [Black Sea port at north of Kostence] and even that the Sultan had escaped to Russia. Later, the ploy prepared against the Young Turk regime and to its system’s leaders was exposed and there came about the rebellion staged in Van by the Armenians as well as the uprisings staged in other districts of Turkey. Probably, these events caused the Bab-ı Ali to take extraordinary measures against the Armenians.”169 From the German Consul, Buge’s report dated July 11, 1915: “I can say that the relocation of the Armenians was seen as a heavy precaution to even the Turks of Anatolia. Even though they grabbed an opportunity to become rich beyond their imagination, they did not attempt to take advantage of the situation; such an opportunity is sickening to them. They do not want to be smudged by this. They are bewildered by the senseless precautions taken against the Armenians and they think the German Government has a share in this event. (. . .) Even though they have nothing to gain the Turks go crazy upon seeing their own officials remaining silent, no matter how unwillingly at the sight of these implementations. They go one step ahead and say that this is not their own government’s doing, but implementation of the wishes of those holding office in Germany.”170 How much did the Ittihat and Terakki Party (ITC) represent the Turks has been a question that even the outsiders searched for an answer, because the ITC’s features which from time to time were manipulative, abusive and oppressive besides their politics lacking principle could not be associates with the general standing of the Turks. Bergfield touched upon this topic in one of his reports: “Have no evidence to prove such instincts, but nevertheless, suspect the Young-Turks Committee as the power behind the attitude towards the Armenians (. . .) and
169 Gust, p. 301. 170 Gust, p. 309.
| 474 | Bekir TANK that their local committee members have built personal wealth by exploiting the Armenian goods during the relocation process.” Bergfield wrote the following regarding the Turks in the same report: “It must be mentioned that, upon its evaluation in its entirety, due to the Turkish population’s honor, most Turks did not wish the Armenians to be sent away with women and children. On the other hand it must also be known that during these events the Armenians displayed very little character to be embraced. The religious clergy were the first people to ask for official intervention so that they could stay behind. They did not even think that their congregation would need them to be present by their side in this downswing.”171 But the Entente Powers, who kept this humanitarian stance of the Turks from attention as much as possible, did not refrain from blaming the Turks on one hand and their allies on the other. The reason for this is to hide their complicity in the event. The Austrian archives contain documents which go as far as claiming that one of the reasons for relocation is: “Turks saw the Armenians as an annoying competitor in terms of the economy.”172 However, the practical applications within the Ottoman State contradict such claims, because manufacturing, import, export and in short the capital of the Ottoman economy is extensively in the hands of the non-Muslims and the state did not take any measures to influence their citizens’ commercial activities for them being non-Muslim. It is also possible to read from the same archives, documents showing that this and similar claims have no resemblance to reality. For example, in one of the reports of the Austrian archives, information about the Ottoman citizens who were engaged with trading in Vienna in the year 1776 are recorded. Besides their line of business, their names, religion, and ethnicity are also listed. Out of the 134 businessmen whose short biography is included “13 were of Turkish Muslim origin, 18 of them were Jews, 21 Armenian and 82 were Greek-Rum”173
171 PA AA Türkei 183 Band 37, Armenier R 14086, Trabzon, 29.07. 1915. 172 HHSTA, PA ZII 209. Yeniköy, 31.08.1915, No. 71 P-B. 173 HHSTA Türkei V, Karton 27.
| 475 | Bekir TANK
A. THE OUTLOOK OF THE MAJOR POWERS TO THE RELOCATION AND THEIR RECIPROCAL ACCUSATIONS The precautions regarding the relocation are listed in the write up sent from Sadaret [Prime Ministerial position in the Ottoman Empire] to the ministers of foreign affairs and finances as: a) Armenians shall be transferred to the areas allocated to them in peace, with provisions for the security of their life and material goods. b) Their food rations will be compensated from the immigrants’ budget until they are settled in their new homes. c) They will be provided housing and land in commensurate with their monetary status in the lands they left behind. d) Housing will be constructed for the needy by the Government, seeds and tools will be provided for the farmers. e) Their movable goods left behind will be transmitted to them, after their unmovable goods are determined and their values assessed, they will be distributed to the Muslim refugees to be settled in these locations. Farm lands like, olive groves, citrus orchards and vineyards which are left outside the expertise level of these refugees and income yielding properties like shops, inns, factories and storage houses will be sold in auction or rented out and the income will be recorded by the property coffers, to be passed on to their owners. f) All of these will be executed by commissions specially established for this purpose and an ordinance will be prepared for this matter.174 As can be observed from the circular, the relocation order covered only the guilty ones. But upon the concern of the major powers, Bab-ı Ali also guarantees that only the guilty people will be relocated. The government’s sensitivity on this subject is reflected on the reports of Germany as well. A section from the report of Trabzon Counsel of Germany on the subject reveals:
174 BA, BEO, No: 327/758.
| 476 | Bekir TANK
“. . . The Ottoman State’s participation in the war caused concern among the Armenians. Even though no negativity directed towards the Christians of the region can be seen, during the conversation we had with the Mayor of Trabzon, I brought up the topic of security for the Armenians. The Mayor said to me: “that they will not react to those who did not get involved in any protests”. He also showed to me the concerned circular sent by Talat Bey, the minister of internal affairs. Talat Bey requested those authorized to show necessary sensitivity in regards to the Armenians’ security and recommended the Armenians to trust the proper protection of government officials. Actually, the Christians of this region were initially pleased with the wide ranged security in here. As conveyed to me by the Armenians, the few compulsory searches carried out in the homes of the Armenians were done with signs of utmost respect to them. Such attention in this location becomes more praiseworthy, especially at a time when Russia’s Armenian bandits were performing the heaviest attacks along the coastline against not only the Turks, but also to the Muslims of Russia. Thousands of Muslims escaping from the Armenians arrived here and majority of them were transported inland. The pains suffered by them are enough for the non-Muslims also, to carry negative feelings against the Armenians of Russia. The Turks proved that they were impartial towards the Christians, but the Christians responded to this action badly. They did not hide the hatred they felt towards the Turks and the sympathy they felt towards the Triple Entente and especially to the Russians. Also they (the Armenians) came up with the nonsensical rumors that the Dardanelles, Istanbul and Erzurum had fallen to the enemy, that Russians had landed in Midia [Black Sea port at north of Kostence] and even that the Sultan had escaped to Bursa Later, the ploy prepared against the Young Turk regime and to its system’s leaders was exposed and there came about the rebellion staged in Van by the Armenians as well as the uprisings staged in other districts of Turkey. Probably, these events caused the Bab-ı Ali to take extraordinary measures against the Armenians.”175 As it turned out, the law passed for punishment of only the guilty ones was applied with expansion, as a result of the horror and terror activities of the Armenians from time to time.
175 PA AA Türkei 183 Band 37, Armenier R 14086, Trabzon, 9.07.1915.
| 477 | Bekir TANK
When those conditions are taken into account, it will be seen that it became almost impossible to differentiate the guilty ones from the innocent. Participation of the Armenians in the ranks of the Entente Powers, looking- out for the Russians, occupying some regions together with the Russians, carrying out terrorist activities all around the country brought all Armenians to the point of potential danger. At times, the statesmen were targeted. An assassination attempt was carried out against Abdulhamid the IInd in 1905. A murder plan was discovered against Talat Bey in 1915. In fact 20 Hinchak militants that were prosecuted for an assassination plot against Talat Bey were hanged to death.176 When explained without mincing words, some Armenians’ rebellion, and some Armenians’ participation along the enemy ranks – beyond rebellion is the point in question. What the government tried to accomplish at this instance is to quench this rebellion and take precautions to punish those guilty of treason. Out of these precautions, the most important one happened to be the deportation of Armenians to more secure regions. As can be observed in the Ottoman sources too, the Armenians suffered grave losses during this time. Some of the casualties were caused due to the negligence and malice of some of those in authority; some of whom stood on trial later and were punished. Also, as mentioned in the Ottoman sources, the other losses occurred due to disease, tiredness, severe winter conditions, and bandit attacks. The subject to be questioned here is if the precautions taken by the Ottoman State were sufficient enough or not, and what proportion of the losses occurred due to negligence and malice. One should not forget that the war continued with all its severity during the relocation and the Ottoman State was forced to mobilize its entire means to these front lines. Also as can be observed from the sources, the Ottoman State gave necessary orders to supply food, garments and health and road security needs for the Armenians, but has not been successful with the implementation of all of these. And, unfortunately, tens of thousands of Armenians have lost their lives under very tragic conditions. How many Armenians lost their lives during the relocation is still one of the important subjects for debate. The variation in the number of those who lost their lives during the relocation per different historians is also worthy
176 PA AA Türkei 183 Band 37, Armenier R 14086, Pera, 25.06.1915.
| 478 | Bekir TANK of attention. While Yusuf Halacoglu gave the number of dead during the relocation as 56,612177 Sarkis Karajian recorded the same to reach 2,070,037178. There are two important reasons for the historians giving figures divergent from each other. One is that some historians approach the problem from political angle, and the other is that some other historians wish to use only the results coming from sources and documents that they deem trustworthy. Some other historians show this number as 300,000,179 600,000180 and 1,000,000181. Even though it was not a party to the events, the United States of America is one of the countries to use the Armenian problem for its own political aims. By the numerous schools that it established in Anatolia and through its missionaries, they have remained influential over the Armenians and just like the other countries they have not refrained from using the problem for their own political purposes. Henry Morgenthau, who remained in Istanbul through 1913-16 as the US ambassador has been to the areas where the relocations have taken place and shared his observations with the greater public in his books under the headings, “The Tragedy of Armenia”182 and “Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story” 183 But just like many others who wrote on the subject, Morgenthau also failed to be fair and politicized the topic. Even though the Armenian problem gained a new dimension with the onset of World War-I and a major tragedy followed it immediately afterwards, the major powers continued on their self seeking policies just like they did in 1878. This time the Entente Powers started to use both the relocation decision
177 Halaçoğlu, Yusuf (2002), Facts on the Relocation of Armenians 1914-1918, Ankara, Turkish Histori- cal Society, p. 104. 178 Karajian, Sarkis (1972) ‘An Inquiry into the Statistics of the Turkish Genocide of the Armeniens 1915-1918’, Armenian Review 25, p. 6. 179 Gürün, Kamuran (1985) The Armenian File; The Myth of Innocence Exposed. London, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, p. 219. 180 McCharty. Justin / McCharty, Carolyn (1989) Turks and Armenians: A Manual on the Armenian Question. Washington, D.C.: Assembly of Turkish American Associations, p. 65. 181 Lepsius, Johannes (1897), Armenien und Europa: Eine Anklageschrift wider die christlichen Groß- mächte und ein Aufruf an das christliche Deutschland. Berlin, Akademische Buchhandlung, Vol: LXIII. 182 Morgenthau, Henry (1918) The Tragedy of Armenia, Spottiswoode & Co. LTD. 183 Morgenthau, Henry (1918) Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story, Garden City, Newyork, Doubleday, Page & Co.
| 479 | Bekir TANK and the tragedy of the time as a means of propaganda and applying pressure over Germany and the Ottoman State. Even when the news of the drama that hundreds of thousands of relocated Armenians faced on the roads and the news of tens of thousands of them losing their lives came about, these governments did not show much serious effort to reduce the Armenians’ bereavement. Instead they blamed each other on one hand and took advantage of this historic tragedy. Germany, as the most criticized country, asserted that the real culprit was those who instigated the Armenians against the Ottoman Government. In his report dated February 22, 1918, German parliamentarian Maximilian Pfeiffer explained Great Britain’s relation with the Armenians and its effect on them as: “. . . As is known, there was no Armenian problem yet, until 20 years ago. And Britain had achieved to create only one event. At those times, Britain was experimenting with weakening Turkey. Armenians appeared very suitable to such aims of Britain. So, it awakened for the first time the idea of independence among the Armenians that it won on its side for such a purpose and sent to them bombs and all necessary tools which could render the possibility of their rebellion through the British Embassy in Istanbul. The proceedings of the Armenians by Turkey started to be made from then on…”184 One of the statements agreed upon by the states of France, Britain and Russia and published just at the beginning of the war states: “The Turks and Kurds in Armenia have been performing massive massacres among the Armenians with the permission and to a large extent support of the Ottoman officials for approximately a month. Such massive massacres were done in mid-April in Erzurum, Tercan, Bitlis, Mush, Sason, Zeytun and Cilicia. All of the residents of almost 100 villages around Van have been murdered. The Ottoman State treated the defenseless Armenian population of Istanbul in the same brutal way. The Triple Entente announces to the Allied powers that they will hold responsible all members of the Ottoman Government and each officer that is involved in the mass murders, personally responsible.”185 From the report sent by Zimmerman, the Advisor of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to Wangenheim, the Ambassador in Constantinople: “. . .
184 Gust, p. 825-826. 185 PA AA Türkei 183 Band 37, Armenier R 14086, Pera, 5.06.1915. Gust, p. 257.
| 480 | Bekir TANK
While we are uniting our interests with those of the Turks, we must show effort not to lose the trust of the Armenians. For this purpose, I would solemnly salute if you could overcome the resistance of the Ottoman Government towards Lepsius’s trip. This gentleman’s easily guided personality is a guarantee that he would not perform anything inappropriate for Your Excellency and the Turkish government in Istanbul. The mistrust caused by Dr. Liparit’s activities in Sofia cannot be shown as a reason for refusal of Dr. Lepsius. I already convey my appreciation for your Excellency’s efforts to review the problem once again and for the telegraph that he will be sending.”186 From the report sent by Johannes Lepsius to Rosenberg, the advisor of the Embassy Section at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs: “. . . It should not be forgotten that only half of the Armenian people live in Turkey and the other half lives in Russia, whilst an objective evaluation of the Armenians of Turkey is being performed. If the half residing in Russia is courted and pampered while the half living in Turkey is only oppressed, this would not yield a positive result. At the end, the Armenian population will pull on both directions and the rope will be left in the hand of the strong side. It is impossible to cut the rope. Language, literature, church and traditions are links that cannot be severed. Abdulhamid’s policy of destruction has only stretched the rope. A population of four million cannot be treated unreasonably. Albania’s history teaches where the road ends under such treatment. The clash between Turkey and Russia will not end with this war in our day. (. . .) Their primitive situation from way back and now is at the point that they can protect the Armenians’ language, church and traditions only if they are a part of the Ottoman Empire, but if they succumb to the wolfish appetite of the Russian population, they cannot succeed in this. To strengthen this basic concept and turn it into a flag for the Armenians should be one of the highest priority goals of Turkey’s internal politics. Today’s war reconstructed the allied powers’ intention to partition Turkey. This is a priceless acquisition for the German policy directed towards protection of Turkey. In the future, the Armenian problem will become no longer usable for conspicuous maneuvers. This, in itself, necessitates a peaceful solution more in favor of Turkey. Your Excellency’s undertaking for the Armenian reforms, created an effect favoring the Turks on the tightrope between Russians and Turks; but the
186 PA AA Türkei 183 Band 37, Armenier R 14086, Berlin, 13.06.1915.
| 481 | Bekir TANK release of Hoff and Westenerk from duty is an equally powerful concession favoring the Russians. Presence of the inspectors over there was not going to leave chance for Russian intrigue. The road from Erzurum to Van is far from Istanbul but close to Tiflis. This is also a drawback for the influence of the prominent Armenian circles of Istanbul. Because the Russians have been there before and filled with wind the sail of the Armenians there, the people who are members of the mentioned surroundings are unable to accomplish their desires in general. In locations where the legal Turkish forces are unable to maintain order, the Armenian villages will be crushed in the Russian and Kurdish grinder. For this reason, their defending themselves cannot be seen as devilish. The Kurds and Russians are already penetrating adequately underneath the same quilt. If the Ottoman Government could give assurances to the Armenians that everything would recover following the war, this boarding student could turn its back on Russia, and thus could be left alone. Since the beginning of the war, the British, French, Russian and pro-Armenian Committees (and Armenians are not the sole members of this club) are benefiting from this path which has been paved by Russia through their publicly performed flattering politics applied over the Armenians for ten years. Agents have been going back and forth between Paris, London, and St. Petersburg so that the Entente powers can prepare major liberation plans for the Armenians, although the self interests of Russia and Britain diverge at this junction. Russia desires to take a piece from this booty: the lands reaching all the way down to Iskenderun (on the Mediterranean coast) - not autonomy to the Armenians. Britain, on the other hand, wishes autonomy for the entire booty that Russia will obtain, “of course with the thought of taking back Armenia from Russia”. Under these circumstances, no sane Armenian “would wish to lose the bulgur it has at home while going to Dimyat to obtain rice from there” [Dimyat is a Turkish city famous for its rice fields and bulgur is available in almost all villages]. But, unfortunately, the bulgur (Armenian Reform Plan) has already been ingested before the rice. Whether the Turkish Armenians are purchased by Russia and Britain, through bribery or nice promises, whether as bandit groups or individually, either the Turks being purchased individually or the treason attempts of liberal collaborators is creating minor changes on the whole. Only the Hinchaks, which has no followers in Turkey, joined the last group. Dashnaks have no
| 482 | Bekir TANK relationship with the Turkish opposition parties or their plans of treason. The administrative Armenian circles like the Patriarchate, Nationalist Congress and Dashnaks are still ready to jump on the Turkish band wagon and pull along the Russian Armenians. Dr. Liparit has influenced the Armenian Committee in the Balkans from Sofia and carried out efforts against the strengthening of their sympathy to the Russians. A decline is visible in the activities favoring Russia in the Caucasus, because many promises have not been fulfilled. I do not find the precautions taken by the Minister of War [Harbiye Naziri] against the Armenian schools, the media, etc, as tragic. Closing of American Colleges will be met with a little resistance by the Patriarchate. In fact, the relocations would have no drawbacks if the Turkish administration technique did not end with the general success (as the Circassen case proved it) in annihilation of those exiled. For this reason shaking the trust of Turkey’s Armenians towards their government, due to precautions, whose military value I have no knowledge of, should be avoided. Turkey should live with the Armenians, after the war too and the German economy politics should not turn away from them. The famous saying: ‘if you want war, be prepared for peace as well’ could be turned backwards. According to this, under the current circumstances, the results to be drawn are: 1) No results can be reached by closure of American, British and French schools, German schools should be established at the same level or at least the path to a German school policy should not be blocked. If the Armenians, Serbians, Rums, Assyrians and others do not learn German, they will speak and think in French and English. 2) Effect of French, British and Russian committees favoring Armenia should be intercepted for this reason, while the demand for German clubs and associations should be supported. They are working in line with Turkish interests, against those committees. If we remain passive and without action and refrain from using our influence at critical situations that are passionately exploited by allied committees, we would face losing the prestige that the Armenian leaders and population figures who are faithful to us. My coming to Istanbul for finding a chance to achieve a calming
| 483 | Bekir TANK
effect on the Patriarchate and the notables of the community is enough to guarantee the influence that we have carried until now and set up new bridges for a mutual agreement. 3) If the Entente Powers are bringing together their Armenian friends with the Turkish opposition figures as in the case of Sherif Pasha in Paris, we too should improve the loyalty towards Turkey of the Armenians who take advice from us. We also have to ask them to come to an agreement with the Ottoman State. From this point on, it will be possible to avoid the resentment of our Turkish friends, to whose interests we wish to serve by providing Armenians’ support. 4) Providing the agreement of Turkish Armenians with the Ottoman State is not sufficient enough. Turkey should gain the sympathy of the Caucasian Armenians. Seeing the Caucasian or at least the Kars, Erivan and Ardahan valley as the Turkish Armenia’s sovereign space is ten times more convincing than the claim that this area is under the sovereignty of the upper, i.e.: Russian Armenia. 5) The fact that we handled our sympathy towards Armenia in line with the Turks since the beginning is not a small feat. Germany still spends 34 million a year on orphanages, clinics, schools and machine shops. These were established in the 1890’s for the victims of the Hamid era. Every village and city in Germany is still paying taxes for these places. Let us prevent these circles’ fear that the German-Turkish collaboration would force us to abandon the Eastern Christians and give up the solidarity that they might be expecting from us as their co-religionists. It could have a calming effect, if I could explain in response to the slanders thrown by the media of the Entente Powers over the German Christianity, that the military precautions taken by Turkey, based on my belief would not exceed the limit and also that other relations were going to be carried over with the Christian subjects. 6) With my respect to his excellency.”187
187 PA AA Türkei 183 Band 37, Armenier R 14086, Potsdam, 17.06.1915.
| 484 | Bekir TANK
Zimmerman, undersecretary to the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs expressed that the Armenians fell victim to the instigations in exchange for sincerity of the Turks, in the report that he prepared for the Reichstag (parliament) with the sentences: “Our enemy’s gold and instigative activities are responsible for the Armenians’ closing their eyes to the advice that we gave to them in good faith and unchaining of the events which could cause great suffering to their people. According to the information given in unison by our representatives there, the Turkish government treated the Armenian subjects with utmost trustworthiness...”188 With due care it will be noticed that Germany too remained continuously on guard due to the accusations of the Entente Powers and tried to defend itself at every opportunity: “The instigations against Germany due to the so called Armenian cruelty took place in the media around here as well and especially in the left liberal and socialist news papers. For this reason, it would be suitable if Dr. Johannes Lepsius’s book “Germany and Armenia” published by Tempelverlag Potsdam, which clarifies Germany’s standing in this matter were to be circulated in certain quantities. . .”189 The mutual accusations of the Entente Powers and Central Powers continue after the war, just like it did during the war.
B. ARMENIANS IN THE AGREEMENTS ENACTED FOLLOWING WORLD WAR-I Russia, who acted influentially since the beginning with the claim of protector of the Armenians, provided them financial and military aid, instigated them against the Ottoman State and made them fight alongside its front lines during World War-I, pulls out of the war following the Bolshevik Rebellion in 1917. This situation meant for the Armenians, that they could not establish the government that was promised to them. In addition, they would not be able to obtain financial-military aid from Russia from then on. It is seen that the Armenians of the Caucasus declared autonomy together with the Republic of South Caucasia and Georgia, as an initial
188 PA AA Türkei 183 Band 37, Armenier R 14096, Berlin, 29.09.1916. 189 PA AA Türkei 183 Band 37, Armenier R 140106, Stockholm, 21.08.1919.
| 485 | Bekir TANK attempt.190 Upon Russia’s withdrawal of its military as necessitated by the Brest-Litowsk Agreement191 that they signed on March 3, 1918, the aforementioned people, this time declare their independence. Among them, the Armenians declare the Armenian Democratic Republic with Yerevan as its capital, on May 28, 1918. The first country to recognize Armenia is the Ottoman State. Sultan Mehmet Vahdettin the VIth who accepts the delegates of the four new Caucasian states with Armenia among them on September 6, 1918, even states a desire that Armenia should become a fully independent, strong state and keep friendly relations with them.192 According to Aharonian, who was heading the Armenian delegation, the first thought regarding the establishment of an independent Armenia also belongs to the sultan.193 The war intensifies in the second half of 1918 onwards in the Caucasus and especially around Baku because the oil fields of Baku carry vital importance for all of them. Britain, Russia and the Armenians are on one side, Germany and the Ottoman state on the other. Both sides are in a cutthroat competition in an effort to grab the oil rich Baku. Britain, this time takes the Armenians on its side, this time for its interests in the Caucasus. They fight shoulder to shoulder on the front line. The Ottoman State conquers Baku on September 15, 1918, but is forced to pull back its forces as a result of Russian pressure. USA’s entering the war on the side of the Entente Powers becomes the determinant of the result and the World War-I ends with victory of the Entente Powers. The victorious states dictate the Mondros Treaty which has quite severe stipulations on the Ottoman State and make them sign it on October 30, 1918.194 However, the Armenians are no longer an irreplaceable ally. They are mentioned only in the fourth article of the agreement and this is related to the
190 Ternon, p. 391. 191 Pls see: Baumgart, Winfried (1966) Deutsche Ostpolitik 1918 – Von Brest-Litowsk bis zum Ende des Ersten Weltkrieges, Oldenburg, München. 192 Bihl, Wolfdieter (1975) Die Kaukasus-Politik der Mittelmächte I, Wien/Köln/Weimar, p. 258. 193 Bihl, p. 258. 194 For more information pls see: Haegermann, Dieter / Leier, Manfred (2004) Schauplätze der europäi- schen Geschichte Güterloch; İslam Ansiklopedisi (2005) Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, Vol: XXX, Ankara, p. 271-273.
| 486 | Bekir TANK status of the Armenian prisoners of war. This article says: “Armenian prisoners of war and all of the prisoners of war of the Entente Powers will be released and they will be handed over in Istanbul.” However, they place the Armenians on the shelf to be put back on the table if found necessary in the future agreements. Occupations by Britain, France, Italy, Greeks and Armenians begin Following the Mondros Treaty. In response to this, the Turks begin a struggle to protect the borders which they see as their datum point, defined as “misak-ı milli”195 in the first Ottoman Parliamentarians’ meeting [Osmanlı Mebusan Meclisi] held on January 28, 1920. The Entente Powers feeling uncomfortable by both the decisions taken by the Meclis-i Mebusan and the Nationalist Movement which was carried on in Anatolia under the guidance of Mustafa Kemal, take one step further and take under their regulation the administrative centers of the government in Istanbul, which they had been keeping under their control de- facto, since March 16, 1920. Due to the struggle continuing in Anatolia, the Entente Powers, who fear that they cannot hang on to the oil fields that they occupied, try to take more effective precautions, since they know that the Turks will not release these areas which are within their borders according to the Misak-i Milli. First, the Paris Peace Agreement is organized between January 1, 1919 and January 21, 1920.196 Boghos Nubar, who attends this conference representing the Armenians, demands Van, Bitlis, Diyarbekir, Harput, Sivas, Erzurum, Marash, Kozan, Cebel Bereket and Iskenderun port together with Adana for the Armenians.197 Following this, while the Entente Powers gathering at San-Remo in Italy on April 19-26, 1920 are discussing the sharing of Ottoman lands in preparation for the Sevres Treaty, the Armenian demands are also evaluated naturally.198 Eventually, with the Sevres Treaty signed on August 10, 1920, an
195 Soysal, İsmail (1983) Tarihçeleri ve Açıklamaları ile Birlikte Türkiye'nin Siyasal Antlaşmaları I, Anka- ra, TTK, p. 15-16 196 For more information pls see: Baumgart, Winfried (1974) Vom europäischen Konzert zum Völker- bund. Friedensschlüsse und Friedenssicherung von Wien bis Versailles (= Erträge der Forschung. Band 25), Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt. 197 Erhan, Çağrı (2003) (Editor) Yaşayan Lozan, Ankara, TC. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı, p. 220. 198 Helmuth, K. G. Rönnefarth / Heinrich, Euler (1959) Konferenzen und Verträge. Vertrags-Ploetz.
| 487 | Bekir TANK independent Armenian state is accepted in areas excluding some of the lands that the Armenians demanded. The Entente Powers try to evaluate this agreement as a guarantee for the locations that they occupied and the jetty against the struggle carried out against them in Anatolia. According to this agreement, other parts of Anatolia were left to France, England, Italy and Greece. In this agreement, the Kurds were not forgotten and a kind of autonomy was acknowledged for them as well. Upon examining the time- frame following the Sevres Treaty, it will be seen that the Entente Powers used their energy not to bring the aforementioned treaty to operational phase, but for other targets of theirs, especially for turning the Turks away from the oil fields.199 On the other hand, the Grand National Assembly established in Ankara on April 23, 1920, did not acknowledge this agreement and continued with its struggle against the occupations, prevented the Sevres Agreement from becoming effective in its entirety.200 While the struggle against the occupation continued in Anatolia, the Entente Powers decide to hold a new conference. The Government of the Turkish Grand National Assembly attends to this conference assembled in Lausanne on November 13, 1922, with a committee headed by Ismet Inonu. The authority and directions given to this commission was in line with not to give any concessions from the Misak-i Milli borders, not to allow establishment of an Armenian State within these borders and definitely remove the capitulations. After months of deliberations, the Lausanne Treaty was signed on July 24, 1923.201 Following all of these developments, naturally Armenians received the biggest disappointment since they had believed – and with a better choice of terminology fooled by the promises of the major powers for tens of years, and who had rebelled against their own government on account of these promises, and entered the war on the side of the Entente Powers, because their worst fear befell upon them: “The Lausanne Agreement signed on July 24, 1923 ends
Teil II, 4. Band: Neueste Zeit 1914–1959. 2., erweiterte Auflage. A. G. Ploetz Verlag, Würzburg, s. 50 onwards. 199 For more information pls see: Öke, Mim Kemal (1992) Belgelerle Türk-İngiliz İlişkilerinde Musul ve Kürdistan Sorunu1918-1926, Türk Kültürünü Araştırma Enstitüsü. 200 Selek, Sebahattin (1982), Milli Mücadele, Vol: II, İstanbul, p. 677-678. 201 For more information pls see: Karacan, Ali Naci (1977) Lozan, 2. Baskı, İstanbul, Milliyet; Bilsel M. Cemil (1998) Lozan, İstanbul, Sosyal Yayınları. İslam Ansiklopedisi (2003 )Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, Vol: XXVII, Ankara, p. 214-217.
| 488 | Bekir TANK their dream of establishing an Armenian State covering the central district of historic Armenia and Cilicia.”202 With the Lauzanne Treatment, the Major Powers put the Armenian Problem on the shelf, in a state of forgetfulness of the promises they gave to the Armenians since the Berlin Agreement of 1878, to whom they called their “brethren of their shared religion” and took on their side as the “seventh ally” during the war. While the Major Powers achieve most of their desires from the long lasting war that they undertook against the Ottoman State whom they had labeled as the “Sick Man”, those who became their victims: Armenians, Turks, Kurds and others lose much more than the hundreds of thousands of lives and lands: the people who had been their brothers for hundreds of years.
CONCLUSION The reflection of the struggle and competition among the major powers to show its effect on the Armenian Problem rears its head far before the onset of World War-I. The mentioned war only sharpened this struggle and competition. No matter how much the appearance of the Armenian problem was a result of the Ottoman State’s incapability to provide public security, this problem’s coming into existence and reaching no solution transpired as a result of the major powers’ contributions. Major Powers that were making calculations of profit sharing over the Ottoman State were engaged in an effort to convert all ethnic and religious components [within the Ottoman Empire] into a problem and to use them against the government. Each one of the major powers intensified their relations with the elements suiting their own interests. However, on the subject matter of Armenians, they all showed an interest to the degree of competing with each other. The major powers did not have the aim to solve the problems of the Armenians or support them on subjects that they deemed they were justified. On the contrary, they saw the Armenians as a tool both in the competition and war against each other and also in their effort to defeat the Ottoman State. The major powers did not change this policy of theirs from the beginning till the end of the war.
202 Lewy, p. 396.
| 489 | Bekir TANK
The powers who were supposed to exert effort to solve the problem according to the authority and responsibility that they received from article 61 of the Berlin Agreement, followed contrary policies causing expansion of the problem. Even though the major powers were divided against each other as the (Triple Entente) Allied Powers and the Central Powers, they paid special attention to their relations with the Armenians. Even though gaining of autonomy for the Armenians or the status of a government never became a priority for the major powers, they supported their struggle in the path of independence through financial and spiritual means. The Armenian question gains a new dimension with the onset of World War-I. Since the Armenians’ preference is of crucial importance, both the Allied powers and the Central Powers make the utmost effort to gain them on their side. Armenians lay their preference on the side of the [Entente] Allies whom they think will win the war, naturally. While the Entente Powers win the war in the end, the Armenians suffer the biggest defeat in their history. The Armenian problem lapses into silence for a long term of 50 years. The Armenian problem is brought back on to the international public agenda, upon acceptance of the genocide claims that the Armenians pushed forward in 1965 by some other states also. The only difference between the major powers who took over the guardianship of the Armenian problem between the years 1878-1918 and the third party countries that took over this guardianship and carried it over since the 1965’s is that one exploited the hopes of the Armenians and the latter, their pains. One thing for sure is that the biggest share in the Armenians and Turks’ giving the biggest pains of their history to each other belongs to the major powers, because instead of contributing to the solution of the Armenian problem, as dictated by the responsibility that they shouldered with the Berlin Treaty of 1878, they exploited the Armenians’ hope towards independence and provoked them against the Ottoman State. The third party countries that have become a party to the Armenian problem by accepting their genocide claims in the present, have no aim of contributing to establishment of peace between the Turks and Armenians. The key to a just solution for the Armenian problem is in the hands of the Armenians and Turks, who are the main parties. For this reason, by getting together in a sincere manner, without laying down pre-conditions or
| 490 | Bekir TANK stipulations, they should evaluate the events in line with international principles of justice and fairness as binding to themselves and accept the ensuing results. Another obstacle the parties should overcome is the custodianship that the third party countries have established on the Armenian problem. It should be known that the politics of the Armenian Diaspora which are parallel to those of the third party countries is an obstacle of the same degree. Instead of laying their nest egg at the services of the needs and desires of the Armenian people, their wandering along the path of third party countries is a misfortune in the name of the Armenians. Even though a hundred years have gone by since the events of 1915- 16, the demolition and pain caused by it on the involved parties is still fresh in their minds. The sides should act with this consciousness and instead of using this “shared pain” against each other as a means of grudge and enmity, they are obliged to work towards realizing a dignified peace which could put a smile on their children’s faces and respect their ancestors’ spirits.
| 491 | Bekir TANK
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Afflerbach, Holger (2002) Der Dreibund. Europäische Großmacht- und Allianzpolitik vor dem Ersten Weltkrieg, Wien- Köln- Weimar. Akgündüz, Ahmet (2008) Sorularla Ermeni Meselesi, İstanbul, OSAV. Arat, Mari Kristin (1990) Die Wiener Mechitharisten: armenische Mönche in der Diaspora. Böhlau, Wien – Köln. Arşiv Belgeleriyle Ermeni Faaliyetleri (ABEF) (2005) Ankara, Genelkurmay Basımevi. Arşiv Belgeleriyle Ermeni Faaliyetleri (2005) Vol: I, Ankara, Genelkurmay Başkanlığı. Avyarov (1995) Osmanlı - Rus ve İran Savaşlarında Kürtler 1801 - 1900, Ankara, Sipan. Babacan, Hasan (2001) Birinci Dünya Savaşı Sırasında Ermeni Sorunu, Tehcir Meselesi ve Talat Bey, Ermeni Meselesi Üzerine Araştırmalar, (Prepared for Publication by: Erhan Afyoncu) İstanbul. Barikian, Anahit (1948) Die Entwicklung der armenischen Frage im 19. Jahrhundert. Diss. Wien. Baumgart, Winfried (1966) Deutsche Ostpolitik 1918 – Von Brest- Litowsk bis zum Ende des Ersten Weltkrieges, Oldenburg, München. Baumgart, Winfried (1974) Vom europäischen Konzert zum Völkerbund. Friedensschlüsse und Friedenssicherung von Wien bis Versailles (= Erträge der Forschung. Band 25). Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt. Bayur, Yusuf Hikmet (1991) Türk İnkılabı Tarihi, Vol: II. Ankara, TTK. Bihl, Wolfdieter (1975) Die Kaukasus-Politik der Mittelmächte I, Wien/Köln/Weimar. Bilsel, M. Cemil (1998) Lozan, İstanbul, Sosyal. Çelebyan, Antranik (2003) Antranik Paşa, İstanbul, Peri. Dadrian, Vahakn N. (1999) ‘The Secret Young-Turk Ittihadist Conference and the Decision for the World War I Genocide of the Armenians’, JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF MEDICINE Volume 92 November. Geiss, Imanuel (1978) Der Berliner Kongress 1878, Protokolle und Materialien. Boldt, Boppard, am Rhein.
| 492 | Bekir TANK
Gust, Wolfgang (2012) Alman Belgeleri Ermeni Soykırımı 1915-16 (Translation) İstanbul. Günay, Sakıp Selçuk (1983) ‘Hamidiye Hafif Süvari Alayları: 1890- 1918’ (PhD), Atatürk Üniversitesi Ed. Fak. Dept of History. Gürün, Kamuran (2005) Ermeni Dosyası, İstanbul, Remzi. Gürün, Kamuran (1985) The Armenian File; The Myth of Innocence Exposed London, Weidenfeld and Nicolson. Haegermann, Dieter/Leier, Manfred (2004) Schauplätze der europäischen Geschichte, Güterloch. Halaçoğlu, Yusuf (2002) Facts on the Relocation of Armenians 1914- 1918, Ankara, Turkish Historical Society. Helmuth, K. G. Rönnefarth/ Heinrich, Euler (1959) Konferenzen und Verträge. Vertrags-Ploetz. Teil II, 4. Band: Neueste Zeit 1914–1959. 2., erweiterte Auflage. A. G. Ploetz Verlag, Würzburg. Hovannisian, Richard G. (1967) Armenia on the Road to Independence, 1918 Hardcover– September 1. Inglisian, Vahan (1961) Hundertfünfzig Jahre Mechitaristen in Wien (1811-1961), Wien 1961. İslam Ansiklopedisi (2005) Türkiye Dİyanet Vakfı, Ankara. Karacan, Ali Naci (1977) Lozan, 2. Baskı, İstanbul, Milliyet Yayınları. Karajian, Sarkis (1972) ‘An Inquiry into the Statistics of the Turkish Genocide of the Armeniens 1915-1918’, Armenian Review 25. Kieser, Hans-Lukas (2005) Iskalanmış Barı, Doğu Vilayetlerinde Misyonerlik, Etnik Kimlik ve Devlet 1839 – 1938 (Translation), İstanbul, İletişim. Klein, Janet (2013) Hamidiye Alayları- İmparatorluğun Sınır Boyları ve Kürt Aşiretleri (Translation) İstanbul. Kocabaşoğlu, Uygur (1988) Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda 19. yüzyılda Amerikan Matbaaları ve Yayımcılığı, İstanbul. Kodaman, Bayram (1979) Hamidiye Hafif Süvari Alayları (II. Abdülhamit ve Doğu-Anadolu Aşiretleri), Tarih Dergisi, S: 32. Küçük, Cevdet (1986) Osmanlı Diplomasisinde Ermeni Meselesinin Ortaya Çıkışı 1878-1897, İstanbul. Lanne, Peter (1977) Armenien: Der Erste Völkermord des 20. Jahrhunderts, München. Lemmens, Leonbard (1916) Die Franziskaner im heiligen Lande, Münster.
| 493 | Bekir TANK
Lepsius, Johannes (1897) Armenien und Europa: Eine Anklageschrift wider die christlichen Großmächte und ein Aufruf an das christliche Deutschland, Berlin, Akademische Buchhandlung. Levy, Herbert (2010) Henry Morgenthau, Jr. The Remarkable Life of FDR's Secretary of the Treasury. Lewy, Guenter (2012) 1915 Osmanlı Ermenilerine Ne Oldu? Çarpıtılan-Değiştirilen Tarih, İstanbul, Timaş. MacCarthy, Justin (1988) Müslümanlar ve Azınlıklar (Translation), İstanbul, İnkılap. McCharty, Justin/McCharty, Carolyn (1989) Turks and Armenians: A Manual on the Armenian Question. Washington, D.C.: Assembly of Turkish American Associations. Molden, Berthold (1917) Alois Graf Aehrenthal. Sechs Jahre äußere Politik Österreich-Ungarns. Stuttgart und Berlin. Morgenthau, Henry (1918) The Tragedy of Armenia, Spottiswoode & Co. LTD. Morgenthau, Henry (2003) Ambassador Morgenthau’ Story, Wayne State University Press (Original edition 1918). Mutlu, Şamil (2005) Osmanlı Devleti’nde Misyoner Okulları, İstanbul. Mühlmann, Carl (1929) Deutschland und die Türkei, 1913-1914: die Berufung der Deutschen Militärmission nach der Turkei, 1913., das deutsch- türkische Bündnis, 1914, und der Eintritt der Türkei in den Weltkreig, W. Rotschild Verlag. Mühlmann, Carl (2014) İmparatorluğun Sonu 1914, Osmanlı Savaşa Neden ve Nasıl Girdi? (Translation), İstanbul, Timaş. Nalbandian, Louise (1963) The Armenian Revolutionary Movement. The Development Of Armenian Political Parties Through The Nineteenth Century, California. Nansen, Fridtjos (1928) Betrogenes Volk, Leipzig. Ohandjanian, Artem (1989) Armenien der Verschwiegene Vökermord, Böhlau Verlag, Wien, Köln, Graz. Öke, Mim Kemal (1992) Belgelerle Türk-İngiliz İlişkilerinde Musul ve Kürdistan Sorunu, 1918-1926, Ankara, Türk Kültürünü Araştırma Enstitüsü. Paşa, Hüseyin Nazmi (1993) Ermeni Olayları Tarihi I-II, Ankara, BOA.
| 494 | Bekir TANK
Perlin, Kurt Konrad (2008) Der Zweibund Im Spiegel Der Annexionskrise, Wien. Pomiankowski, Joseph (1928) Der Zusammenbruch des Osmanischen Reiches, Leipzig. Sarınay, Yusuf (2012) 24 Nisan 1915’te Ne Oldu? Ermeni Sevk ve İskânının Perde Arkası, İstanbul, İdeal. Selek, Sebahattin (1982) Milli Mücadele, Vol: II, İstanbul. Sertçelik, Seyit (2015) Rus ve Ermeni Kaynakları Işığında Ermeni Sorunu Ortaya Çıkış Süreci 1678 – 1914, Srt. Scherer, F. (1892) Die Mechitaristen in Wien, Wien. Soysal, İsmail (1983) Tarihçeleri ve Açıklamaları ile Birlikte Türkiye'nin Siyasal Antlaşmaları I, Ankara, TTK. Şimşir, Bilal (1895) British Documents On Ottoman Armenians Volume I-IV, Ankara, TTK.
Şimşir, Bilal (2011) Osmanlı Ermenileri, İstanbul. Takvim-i Vakayi, Nr.1416, 15 Mart 1329. Talat Paşa’nın Anıları (1991) (Prepared for Publication by: Alpay Kabacak) İstanbul. Tansel, Selahattin (1991) Mondros’tan Mudanya’ya Kadar I, MEB, İstanbul. Ternon, Yves (2012) Bir Soykırım Tarihi (Translation), İstanbul, Belge. Tuğlacı, Pars (2004) Tarih Boyunca Batı Ermenileri, Vol: II, İstanbul. Türkmen, Zekeriya (2006) Vilayat-ı Şarkiye (Doğu Anadolu Vilayetleri) Islahat Müfettişliği 1913-1914, Ankara, TTK. Uras, Esat (1987) Tarihte Ermeniler ve Ermeni Meselesi, İstanbul.Von der Golz (1929) Denkwürdigkeiten, Berlin. Wegener. Hans Ludwig (1942) Der britische Geheimdienst im Orient, Theorie u. Intrige als Mittel engl. Politik. — Berlin, Junker u. Dünnhaupt. White, George E. (1995) Bir Amerikan Misyonerinin Merzifon Amerikan Koleji Hatıraları, (Translation: Cem Tarık Yüksel), İstanbul, Enderun Kitapevi. Zamorsky, Georg/Kalnoky, Gustav Graf (2008) die Jahre des Reifens zum k.u.k. Aussenminister, Wien, Universitaet Wien, Nr: A 312 295
| 495 | Bekir TANK
ABBREVIATIONS ABEF Armenian Activities as per Archive Documents (Arşiv Belgelerinde Ermeni Faaliyetleri) ATBD Journal of Military Historic Documents (Askeri Tarih Belgeleri Dergisi) BOA Ottoman Archives in the Prime Ministry (Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi) EU. TEEM Esat Uras, Tarihte Ermeniler ve Ermeni Meselesi (Armenians and the Armenian Problem in History)
HHSTA Austrian Archive (Avusturya Arşivi) (Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv) KG. ED Kamuran Gürün, Armenian File (Ermeni Dosyası) OBE Armenians in the Ottoman Archives (Osmanlı Belgelerinde Ermeniler) PA AA Archives of the German State (Das Politische Archiv des Auswärtigen Amts) (Almanya Devlet Arşivi).
| 496 |
FROM INSURGENCY TO SCORCHED EARTH POLICY: ARMENIAN NATIONALIST POLICY AGAINST THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE AND EMERGING TURKEY, 1914-1923∗
Maxime GAUIN**
FOREWORD The goal of this paper is to present the responsibilities of the Armenian nationalist organizations, particularly the Armenian Revolutionary Federation-Dashnaktsutiune (ARF-Dashnak, established in 1890) in the fate of the Ottoman Armenians during the First World War and the Turkish war of independence. In 1914, the conflict of the Ottoman state with the nationalist Armenians is already five decades old, since the revolt of Zeytun in 1862, but after 1890, the activities of the Armenian nationalist-revolutionaries, now organized in political parties, became more destructive.1 However, only the war provided them the opportunity to be backed up by major powers, and eventually, in 1918, and Armenian Republic emerged. In spite of the failure of this state, the Armenian nationalist leadership pursued a constant anti- Turkish policy, at any cost, even for the people they pretended to represent. The first part is devoted to the activities at the service of the Entente, to help its victory against the Ottoman Empire, activities that led to the relocation of 1915-16. The second part is an overview of the war crimes perpetrated against Muslims and Jews, and their consequences for Armenian civilians. The third and last part studies the Turkish war of independence, particularly the choice of aggressiveness, and even of scorched earth policy, instead of reconciliation, by the Armenian nationalist parties.
∗ This is the the original version of the text. ** Maxime GAUIN Researcher at AVİM (Center for Eurasian Studies), PhD Student in His- tory at Middle East Technical University 1 Çiçek, Kemal (ed.) (2011) 1909 Adana Olayları Makaleler/The Adana Incidents of 1909 Revisi- ted, Ankara, TTK; McCarthy, Justin / Taşkıran, Cemalettin / Turan, Ömer (2014) Sasun: The History of an 1890s Armenian Revolt, Salt Lake City, University of Utah Press,; Langer, William (1960) The Diplomacy of Imperialism, New York, Alfred A. Knopf, pp. 154-162 and 321-325; Nalbandian, Louise (1963) The Armenian Revolutionary Movement, Berkeley-Los Angeles- London, University of California Press, http://www.ucpress.edu/op.php?isbn=9780520009141; Sonyel, Salâhi “The Turco-Armenian ‘Adana Incidents’ in the Light of Secret British Docu- ments,” Belleten, LI/201, December 1987, pp. 1291-1338, http://etarih.com/tarih/ermeni_ dosya- si/bel201-1291_1338.pdf
| 497 |
Maxime GAUIN
A. INSURRECTIONS AND RECRUITMENT OF VOLUNTEERS DURING THE FIRST WORLD WAR 1. North-eastern Anatolia Initially, the CUP asked the Armenian parties to simply remain loyal to the Ottoman Empire, but noticing as early as summer 1914 that the ARF and other Armenian organizations were recruiting volunteers for the Russian army, they proposed the following deal: a massive involvement of both Ottoman and Russian Armenians against Russia in exchange for an autonomous Armenia comprising of territory from the two empires. The ARF refused and continued its activities against the Ottoman Empire for Russia.2 When the CUP government asked the ARF to remain neutral, “the desired response was not given,” according to Captain Leghazarof, the officer of the Armenian general staff.3 Hovhannes Katchaznouni, the leader of the ARF in the Caucasus and Prime Minister of Armenia from 1918 to 1919, made this interesting observation: “If the formation of bands was wrong, the root of that error must be sought much further and more deeply. At the present time, it is important to register only the evidence that we [the ARF] did participate in that volunteer movement to the largest extent and we did that contrary to the decision and the will of the General Meeting of the Party.”4 The recruitment officially began in September 1914, and at the end of October 1914, just before Russia declared war to the Ottoman Empire, four units were ready.5 This pro-Russian choice and this recruitment of volunteers
2 Price, Morgan Philips (1918) War and Revolution in Asiatic Russia, London, George Allen & Unwin, p. 245, http://www.archive.org/download/cu31924027963762/cu31924027963762.pdf; Shaw, Stanford J. (2006) The Ottoman Empire in World War I, Volume I, Ankara, TTK, pp. 93-100. 3 Rôle des Arméniens du Caucase pendant la Guerre 1914-1918, Service Historique de la Défense (SHD), Vincennes, 16 N 3187, Classeur 36. 4 Katchaznouni, Hovhannes (1955) The Armenian Revolutionary Federation Has Nothing to Do Anymore, New York, Armenian Information Service, p. 5, http://ia600602.us.archive.org/14/items/armenianrevolution00katc/armenianrevolution00k atc.pdf 5 Korganoff (Gorganian), Gabriel (1927) La Participation des Arméniens à la Guerre Mon- diale sur le front du Caucase (1914-1918), Paris, Massis, p. 10. Also see Yerasimos, Sté- phane “Caucase, la Grande Mêlée (1914-1921)”, Hérodote, n° 54-55, 4etrimestre 1989, p.
| 498 | Maxime GAUIN
were of course noticed by the Ottoman military, as early as September- October 1914.6 The main person in charge was G. Pasdermadjian, a former ARF deputy in the Ottoman Parliament from Erzurum (1908-1912), who went to Russia as early as August 1914. In addition to the 150,000 regular Armenian soldiers, who were Russian subjects, Pasdermadjian’s committee provided more than 50,000 men to the Tsar’s army.7 According to Pasdermadjian, apparently less than 20,000 of these men were Russian subjects.8 Since the Armenian volunteers of France, the UK, and the U.S. fought mostly in Western armies, and since the Armenian communities of Bulgaria and Romania sent only some hundreds of fighters (600 from Bulgaria),9 these figures mean that around 30,000 Ottoman Armenians—if not more10—betrayed their country by fighting for Russia. The volunteers were congratulated for their effectiveness by several Russian Generals and by the Tsar himself.11
155-159. 6 Documents on Ottoman Armenians, Ankara, Prime Ministry Directorate of Press and Information, Volume II, 1983, pp. 2-15; Erickson, Edward J. (2013) Ottomans and Arme- nians. A Study in Counter-Insurgency, New York-London, Palgrave MacMillan, pp. 145- 146. 7 Aharonian, Avetis / Nubar, Boghos (1919) The Armenian Question Before the Paris Peace Conference, Paris, p. 6, http://www.archive.org/download/armenianquestion00pari/ arme- nianquestion00pari.pdf 8 Pasdermadjian, G. (1918) Why Armenia Should Be Free, Boston, Hairenik, p. 19. Pasder- madjian is not absolutely clear, speaking of volunteers from “Caucasus”, but if there is an error in the interpretation of this figure, it is an overestimation of Russian Armenians’ number and so an underestimation of Ottoman Armenians’ number. 9 Report of the Ottoman Representative in Sofia, 7 November 1914; Atılgan, İnanç / Moum- djian, Garabet (Ed.) (2009) Archival Documents of the Viennese Armenian-Turkish Plat- form, Klagenfurt-Vienna-Ljubjana-Sarajevo, Wieser Verlag, pp. 72-73. 10 Halaçoğlu, Yusuf (2002) Facts on the Relocation of Armenians, Ankara, TTK, p. 105 gives the figure of 50,000, relying on Ottoman documents. Even Peter Balakian criticizes Pasder- madjian (“this kind of naïve romanticism enraged the Turks”), but dismisses the strategic importance of the revolutionary activities (“a small minority that openly opposed the Ot- toman government”) without discussing the relevant sources: Balakian, Peter (2004) The Burning Tigris, New York, Perennial, p. 199. 11 Gibbons, Herbert Adams (1926) Armenia in the World War, New York, American Committee Opposed to the Lausanne Treaty, pp. 9-10, http://armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2011/03/3232- armenia-in-world-war-by-herbert.html; Korganoff (Gorganian), pp. 26 and 28.
| 499 | Maxime GAUIN
Beside this recruitment of volunteers, Armenian revolutionaries inside Turkey began to prepare the Russian invasion. The Dashnaks of Bitlis were preparing themselves,12 and were incited by Russian agents since 1912-1913.13 Not surprisingly, important insurrectional activities started in this province in February 1915,14 and then intensified in March.15They continued during spring and summer.16In Trabzon, a part of the Russian network providing weapons to the revolutionaries was discovered by the Ottoman authorities as early as January 1914, however, these police operations did not prevent Armenian gangs to operate in this province as early as October of the same year.17As observed by Edward J. Erickson, “The areas around Erzurum were hotbeds of [Armenian revolutionary] activity.”18 Taner Akçam tries to rebut the accusations about the Armenian nationalists of Erzurum province by quoting German consul Scheubner-Richter, a staunch Armenophile and a future associate of Hitler.19 However, as observed by Sean McMeekin, who, unlike Mr. Akçam, speaks Russian and worked in the Russian archives, the consul of the tsar, personally involved in the smuggling of weapons for the extremist elements of the Armenian community, “reported otherwise.”20
2. The Revolt of Van
12 Report of the Russian Consul in Bitlis, 24 December 1912, reproduced in Bey, Ahmet Rüstem (1918) La Guerre mondiale et la question turco-arménienne, Berne, Stæmpfli&Cie, pp. 151-152. 13 Annexe à la dépêcheduvice-consul de France à Van, 2 mai 1913, Archives du ministère des Affaires étrangères (AMAE), La Courneuve, P 16 744. 14 Undated report (March or April 1915) to the Ottoman general staff, in “Armenian Activi- ties in the Ottoman Documents”, Ankara, ATASE, Volume I, 2005, pp. 117-120; Erickson, p. 162; Gürün, Kâmuran (1985) The Armenian File, London-Nicosia-İstanbul, Weidenfeld & Nicolson / K. Rüstem & Brothers, p. 197. 15 Coded cable from Elazığ to the Ministry of Defense, 30 March 1915, in Documents on Ottomans…, Volume II, p. 60. 16 Top secret letter of Talat to the president of the court martial, 24 May 1915, and ciphered telegram of Mahmud Kâmil Paşa to the ministry of War, 19 June 1915, Armenian Activities in…, Volume I, pp. 181 and 187-188; Halaçoğlu, pp. 68-69. 17 Lewy, p. 174. 18 Erickson, p. 162. 19 Akçam, Taner (2006) A Shameful Act, New York, Metropolitan Books, pp. 197-199. 20 McMeekin, Sean (2011) The Russian Origins of the First World War, Cambridge (Massa- chusetts)-London, Harvard University Press, pp. 161-164 and p. 278, n. 75.
| 500 | Maxime GAUIN
Van was a major city for Armenian nationalism, at least since 1870s.21 In 1910, the Armenian Revolutionary Federation distributes a booklet entitled Instructions for self-defense, presenting a quite extensive conception of “defense”: it includes, for example, the “attack” of villages.22 In December 1912, the mayor of Van, a loyal Armenian supporting the CUP, is assassinated by the ARF, and the next year, the French diplomacy warns Paris about the extremely aggressive intention of the Dashnaks, particularly the ones of Van.23 Already impressive in January 1914,24 the Armenian stocks of weapons received new material by October 1914.25 The insurrectional activities expanded during the three first months of 1915, particularly in March, and the revolt in the city itself began on 7 April, under the leadership of the ARF. The uprising escalated on 20.26 “Buildings of the Public Debt, Post Office, Tobacco Monopoly and the Ottoman Bank were burnt down and destroyed,” as wrote the governor Cevdet Bey.27 Having important stocks of weapons and ammunitions, the Dashnak insurgents resisted the local armed forces and new units were sent on 23 April to suppress the rebellion. Even U.S. ambassador Morgenthau, frequently cited to support the “genocide” claims,28 estimated the number of Armenian
21 Nalbandian, pp. 80-84. 22Aspirations et agissements révolutionnaires des comités arméniens, avant et après la proc- lamation de la Constitutionottomane, İstanbul, Matbaai Orhaniye, 1917, pp. 50-53, http://louisville.edu/a-s/history/turks/comites_armeniens.pdf 23 See, for example, the report of the ambassador on 18 May 1913, AMAE, P 16 744. 24 Dispatches of vice-consul Ian Smith, 10 January 1914, in Demirel, Muammer (Ed.) (2002), British Documents on Armenians (1896-1918), Ankara, YeniTürkiye, pp. 633-636. 25 Erickson, Edward J. “The Armenians and Ottoman Military Policy”, War in History, XV-2, April 2008, p. 151, http://www.tc-america.org/media/Ericson_militarypolicy1915.pdf; Gossoian, Haig (1967) The Epic Story of the Self Defense of Armenians in the Historic City of Van, Detroit, General Society of Vasbouragan, p. 13 (1st edition, Sofia, 1930; translated from Armenian by Samuels S. Tarpinian). 26 McCarthy, Justin et-al, (2006) The Armenian Rebellion at Van, Salt Lake City, University of Utah Press, pp. 188-206. 27 Ciphered telegram to the ministry of Interior, 21 April 1915, Documents on Ottoman…, Volume II, p. 71. 28 The main problem is that the documents written by Morgenthau are much less used by mainstream Armenian authors than his so-called Memoirs, which are mostly unreliable: On this point, see Fay, Sidney Bradshaw (1928) The Origins of the World War, New York-Toronto-London, Macmillan, Volume II, pp. 167-182; and Lowry, Heath W. (1990) The Story Behind Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story, İstanbul, The Isis Press, http://www.eraren.org/index.php?Lisan=en&Page=YayinIcerik
| 501 | Maxime GAUIN
insurgents in Van to be at least 10,000, and more likely 25,000. Without surprise, the revolt of Van rose in April 1915 in coordination with the Russian army, particularly the units of Armenian volunteers. Not only the Ottomans lost Van in May 1915, but the revolt was a catalyst for other insurrectional activities, for example in Sivas.29 To present the Armenian revolt as an act of “resistance,” Armenian and pro-Armenian writers neglect the previously exposed crucial facts. They also heavily rely on a book published by U.S. missionary Clarence Ussherin 1917.30 This book, written after Ussher went to the Caucasus, where his nerves were seriously damaged by typhus, and also after the death of his wife, is marred by false allegations and cannot be taken as a quite reliable source.31
3. With the British and the French As early as autumn 1914, Boghos Nubar suggested a landing in Cilicia to the British and French government.32In a memorandum submitted to the British authorities on February 3, 1915 Boghos Nubar explained once again that “the [Armenian] populations of Cilicia were ready to revolt […] the British soldiers would be assured perfect and total support by the Armenians, who need only guns.”33In fact, the British consul in Aleppo explained, as early as autumn 1913 that “the Armenians of Deurtyol are now well-armed with modern rifles, every male adult having one in his possession. Männlichers
&SayiNo=18 29 Erickson (2013), pp. 166-169. Rafael de Nogales, a Venezuelan soldier engaged in the Ot- toman army but sympathizing with the Armenian civilians, estimated the number of insur- gents to be 30,000: De Nogales, Rafael (1932) Memoirs of a Soldier of Fortune, New York, Harrisson Smith, p. 271. 30 Balakian, pp. 201-204; Walker, Christopher (1990) Armenia. The Survival of a Nation, London-New York, Routledge, pp. 205-209. On Mr. Walker’s choice of sources, see Lowry, Heath "American Observers in Anatolia ca. 1920: The Bristol Papers,” in Armenians in the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey (1912-1926), İstanbul, Tasvir Press, 1984, pp. 42-58, http://www.h-net.org/~fisher/hst373/readings/lowry-bristol.html 31 McCarthy et al, p. 253. 32 Dépêche du ministre de France en Égypte au ministre des Affaires étrangères, 21 novembre 1914, in Dilan, Hasan (Ed.) (2005) Les Événements arméniens dans les documents diplo- matiques français, Ankara, TTK, Volume I, p. 246; Erickson (2013), p. 156. 33 Ghazarian, Vatche (Ed.) (1996) Boghos Nubar’s Papers and the Armenian Question, 1915- 1918: Documents, Waltham (Massachusetts), Mayreni, pp. 3-5.
| 502 | Maxime GAUIN
[Austrian-Hungarian rifles] and Mausers [German pistols convertible into carbines] are hidden for immediate use in emergency.”34From December 1914 to April 1915, British and French ships bombed the coast in gulf of Iskenderun, and these operations were supported by Armenian nationalists active in this part of Anatolia.35In this context, the agitation in Zeytun, beginning as early as August 1914, became an open, large rebellion in February 1915.36 The Russian ambassadors in Paris and London asked the French and British governments to deliver weapons through the port of İskenderun to the “15,000 Armenians [of Zeytun] ready to attack the Turkish communication lines.”37 In July 1915, a note of the Armenian National Delegation explained that only Armenians have “very accentuated insurrectional tendencies against the Turkish regime.”38 Eventually, the big landing advocated by Armenian nationalists did not take place, for complicated reasons. In short, during the first months of the war, the French had virtually no relations with the Armenian insurgents (unlike with the Christian Arabs of Lebanon) and no desire to share the Ottoman Empire. The British, after internal discussions, gave the priority to the operation in Çanakkale. However, new projects were discussed during the second half of 1915, as well as in 1916 and 1917.39 At the end of 1916, in the context of the Sykes-Picot agreements, the Eastern Legion, primarily Armenian, was established by the French government and the Ramkavar.
34 Despatch of consul Fontana to the chargé d’affaires in İstanbul, October 21, 1913, The National Archives, Kew Gardens (London), FO 371/1773/52128. 35 Erickson, Edward J. “Captain Larkin and the Turks: The Strategic Impact of the Operations of HMS Doris in Early 1915,” Middle Eastern Studies, XLVI-1, January 2010, p. 151-162, http://www.tc-america.org/media/Ericson_LarkinandtheTurks.pdf; Güçlü, Yücel (2010) Armenians and the Allies in Cilicia (1914-1923), Salt Lake City, University of Utah Press, pp. 65-67. 36 Dyer, Gwynne “Correspondence”, Middle Eastern Studies, IX-3, 1973, p. 383; Halaçoğlu, pp. 47-48 and 58-59. 37 Note de l’ambassadeur de Russie à Paris, 23 février 1915, in Dilan (Ed.), p. 49; Russian note to the British government, February 24, 1915, FO 371/2484/22083. 38 Note du Comité de la défense nationale arménienne, 24 juillet 1915, in Montant, Jean- Claude (Ed.) (2004) Documents diplomatiques français. 1915, tome III, 15 septembre – 21 décembre, Berne, Peter Lang, p. 98. 39 On this point, see my forthcoming paper “Strategic Threats and Hesitations” in the pro- ceedings of the symposium at İstanbul Üniversitesi, “19.-20. Yüzyıllarda Türk-Ermeni İliş- kileri Sympozyomu”.
| 503 | Maxime GAUIN
This failure of the projects exposed by Armenian nationalists, however, does not mean that they were not interested in the landing at Çanakkale. On the contrary, Armenian revolutionaries in the province of Bursa and İzmit were very active in 1915, causing obvious problems to the Ottoman army.40 Considering the lack of lines of communication, the mobilization of most of the units on the battlefields and the absence of sufficient protection for the logistic units moving inside Anatolia, this is quite clear that the decision to relocate is due to the insurrectional activities of the Armenian nationalists, who even launched new rebellions (for example in Urfa) after the decision to relocate. This decision to displace civilians providing support to the insurgents is similar to the one taken by the Spanish army in Cuba, the U.S. army in the Philippines and the British army in South Africa.41
B. THE ETHNIC CLEANSING AGAINST THE MUSLIMS AND THE ANNIHILATION OF THE JEWS 1. Before the Relocation (1914-1915) The first Russian document complaining about Armenian crimes against Muslims during the First World War is dated 1st December 1914. Some months later, Prince Vasilii Gadzhemukov strongly criticized the indiscriminate massacre of Muslims during the revolt of Van and the Russian conquest of the city, not in the name of humanitarian values, but because the Muslims of eastern Anatolia now resisted more than before the Tsar’s army, “for fear of falling into Armenian hands.”42 The list of the 69 villagers exterminated in the village of Mergehu (where the kind of killing is explained for each victim),43 the sworn statement of Şerif Bey, director of national
40 Aspirations et agissements…, pp. 213-214. 41 Erickson (2013), pp. 81-96, 183-221 and passim. Also see Price, Clair (1923) The Rebirth of Turkey, New York, Thomas Seltzer, pp. 84-87. 42 Reynolds, Michael A. (2011) Shattering Empires. The Clash and Collapse of the Ottoman and Russian Empires, 1908-1918, New York-Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 156-158. Also see Perinçek, Mehmet (Ed.) (2007) Rus Devlet Arşivlerinden - 100 Belgede Ermeni Meselesi, İstanbul, Doğan Kitap, pp. 68-103. 43 Reports dated 4 and 15 March 1915: Documents on Ottoman…, Volume I. For material evidence (skeletons) of the massacre: Süslü, Azmi / Yıldırım, Hüsamettin / Gündüz Bir- gün (Ed.) (2001) Efsane ve Gerçekler: Türk-Ermeni İlişkileri, Ankara, Atatürk Araştırma Merkezi, p. 98.
| 504 | Maxime GAUIN
education in Van, and the report of the commander of gendarmerie of this city, provide numerous precisions, individual examples (impossible to reproduce here) of killings, mutilations, rapes of women and children, all crimes perpetrated by Armenian nationalists during the revolt of Van, with the obvious intention to provoke maximal sufferings before death and to humiliate the victims. For instance, a baby was burned and his mother asked to eat him, then tortured after she refused. The Jews were also targeted by the Armenian of the Russian army, with a particular fury. About 300 of them who tried to flee from Hakkari were all massacred.44 The Jewish community of Van represented about 1,800 persons in 1914. Some dozens (mostly 43 in Hakkari) remained in 1927.45 This anti-Semitism of Armenians must be analyzed in the context of loyalty of the Jewish community to both Hamidian and CUP regimes.46 More generally, these crimes are fully understandable only if one knows that the ARF turned to an officially racism around 1914, and confirmed, by war-time publication, its belief in the superiority of the “Aryan race” as well as in the criminal nature of the “Mongol race” (the Turks).47 The massacres of Turks and other Muslims before the relocations were not the only reason for the killing of Armenians in 1915-16 (Arab tribes, who were among the top perpetrators in this regards, were motivated by plunder and did not care about the fate of Turkics and Kurds) but certainly one of the main causes. In that sense, the analysis of Bernard Lewis is fully justified: “For the Turks, the Armenian movement was the deadliest of all threats” and 1915 was “a struggle
44 Schemsi, Kara (1919) Turcs et Arméniens devant l’histoire, Genève, Imprimerienationale, pp. 46-48 and 58-65 (reference to the baby and her mother p. 59, to the Jews p. 61). Also see De Nogales, Rafael (1926) Four Years Beneath the Crescent, New York-London, Charles Schribner’s, p. 39. 45 McCarthy, Justin (1983) Muslims and Minorities. The Population of Ottoman Anatolia and the end of the Empire, New York-London, New York University Press, pp. 102 and 108, n. 3. 46 Ahmad, Feroz (2014) The Young Turks and the Ottoman Nationalities. Armenians, Greeks, Albanians, Jews and Arabs: 1908-1918, Salt Lake City, University of Utah Press, pp. 100-111 and 149-150; Galanté, Abraham (1985) Histoire des juifs de Turquie, İstanbul, Les éditions Isis, Volume V, pp. 295-296; Sonyel, Salâhi (1993) Minorities and the Destruction of the Ottoman Empire, Ankara, TTK, pp. 309-323 and 430-441. 47 Editorial of Haïastan (Sofia), 19 August 1914, quoted in Aspirations et agissements…, p. 155 ; Varandian, Mikael (1917) L’Arménie et la question arménienne, Laval, G. Kava- nagh&Cie, pp. 23-30.
| 505 | Maxime GAUIN
between two nations for the possession of a single homeland.”48 This is not condoning the assassination of innocent Armenians, but merely noticing that the relatives and the friends of Muslims who were butchered by Armenians and Cossacks in 1914-15 did not need any order from the government, any “genocidal” plan to use violence.49 They acted without coordination, without real political motivation, namely without the special intent which is an indispensable element in defining the crime of genocide.
2. During the Grand Russian Offensives (1915-1916) The most detailed account by a Russian official about the crimes of the Armenian volunteers during the Russian invasion is likely the 65-page report of Brigadier General Leonid Bolhovitinov, dated 11 December 1915. Bolhovitinov indicated that “Armenian voluntary units had started violent slaughters against the Muslim people with racist motives” (my emphasis) and that such violence had deep roots: Since the end of the 19th century, the Armenian revolutionary committees assassinated both moderate Armenians and Muslim civilians.50 Also in December 1915, the Russian high command suppressed the units of Armenian volunteers, eliminating a part of them, and integrating the others in regular units.51 However, these purges did not change the situation radically. Missionary Grace Knapp, who had a strong anti-Turkish and pro-Armenian bias, yet explained that after the capture of Bitlis by the Russian army (1916), “the Moslems who did not succeed in escaping were put to death,” especially by “a band of Armenian volunteers, part of the advance guard of the Russian
48 Lewis, Bernard (2002) The Emergence of Modern Turkey. Third Edition, New York- Oxford, Oxford University Press, p. 356. 49 On the absence of evidence for a genocidal intent from the Ottoman government, see, for example, Gauin, Maxime “Review Essay — ’Proving’ a ‘Crime against Humanity’?”, Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, XXXV-1, March 2015, pp. 141-157, https://www.academia.edu/11715403/Review_Essay_Proving_a_Crime_against_Humanity _; and Lewy. 50 Perinçek, Mehmet (Ed.) (2009) 11 Aralık 1915 Tarihli Resmi Ermeni Raporu, İstanbul, Doğan Kitap. 51 Reynolds, p. 158.
| 506 | Maxime GAUIN
army.”52 Not surprisingly, this testimony is confirmed by sworn statements of survivors, registered during the war.53 In other word, the official suppression was not quickly carried out, when the Armenian volunteers could be used as an efficient, albeit murderous, vanguard. This situation is also confirmed by British political officer Edward W. C. Noel, who, after an investigation in 1919, exposed the “indiscriminate” massacre of Muslims by Cossacks, Armenians and Assyrians in Rowanduz (today at the boundary between Iraq and Turkey) in 1916.54 Armenians of the Russian army, together with Cossacks, also committed massacres and even sadist acts during the offensives toward Trabzon and Diyarbakır.55Regardless, it is important to stress the fact that the Russian position was not always limited to active cooperation and powerless protests. For example, in Van, in May 1916, the Russian commander sent twelve Armenians to the gallows and punished the Russian soldiers who had helped them, after more than 10,000 Muslims were massacred.56
3. During the Russian Withdrawal (1917-1918) When Russian army collapsed, in 1917, the officers who opposed the crimes of the Armenians nationalists lost the manpower necessary to repress them, so the program of ethnic cleansing, with a strong preference for indiscriminate massacre, was carried without restriction, until the arrival of the Ottoman army. Russian lieutenant-colonel Tverdokhlebov explained: “More than 800 unarmed innocent Turks were massacred [in Erzincan]. […] They slaughtered the people as if they were sheep.” The slaughter continued in
52 Knapp, Grace (1919) The Tragedy of Bitlis, New York-Chicago-London-Edinburg, Flem- ming H. Revell C°, p. 146. 53 Documents sur les atrocités arméno-russes, İstanbul, Sociétéanonyme de papeterie et d’imprimerie, 1917, pp. 6, 9-10, 13-15 and 19-21, http://louisville.edu/a-s/history/turks/ do- cuments_sur_les_atrocites_armeno-russes.pdf 54 Long quote in Shaw, Stanford Jay (2000) From Empire to Republic. The Turkish War of National Liberation, Ankara, TTK, Volume II, p. 922. 55 Report to the ministry of Interior, 5 June 1916, in Atılgan / Moumdjian (Ed.), pp. 708-713, pp. 716-717; Sarınay, Yusuf (Ed.) (2001) Ermeniler Tarafından Yapılan Katliam Belgeleri, Ankara, Volume I, pp. 14-16; Schemsi, pp. 72-74. 56 Report of the Ottoman Army, 11 May 1916, in Atılgan / Moumdjian (Ed.), pp. 708-713.
| 507 | Maxime GAUIN
the countryside: “The Armenian mobs retreating from Erzincan to Erzurum exterminated all the Muslim villagers they met on their way. […] All of those who could not manage to flee from Ilıca were massacred. The Army Commander [General Odichelitzé] said he saw lots of corpses belonging to children whose throats were butchered with blunt knives, and bodies cut into thin and long strips.” Correspondingly, thousands of Turks were massacred systematically in Erzurum itself, in February 1918: about 3,000 during the bloodiest night only.57 As observed by the two official investigators of the U.S. government in the most eastern part of Anatolia, such massacres, as well as rapes and destructions, were generalized during the Russian withdrawal, “from Bitlis through Van to Bayezit” and “from from Bitlis to Trebizond.”58 A partial compilation of Ottoman documents gives a total of 518,105 Muslims massacred by Armenians and Cossacks in eastern Anatolia, from 1914 to 1918.59 Not only these documents are mostly based on detailed researches, and in many cases on a counting of corpses one by one, but British Captain C. L. Wooley reported that between 300,000 and 400,000 “Kurds” (it probably included Turks other Muslims as well) were butchered in the most devastated part of eastern Anatolia only (Van and Bitlis).60 Added to the previous war crimes, the massacres and destructions of 1917-1918 provoked the flow of 50,000 new Armenian refugees from eastern Anatolia to Armenia,61 and prevented any reconciliation. More concretely, they made the post-1918 schemes of repatriation impossible in North-Eastern
57 Tverdokhlebov, Vladimir N. (2007) Gördüklerim Yaşadıklarım / I Witnessed and Lived Through / Ce que j’ai vu et vécumoi-même, Ankara, ATASE, pp. 51-55, http://www.turkishpac.org/pdfs/tverdohlebov_turkish.pdf 58 McCarthy, Justin (1994) “The Report of Niles and Sutherland,” XI. Türk Tarih Kongresi, Ankara, TTK, Volume V, pp. 1828-1830, 1842 and 1850. 59 Sarınay, p. 377 et p. 1053 (the dates in these tables are the ones of the reports, not necessari- ly of the massacres, as it can be checked in the rest of the volumes: for example, several doc- uments written in 1916 describe massacres having taken place in 1915, and an investigation carried out in 1921 is about crimes perpetrated in 1918). 60 McCarthy, Justin (1995) Death and Exile. The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, 1821-1922, Princeton, Darwin Press, p. 238, n. 75; Salt, Jeremy (2008) The Unmaking of the Middle East, Berkeley-Los Angeles-London, University of California Press, p. 67. 61 Chardigny, Colonel “La questionarménienne”, 30 octobre 1919, SHD, 16 N 3187, dossier 4.
| 508 | Maxime GAUIN
Anatolia. The devastating policy of the Armenian nationalist organizations, however, did not stop at the middle of 1918.
C. THE FAILURE OF THE “INTEGRAL ARMENIA” AND THE SCORCHED EARTH POLICY 1. The Counter-Productive Aggressiveness of the Armenian Republic (1919-1920) After a short period of relative pragmatism, in 1918, due to the balance of military power, the Armenian Republic (autonomous in 1917, independent on 28 May 1918) pursued ethnic cleansing, the Ottoman Empire having been defeated in autumn 1918. Indeed, this Republic was ruled by the ARF, who imposed a de facto dictatorship.62As observed by U.S. High Commissioner Mark Bristol, as early as 1919: “The Armenian government has contributed to a great extent to the aggravation between the races in Armenia by forcing the Tatars to leave their villages which were sacked and burned and there are a great many Tatar refugees in a deplorable state of starvation which made it necessary to force the Armenian government to permit supplies and medical assistance for these refugees. The Armenians are also very much to blame for making the work of our relief workers more difficult especially with the present impossible conditions. The various foreign missions in the Caucasus are working without any coordination whatsoever and often with antagonistic aims.”63 The aggressiveness against Azerbaijan blocked the relatively small army of this country on the Armenian boundary, paving the way to the Bolshevik invasion in April 1920.64 Correspondingly, as noticed by Hovhannes
62 Katchaznouni, pp. 8-9. 63 Sent dispatch of Bristol to Paris, 21 November 1919, Library of Congress (LC), manuscript division, Bristol papers, container 66. Also see Lowry, Heath “Richard G. Hovannisian on Lieutenant Robert Steed Dunn. A Review Note,” The Journal of Ottoman Studies, V, 1985, pp. 209-252, http://english.isam.org.tr/documents/_dosyalar/_pdfler/osmanli_arastirmalari_dergisi/osm anl%C4%B1_sy5/1986_5_LOWRYHW.pdf 64 Swietochowski, Tadeusz (1985) Russian Azerbaijan, 1905-1920, New York-Cambridge,
| 509 | Maxime GAUIN
Katchaznouni, “With the carelessness of inexperienced and ignorant men we [the Dashnak government] did not know what forces Turkey had mustered on our frontiers. When the skirmishes had started the Turks proposed that we meet and confer. We did not do so and defied them.”65 These provocations included the acceleration of the ethnic cleansing against the Turkics in Armenia, in June and July 1920.66 Doing so, the ARF cabinet provoked the collapse of Armenia itself, but, contrary to a legend, there was no Kemalist- Bolshevik plot to suppress the independence of Armenia. The relations between Ankara and Moscow deteriorated during the months preceding the Turkish offensive against Armenia and this offensive, far from having been coordinated with Moscow, was a way to force both the Dashnaks and the Soviets to accept the Turkish-Armenian boundary wished by the Turkish national movement. The Bolsheviks were less than happy by the Kemalist offensive and did not choose immediately to reply by an invasion of Armenia, preferring, as a first step, to be mediators.67
2. The Failure of the “Armenian Cilicia” and the French Withdrawal (1918-1922) Only from 28 December 1918 to 15 February 1919, so when the occupation was barely beginning, French sources mention 15 Turks assassinated by Armenian legionnaires or civilians, almost thirty cases of hold-ups or plunder, one affair of death threats against the inhabitants of a whole quarter and one case of racket followed by rapes.68 I already have
Cambridge University Press, pp. 160-164. 65 Katchaznouni, pp. 9-10. 66 https://www.scribd.com/doc/201815861/French-High-Commissioner-Report-from-1920- on-the-massacre-of-Azerbaijani-population-by-Armenian-army 67 Afanasyan, Serge (1981) L’Arménie, l’Azerbaïdjan et la Géorgie, de l’indépendance à l’instaurationdupouvoirsoviétique. 1917-1923, Paris, L’Harmattan, pp. 128-140. Mamoulia, Alsosee Georges (2009) Les Combats indépendantistes des Caucasiensentre URSS et puis- sancesoccidentales : le cas de la Géorgie (1921-1945), Paris, L’Harmattan, p. 27; Shaw (2000), Volume III-2, pp. 1478-1487 and 1499-1502; Yerasimos, pp. 186-191. 68 Lettre du colonel Édouard Brémondauhaut-commissairefrançais à İstanbul , 24 février 1919, Centre des archives diplomatiques de Nantes (CADN), 36 PO/1/9; Gautherot, Gus- tave (1920) La France en Syrie et en Cilicie, Courbevoie, Librairie indépendante, pp. 146- 150.
| 510 | Maxime GAUIN
described in other publications the Armenian war crimes, until 1920, and their repression by the French administration, including death sentences and executions without trial in the context of murders, slaughters and arsons in Adana and neighboring villages, during spring and summer 1920.69 I would like to stress here this fact: The responsibilities of the Armenian nationalists in Cilicia are not limited to violence against the Turks. They directly and deliberately provoked the exile of most of their coreligionists from the province of Adana during the French withdrawal (November 1921- January1922).70 Indeed, the report of the French commission of evacuation explains: “The events that followed confirmed that this was a slogan coming from outside, and the implementation of which no one dared to escape. On December 9, heads of the [Gregorian, Catholic, and Protestant]communities explained to Mr. Franklin-Bouillon that even those Christians who were willing to stay were forced to flee, because their life was threatened.”71 More particularly, the Armenian nationalists-terrorists undermined the work of the joint commissions established in November 1921 by the French and the Kemalists to take care of Christian property and to concentrate the Christian population in city centers.72 The Armenians who wished to be members of these commissions were threatened to death by their extremist coreligionists.73 Those who speak about an alleged “seizure of Christian
69 “Logiques d'une rupture : les relations entre la République française et les comités armé- niens, de l'armistice de Moudros au traité de Lausanne”, in Başak, Tolga / Yüksel, Mevlüt (Ed.) (2014) First International Symposium on Turkish-Armenian Relations and Great Powers, Erzurum, Atatürk Üniversitesi, 2014, pp. 771-772 and 774-777; Gauin, Maxime “How to Create a Problem of Refugees: the Evacuation of Cilicia by France and the Flow of Armenian Civilians (1921-1922),” Review of Armenian Studies, n° 25, 2012, pp. 71-73 and 76 ; and my forthcoming paper: “Complexities of imperialism: the French administration of Cilicia, 1918-1922”. 70 Gauin (2012), pp. 76-90. 71 Rapport d’ensemble sur lesopérations de la commission, mars 1922, p. 6, AMAE, P 17787. Also see Bulletin périodique n° 37 (5-20 novembre 1921), p. 5, SHD, 6 N 190. 72 The original of the regulations of these commissions is in: Bulletin de renseignements n° 285, 11-13 décembre 1921, SHD, 4 H 61, dossier 3. I translated this text into English in “How to create…”, p. 81. 73 “L’émigration des Arméniens”, Le Temps, 30 décembre 1921, p. 2.
| 511 | Maxime GAUIN
property” and who make intellectual speculations about the development of Turkish capitalism during the Kemalist years74 should consider the actual responsibilities of the Armenian nationalist in Cilicia.
3. The Final destructions: Western Anatolia and the Lausanne Conference The war crimes of the Greek army, as early as the day of landing (15 May 1919),75 are relatively well known, at least in Turkey.76Much less known, however, is the role of Armenian volunteers units,77 used by the Greek high command until 1922,78 and, in several cases, sacrificed by this same command to ease the ire of the Turkish civilian population.79 During its retreat, the Greek armed forces and the Armenian volunteers units burned, plundered and massacred systematically,80 and one of the harshest indictment against the
74 For instance: Üngör, Uğur Ümit / Polatel, Mehmet (2011) Confiscation and Destruction. The Young Turk Seizure of Armenian Property, London-New York, Continuum. 75 Marine, S.R. Turquie, n° 717, 20 mai 1919, n° 774, 3 juin 1919, SHD, 1 BB7 232; Shaw (2000), pp. 508-540. 76 Gehri, Maurice “Mission d'enquête en Anatolie (12-22 mai 1921)”, Revue internationale de la Croixrouge, volume LII, n° 227, 15 juillet 1921, pp. 721-735, http://www.turquie- news.com/IMG/pdf/maurice_gehri.pdf; Georges-Gaulis, Berthe (1921) Le Nationalisme- turc, Paris, Plon-Nourrit, pp. 40-49 ; Georges-Gaulis, Berthe (1922) Angora, Constanti- nople, Londres. Moustafa Kémal et la politique anglaiseen Orient, Paris, Armand Colin, pp. 37, 58 and 80; Toynbee, Arnold J. (1922) The Western Question in Greece and Turkey, London-Bombay-Sydney, Constable & C°, passim; Turan, Mustafa (2006) Yunan Mezali- mi, Ankara, Atatürk Araştırma Merkezi. 77 Rapports du capitaine Renaudineau, 18 et 19 juillet 1921, SHD, 20 N 1101. 78 See, in particular, the notes of Elzéar Guiffray, representative of the French community in İzmir, for the ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the excerpts of letters from French citizens residing in this city, compiled by this same ministry, in AMAE, P 1380. 79 Marine, S.R. Affaires arméniennes, 15 novembre 1920, AMAE, P 16674; Marine, S.R. Turquie, Dans la région d’Ismidt, 10 août 1920, SHD, 7 N 3211; Corps d’occupation de Constantinople — Bulletin de renseignementdes 8 et 9 mai 1921, SHD 20 N 1082. 80 One of the most detailed references is the report of C. Toureille in AMAE, P 1380. Also see, among others, the undated memo (September 1922) of Mark O. Prentiss to Admiral Mark Bristol, LC, Bristol papers, container 74; Gates, Caleb Frank (1940) Not to Me Only, Princeton-London, Princeton University Press/Oxford University Press, p. 283; Scipio, Lynn A. (1955) My Thirty Years in Turkey, Rindge, Richard R. Smith Publisher, p. 179; McCarthy (1995), pp. 279-332. Erik Jan Zürcher does not see any necessity to write any- thing on the Greeko-Armenian war crimes in Zürcher, Erik Jan (2004) Turkey: A Modern History, London-New York, I. B. Tauris, pp. 136 and 152-156. In this regard, Mr. Zürcher’s
| 512 | Maxime GAUIN
Greek forces was made by Lord Saint-Davids, administrator of the İzmir- Aydin railroad company.81Beside these crimes perpetrated against the Turkish civilians, the Greek officers forced the Christian population to leave, including those who wanted to stay. This is established both by the report of Father Ludovic Marseille, head of the French Catholic mission of Eskişehir (dated 15 September 1922),82 and by the statements of Greek refugees themselves to the U.S. Navy: “Greek refugees all tell same story: ‘Ordered to evacuate by the Greek military or priests. Saw towns in flames after departures.’ Say fault lies with Hellenic Greeks who burned their villages.”83 The highpoint of the Armenian nationalist responsibility and Greek cynical use of these organizations was the İzmir fire, when the Hellenic high command, prevented to burn the city openly by the presence of Western military ships, unable to evacuate the Greek population quickly and so to protect her from reprisals, left the responsibility of the destruction to the Armenian nationalist committee of İzmir.84 In a masterpiece of concision and Cartesian reasoning, Admiral Charles Dumesnil, head of the French Navy in the Near East, concluded that the Turkish regular army was entirely innocent, that the Turkish irregulars certainly committed plunder but had nothing to do in the fire, and if Greek arsonists took part to the fire, Armenian ones were very probably the main perpetrators. Indeed, there was in the Greek and even more in the Armenian quarter of İzmir stocks of incendiary material, and “all the French” had learned the threats to burn the city instead of leaving her to
book is hardly better than Mr. Balakian’s Burning Tigris. 81 “Graveréquisitoired’unlordanglaiscontrel’arméegrecque”, Le PetitParisien, 27 septembre 1922, p. 3. 82 AMAE, P 1380. 83 USS Litchfield to Bristol, September 7, 1922 Corrected copy, LC, Bristol papers, container 76, File Smyrna, Navy Messages Received 1922. 84 Report of Mr. Grescovich Commander of the Smyrna Fire Brigade on the Great fire in Smyrna, İstanbul, 1922; “Ce sont les Arméniens quiallumèrentl’incendie en abandonnant- leurquartier», Le Matin, 20 septembre 1922 ; “Unejournée dans lesruines de Smyrne”, Le Petit Parisien, 28 septembre 1922, p. 3 ; “Armenians, Not Turks, Set Smyrna Ablaze Relief Worker Declares,” The San Antonio Express, 22 January 1923; Lowry, Heath “Turkish His- tory: On Whose Sources will it Be Based? A Case Study on the Burning of Izmir,” The Jour- nal of Ottoman Studies, IX, 1989, pp. 1-29, http://www.isam.org.tr/documents/_dosyalar/_pdfler/osmanli_arastirmalari_dergisi/osman l%C4%B1_sy9/1989_9_LOWRYHW.pdf
| 513 | Maxime GAUIN
the Turks. Correspondingly, observed Dumesnil, Turkish newspapers publishing the conclusions of the official investigation stressed primarily the Armenian responsibility in this precise case, more than the Greek one.85 The result was an economic disaster, and the exodus of the Armenians of İzmir, who, except 256 revolutionaries, had not been relocated during the First World War.86 Needless to say, the Greeks left as well. The failure to attract the Western attention by the İzmir fire and the devastating result of the population, including the Armenian community, hardly made the nationalist Armenians and their friends more reasonable. During the first stage of the conference at Lausanne, İsmetİnönü proposed a return of Armenian refugees, if they went back as Turkish citizens, renouncing to specifically Armenian politics. The less harsh response was the one of the International pro-Armenian League, who, at the end of 1922 and once again in January 1923, insisted on an “Armenian national home”, namely a territory from Anatolia where the Muslims would be expelled and the Armenians concentrated.87 The most extreme reaction was the one of the ARF, who began to establish, during winter 1922-1923, volunteer units for the British army, in case of a failure of the negotiations.88 All these attempts and claims failed, achieving only to create new tensions in Anatolia.
85 Qui sont les auteurs de l’incendie ?, 28 septembre 1922, AMAE, P 1380. 86 Letter of Charlton Whittal to General Townshend, dated 10 February 1921, FO 371/6499/2265; Halaçoğlu, Yusuf (2008) The Story of 1915. What happened to the Otto- man Armenians?, Ankara: TTK, p. 56. 87 Lettre de la Ligue internationale philarménienne à Son Excellence le président de la conférence de la paix, 1erdécembre 1922 ; Lettre adressée par la Ligue internationale phi- larménienne aux représentants de la Grande-Bretagne, de la France et de l’Italie à la conférence, en datedu 19 janvier 1923, AMAE, P 16677. Taner Akçam alleges (A Shameful Act…, p. 367), that “the minorities question did in fact cause the [Lausanne] conference to break down temporarily” and provides no source. Not only this is wrong (the conference was interrupted on 4 February because of the Capitulations), but before the suspension of the debates, the Armenian delegations themselves understood that the “Armenian home” was abandoned: See their letter to the council of the League of Nations, 25 January 1923, AMAE, P 16677. 88 Note spéciale n° 1733, La mentalité des partis politiques arméniens, 23 avril 1923 ; Suite à la note spéciale du 19 février 1923, AMAE, P 16677 (also in CADN, 36 PO/1/111).
| 514 | Maxime GAUIN
CONCLUSION The Armenian nationalist leadership never gave up its ambition to create a “Grand Armenia” in Turkey, in spite of repeated failure and terrible consequences for all the populations of Anatolia. These leaders created a conflict at the end of 19th century, accepted to be used by Russia during the First World War, provoked the forced displacement and took a heavy responsibility in the killings which targeted a part of the Armenian convoys. They prevented the coexistence after 1919. The Turkish victory at Lausanne is sufficient blow to justify ending this paper in 1923, but if the Ramkavar virtually stopped his anti-Turkish activities from 1923 to 1945, this is not the case of the ARF, who, for instance, tried to assassinate Kemal Atatürk six times from 1924 to 1927.89
89 Şimşir, Bilâl (2000)Şehit diplomatlarımız (1973-1994), Ankara-İstanbul, Bilgi Yayinevi, Volume I, pp. 61-73.
| 515 | Maxime GAUIN
BIBLIOGRAPHY Afanasyan, Serge (1981) L’Arménie, l’Azerbaïdjan et la Géorgie, de l’indépendance à l’instaurationdupouvoirsoviétique. 1917-1923, Paris, L’Harmattan. Aharonian, Avetis / Nubar, Boghos (1919) The Armenian Question Before the Paris Peace Conference,Paris. http://www.archive.org/download/armenianquestion00pari/armenianquestio n00pari.pdf Ahmad, Feroz (2014) The Young Turks and the Ottoman Nationalities. Armenians, Greeks, Albanians, Jews and Arabs: 1908-1918, Salt Lake City, University of Utah Press. Akçam, Taner (2006) A Shameful Act, New York, Metropolitan Books. Archives du ministère des Affaires étrangères (AMAE), La Courneuve, P 16 744. “Armenians, Not Turks, Set Smyrna Ablaze Relief Worker Declares,” The San Antonio Express, 22 January 1923. Armenian Activities in the Ottoman Documents, Ankara, ATASE, Volume I, 2005. Aspirations et agissements révolutionnaires des comités arméniens, avant et après la proclamation de la Constitutionottomane, İstanbul, Matbaai Orhaniye, 1917. http://louisville.edu/a-s/history/turks/comites_armeniens.pdf Atılgan, İnanç / Moumdjian, Garabet (Ed.) (2009) Archival Documents of the Viennese Armenian-Turkish Platform, Klagenfurt-Vienna-Ljubjana- Sarajevo, Wieser Verlag. Balakian, Peter (2004) The Burning Tigris, New York, Perennial. Başak, Tolga / Yüksel, Mevlüt (Ed.) (2014) First International Symposium on Turkish-Armenian Relations and Great Powers, Erzurum, Atatürk Üniversitesi, 2014. Bey, Ahmet Rüstem (1918) La Guerre mondiale et la question turco- arménienne, Berne, Stæmpfli&Cie. Bulletin de renseignements n° 285, 11-13 décembre 1921, SHD, 4 H 61, dossier 3. Bulletin de renseignementdes 8 et 9 mai 1921, SHD 20 N 1082. Bulletin périodique n° 37 (5-20 novembre 1921), SHD, 6 N 190. Centre des archives diplomatiques de Nantes (CADN), 36 PO/1/9
| 516 | Maxime GAUIN
“Ce sont les Arméniens qui allumèrent l’incendie en abandonnant leur quartier”, Le Matin, 20 Eylül 1922. Chardigny, Colonel “La question arménienne”, 30 octobre 1919, SHD, 16 N 3187, dossier 4. Çiçek, Kemal (Ed.) (2011) 1909 Adana Olayları Makaleler/The Adana Incidents of 1909 Revisited, Ankara, TTK. Demirel, Muammer (Ed.) (2002), British Documents on Armenians (1896-1918), Ankara, Yeni Türkiye. De Nogales, Rafael (1932) Memoirs of a Soldier of Fortune, New York, Harrisson Smith. De Nogales, Rafael (1926) Four Years Beneath the Crescent, New York-London, Charles Schribner’s. Dilan, Hasan (Ed.) (2005) Les Événements arméniens dans les documents diplomatiques français, Ankara, TTK, Volume I. Documents on Ottoman Armenians, Ankara, Prime Ministry Directorate of Press and Information, Volume II, 1983. Documents sur les atrocités arméno-russes, İstanbul, Société anonyme de papeterie et d’imprimerie, 1917. http://louisville.edu/as/history/turks/documents_sur_les_atrocites_arm eno-russes.pdf Dyer, Gwynne “Correspondence”, Middle Eastern Studies, IX-3, 1973. Erickson, Edward J. (2013) Ottomans and Armenians. A Study in Counter-Insurgency, New York-London, Palgrave MacMillan. Erickson, Edward J. “Captain Larkin and the Turks: The Strategic Impact of the Operations of HMS Doris in Early 1915,” Middle Eastern Studies, XLVI-1, January 2010. http://www.tc-america.org/media/Ericson_LarkinandtheTurks.pdf Erickson, Edward J. “The Armenians and Ottoman Military Policy”, War in History, XV-2, April 2008. http://www.tc-america.org/media/Ericson_militarypolicy1915.pdf Fay, Sidney Bradshaw (1928) The Origins of the World War, New York-Toronto-London, Macmillan, Volume II. Galanté, Abraham (1985) Histoire des juifs de Turquie, İstanbul, Les éditions Isis, Volume V.
| 517 | Maxime GAUIN
Gates, Caleb Frank (1940) Not to Me Only, Princeton-London, Princeton University Press/Oxford University Press. Gauin, Maxime “Review Essay — ‘Proving’ a ‘Crime against Humanity’?”, Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, XXXV-1, March 2015. https://www.academia.edu/11715403/Review_Essay_Proving_a_Crime_against_ Humanity_ Gauin, Maxime “Strategic Threats and Hesitations", 19.-20. Yüzyıllarda Türk-Ermeni İlişkileri Sempozyomu, 2015, İstanbul. Gauin, Maxime “How to Create a Problem of Refugees: the Evacuation of Cilicia by France and the Flow of Armenian Civilians (1921-1922),” Review of Armenian Studies, n° 25, 2012. Gautherot, Gustave (1920) La France en Syrie et en Cilicie, Courbevoie, Librairie indépendante. Gehri, Maurice “Mission d'enquête en Anatolie (12-22 mai 1921)”, Revue internationale de la Croixrouge, Volume LII, n° 227, 15 juillet 1921. http://www.turquie-news.com/IMG/pdf/maurice_gehri.pdf; Georges-Gaulis, Berthe (1922) Angora, Constantinople, Londres. Moustafa Kémal et la politique anglaiseen Orient, Paris, Armand Colin. Georges-Gaulis, Berthe (1921) Le Nationalismeturc, Paris, Plon- Nourrit. Ghazarian, Vatche (Ed.) (1996) Boghos Nubar’s Papers and the Armenian Question, 1915-1918: Documents, Waltham (Massachusetts), Mayreni. Gibbons, Herbert Adams (1926) Armenia in the World War, New York, American Committee Opposed to the Lausanne Treaty. http://armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2011/03/3232-armenia-in-world- war-by-herbert.html
| 518 |
ARMENIANS’ RETURN FROM THE DEPORTATION*
İbrahim Ethem ATNUR**
The Turkish-Armenian relations, generally in a manner of the governing-governed relationship, commenced with the immigration of Turks towards the West and their establishment of dominance over the Asia Minor. It is seen that particularly in the Ottoman period, the Armenians maintained their identities by enjoying the rights recognized for them, as others non- Muslim communities did, and contributed to the Ottoman society particularly in the fields of art and trade. However, nationalism movements rising together with the outbreak of disintegration of the Ottoman Empire in the meaning of military, political, economic, social and justice and the losses of land and population, influenced the Armenian society in time. The 1877-1878 Ottoman-Russian War, the progress of Russian forces to Yeşilköy, the articles in favor of the Armenians on the Yeşilköy and Berlin Treaties signed after these developments, the independence of Bulgaria in the same period were the milestones in this regard. The training and teaching activities carried out by American Protestant missionaries in the Ottoman Empire also started to influence the Armenian society seriously. The procrastination of the reforms by Sultan Abdulhamit mobilized the Armenian parties, although the independence of Bulgaria and turning of the Armenian question into an international issue filled with hope some Armenian notables for the future.1 The thing to do was to arouse attention of Christian western states and public opinions by revolting and exclaiming, as other Balkan societies tried before and succeeded. Therefore, rebels were commenced. On the one hand, with the support of the missionary structure, in the western public opinion it was propagandized that the Turks were slaughtering the Armenians, on the other hand, the Muslim and Armenian
* This text is translated by Rabia İlay Peerzada. ** Professor at Ataturk University, Turkey. 1 Nalbandian, Louise (1967) The Armenian Revolutionary Movement The Development of Armenian Political Parties Through The Nineteenth Century, Los Angeles, University of California Press; Gürün, Kâmuran (1988) Ermeni Dosyası, Ankara, Bilgi Yayınevi, pp.167- 175; Göyünç, Nejat (1983) Osmanlı İdaresinde Ermeniler, İstanbul, Gültepe, pp.61-64.
| 519 |
İbrahim Ethem ATNUR societies, who had been living peacefully together for centuries, fell out with each other day by day. The Party of Union and Progress (Ittihat Terakki ) who gained the power following the proclamation of the Constitutional Monarchy II on 23 July 1908, tried to hold together all elements under its policy of “Ittihad-ı Anasır” (Union of Components) . Yet, while the unionists (ittihatçılar) were aiming at the integration, Armenian parties acquired means to achieve the goal. The unionists were tolerating the Armenians and ignoring their activities on the way to independence under their image of being loyal to the state. In this sense, likewise on the political issues,2 important privileges were recognized, for the Armenians, in the administrative staff of the state. However, the disorder and thrashing resulting from the Balkans War in the Ottoman Empire were seen as an opportunity by the Armenians. The Armenian question was brought up to the European Agenda. As a result of the interventions of England, Russia, France and lastly Germany on the Armenian reform, an agreement was concluded between the Russian representative Goulkevitch and Grand Vizier Said Halim Pasha on 8 February 1914. The appointment of two foreign inspectors over the regions divided into two parts as Erzurum, Trabzon and Sivas; Van, Bitlis Harput and Diyarbakır was confirmed by this agreement, beside the grant of autonomy for the Armenians over these regions, nearly in a manner of independence.3 From now on, unnamed “Armenia” was appearing under auspices of the Western states and the Armenians, certainly, were pleased with this situation. It is seen that Armenians were pleased with the fact that the Ottoman Empire, because of the conditions of the period, had to join the group of Germany and Austria- Hungary before the World War I. It was believed that the ill man came to end of his life and everybody was in a struggle for taking her stakes after the break of the Empire. In this regard, some Armenians
2 There were 14, 13, 14 Armenian MP’s in the Ottoman Parliament (Meclis-iMebusan) re- spectively in 1908, 1912, 1914. See. Ahmad, Feroz / Rustow, Dankwart A. (1976) ‘İkinci Meşrutiyet Döneminde Meclisler 1908-1918’ Güney Doğu Avrupa Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4- 5, p.255. 3 Bayur, Yusuf Hikmet (1983) Türk İnkılabı Tarihi, II/III, Ankara, Türk Tarih Kurumu, pp.52-76, 102-108, 145-146, 154-164, 168-172, 186; Cemal Paşa (1996) Hatırat, İstanbul, Arma, p.290-393; Uras, Esat (1987) Tarihte Ermeniler ve Ermeni Meselesi, İstanbul, Belge Yayınları, p.401
| 520 | İbrahim Ethem ATNUR groups seriously started to arm beginning from 1913 and made an alliance particularly with Russia. In 1914 summer, young Armenians started to arm and get military education in Russia by crossing the Turkish border.4Along with the outbreak of the Ottoman-Russian War, as well as Armenians gangs within the Russian forces attacked to Turkish villages on the border, some of Armenian police officers and soldiers started to flee. The roads were blocked, people going into the army were killed and ammunition stores were invaded by these groups.5 At the same time, Ottoman troops were suffered from irrecoverable heavy losses, as the lines of transportation and communication were destroyed.6 Ottoman administrators turned to take serious measures because of massacres of Muslims by the Armenian groups before and after the Sarıkamış War7 and the killed soldiers and civilians as a result of the Zeytun riots.8In this context, the first measure was taken against the Armenians of Zeytun and Maraş who kept the Gulf of Alexandretta under threat by revolting and the rebels were sent to Konya. However, when inconveniencies appeared, the
4 Hasanlı, Jamil (2014) ‘Armenian Volunteers On The Caucasian Front (1914-1916)’ The Caucasus & Globalization Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies, 8/3-4, Sweden, pp.183-201; Chernichenkina, Natalia (Prepared by) (2015) Rus İmparatorluk Kayıtlarında Ermeni Sorunu (1912-1917), Erzincan, Erzincan Üniversitesi Yayınları. According to in- formation given by Istanbul Embassy of Austria- Hungary, 75.000 Armenians joined the Russian army by leaving the Turkish army after the outbreak of the World War I. (Ohandjanian, Artem (Hg.) (1995) Österreich-Armenien 1872-1936 Faksimilesammlung Diplomatishcher Aktenstücke (Fotokopien), Band VI (1914-1915), Wien, p.4519). Accord- ing to Bogos Nubar Pasha, there were 5.000 Armenian volunteers under the command of French General Edmund Allenby in Syria and Palestine and 50.000 Armenian volunteers under the command of Antranik and Nazarbekof in Caucasus who joined the war against the Ottoman Empire. (The Times, 30 January 1919). There were also some Armenians joined the war in the ranks with the British and American Army. (Hovannisian, Richard G. (1967) Armenia On The Road to Independence, Los Angeles, University of California Press, p.66, 249). According to Nassibian, there were 150.000 Armenians fighting in the ranks with the Russian Army. (Nassibian, Akaby (1984) Britain and the Armenian Ques- tion, 1915–1923, New York, Croom Helm, p.71). 5 Österreich-Armenien, VI (1914-1915), pp. 4320-4321, 4437, 4444-4445, 4555. 6 Çiçek, Kemal (2005) Ermenilerin Zorunlu Göçü 1915-1917, Ankara, Türk Tarih Kurumu, pp. 28-29 7 Atnur, İbrahim Ethem (2003) ‘Zihinlerde Yaşatılan Göç’ 23 Temmuz Erzurum Kongresi ve Kurtuluştan Günümüze Erzurum I. Uluslararası Sempozyumu (23-25 Temmuz 2002 Erzurum), Ankara, pp.53-54. 8 Österich-Armenien, VI (1914-1915), p.4662.
| 521 | İbrahim Ethem ATNUR transfer was directed to Deyr-I Zor.9 235 people who led the Armenian riot were sent to Ankara and Çankırı by being arrested on 24 April 2015 and some of them were released afterwards.10The incidents did not settle down, the riot burst in Karahisar-ı Şarki (Şebinkarahisar) started to threaten both the structuring of the Army III towards the Black Sea and the Caucasus. Due to the fact that Armenians, collaborating with Russians as a result of the riot in Van, captured the city and caused the escape of Muslims from the region11 by burning the city down with the Muslims in it, the Ottoman authorities took extensive measures. Following the some discussions and local regulations on the issue, accordingly the decisions taken on 27 and 30 May 2015, it was decided to transfer the people, threatening the national security or raising such a threat during the war time, to the far from the frontline.12 Although it is thought that the temporary transfer and settlement law, which became famous as deportation law, was valid only for Armenians, it is observed that, in due course, some Arabs13 and Rums14 were also included within the scope of the Law.
9 T.C. Başbakanlık Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü Osmanlı Arşivi Daire Başkanlığı (1996) Osmanlı Belgelerinde Ermeniler (1915-1920), Ankara, Başbakanlık Basımevi, s.6; Karacakaya, Recep (2001) ‘Ermeni Tehciri’ Yeni Türkiye Ermeni Sorunu Özel Sayısı, I, 7/37, p.377. 10 Gürün, p.277 11 See Österreich-Armenien, VI (1914-1915), pp. 4626-4627, 4548-4552; McCarthy, Justin (2006) The Armenian Rebellion at Van (Utah Series in Turkish and Islamic Studies), Salt Lake City, The University of Utah Press; Akçora, Ergenöz (1994) Van ve Çevresinde Erme- ni İsyanları (1896–1916), İstanbul, Türk Dünyası Araştırma Vakfı, pp.102–123; Süslü, Az- mi (1990) Ermeniler ve 1915 Tehciri Olayı, Ankara, Yüzüncüyıl Üniversitesi, pp.78–79; Ha- laçoğlu, Yusuf (2001) Ermeni Tehciri ve Gerçekler (1914-1918), Ankara, Türk Tarih Ku- rumu, pp.38–39; Sabis, Ali İhsan (1990) Birinci Dünya Harbi II, İstanbul, Nehir Yayınları, p.437. 12 Takvim-I Vekâyi, 19 Mayıs 1331/1 Haziran 1915, No:2189; Osmanlı Belgelerinde Erme- niler, pp.30–32; Bayur, Yusuf Hikmet (1983) Türk İnkılâbı Tarihi, III/III, Ankara, Türk Tarih Kurumu, pp.40-42; Süslü, pp.111–113; Ohandjanian, Artem (Hg.) (1995) Österre- ich-Armenien 1872-1936 Faksimilesammlung Diplomatishcher Aktenstücke (Fotokopien), Band VII (1916-1917), Wien, p.5370. 13 Ortak, Şaban (2011) Osmanlı’nın Son Manevralarından Suriye ve Garbi Arabistan Tehciri, Ankara, Pegem. 14 BOA, DH-ŞFR, 53/330; 54/180; 54/157; 54/296; 57/263; 63/257; 73/69; United States of America (USA), National Archives (NA), Micro Film Publications Records of The De- portment Of States Relating to Internal Affairs of Turkey 1920–29, Near Eastern Af- fairs, Microcopy. 353/Roll.7, 867.00/900; Barton, James (1930) Story of Near East Relief (1915–1930) An Interpretation, New York, p.40; Milas, Herkül (Ed.) (2002) Göç: Rumların
| 522 | İbrahim Ethem ATNUR
At the beginning the deportation was carried out behind of the front- line. Erzurum, Bitlis and Van15 which were situated behind of the Caucasian and Russian Front-line, and the regions of Mersin and Iskenderun which were situated behind of the Sina Front-line and near to Baghdad railway were within this scope.16 The attack of the navies of the Allied Powersto the Dardanelles strait, the Russian bombardment in the Black Sea and the heavy conditions of the Dardanelles Campaign led to Armenians movements in other regions. Therefore, the scope of the deportation was enlarged. The settlement of Armenians was implemented by being transferred to Halep, Rakka, Deyr-i Zor, Kerek, Havran, Musul, Diyarbakır ve Cizre fromtheprovinces of Adana, Ankara, Antep, Aydın, Bolu, Bitlis, Bursa, Canik (Samsun) Çanakkale, Karahisar (Afyon), Konya, Kütahya, Mamüretül-Aziz (Elazığ), Maraş, Niğde, Sivas, Trabzon, Urfa ve Van.17 The Ottoman Government, which aimed at changing locations of the people harming the state and collaborating with enemies within the state, by the transfer and settlement laws, in a sense, wanted to save the country from the situation of trouble and ruin rather than punishing her own citizens within the law of governing and governed. In this sense, the Empire did not want to experience the same ravage in Anatolia, which she faced to in the Balkans. The matter of the deportation was not left to the local administrators or the people who might take revenge on Armenians or profit from this matter. All kinds of measures were personally taken by the government, the plans and principles were put before the people who could carry out this matter. For that reason, some directives were enacted after the deportation started. New regulations were brought to agenda when faced to shortcomings. Naturally, some problems occurred within the conditions of the period, great pains were experienced. Some draft-dodgers, local people, government officials and particularly tribes committed crimes against Armenians migrants. However, it is important see that the Ottoman Empire enforced the law against the perpetrators, tried 1673 people including the soldier-civilian government officials at the Divan-ı Harb (Court Martial) and 67 people were
Anadolu’dan Mecburî Ayrılışı (1919–1923), İstanbul, İletişim, pp.168–169. 15 BOA, DH-ŞFR, 52/282; 53/91; 53/93; 53/129. 16 Osmanlı Belgelerinde Ermeniler, p.9. 17 See for details. Çiçek, Ermenilerin Zorunlu Göçü.
| 523 | İbrahim Ethem ATNUR given capital punishment,18 to understand the period and the general approach towards the issue.
Return from the Deportation It is seen that the Ottoman authorities, German, Danish, Swiss, Swedish and particularly American missionaries considerably helped Armenian migrants who started to live in the regions that they were transferred as from the mid-summer of 1915. It is understood that even though these regions were called as camps, Armenians lived rather in and around the city centers in a disorganized manner.19 It is seen that from the beginning of 1917, the policies regarding Armenians were softened. It is understood that this change was affected by the change in the conditions at the front-line as well as the fact that Talat Pasha became grand vizier on 4 February 1917.20 The French writ from Istanbul, which was found in the records of Austria and whose dictator and author were not known, was important in terms of Armenians’ return from the deportation. Forasmuch as, this
18 Sarınay, Yusuf ‘Ermeni Tehciri Sırasında Alınan Tedbirler ve 1915-1916 Yargılamaları’ : Çalık, Mustafa (Ed.) (2013) Ermeni Soykırımı İddiaları Yanlış Hesap Talat’tan Dönünce, Ankara, Cedit Neşriyat, pp.203-228. 19 See. Cemal Paşa, Hatırat; T.C. Genelkurmay Başkanlığı (1986) Birinci Dünya Harbinde Türk Harbi, Sina-Filistin Cephesi, IV/1, Ankara, Genelkurmay Basımevi; Özdemir, Hikmet (2005) Salgın Hastalıklardan Ölümler 1914–1918, Ankara, Türk Tarih Kurumu; Barton, Story of Near East; Gust, Wolfgang (2012) Alman Belgeleri Ermeni Soykırımı 1915-1916 Alman Dışişleri Bakanlığı Siyasi Arşiv Belgeleri, İstanbul, Belge Yayınları; Atnur, İbrahim Ethem (2005) Türkiye’de Ermeni Kadınları ve Çocukları Meselesi (1915-1921), Ankara, Ebabil Yayınları; Özdemir, Hikmet (2009) Cemal Paşa ve Ermeni Göçmenler 4. Ordunun İnsani Yardımları İstanbul, Remzi Kitabevi; Svazlian, Verjine (2005) Ermeni Soykırımı ve Tarihsel Hafıza, İstanbul, Belge Yayınları; Erden, Ali Fuad (2006) Birinci Dünya Sava- şı’ında Suriye Hatıraları, İstanbul, Türkiye İş Bankası; Kressenstein, Kress v. (1943) Türk- lerle Beraber Süveyş Kanalına, (Translator: Özalpaslan, Mazhar Besim), İstanbul, İstanbul Askeri Matbaa. New edition of the same book Kressenstein, Kress v. (2007) Son Haçlı Sefe- ri Kuma Gömülen İmparatorluk (Trans.Tahir Balaban), İstanbul, Yeditepe Yayınevi (Un- fortunately, the translation of this last edition, is like a very bad copy of the former transla- tion); Rohner, Beatriche (1920) ‘Unter heimatlosen Armeniern in Aleppo’ Evangelisches Missionsmagazin Basel 63, p.338-344; Rohner, Beatriche (1936) ‘Pfade in groben Wassern’ Verlagsangaben; Çiçek, Kemal ‘Göçmenlerin Yaşamı’ : Özdemir, Hikmet (Ed.) (2007) Türk-Ermeni İhtilafı Makaleler, Ankara, TBMM, pp.255-275; Yavuz, Celadettin ‘Göçmen- ler ve Cemal Paşa’ : Özdemir, Hikmet (Ed.) (2007) Türk-Ermeni İhtilafı Makaleler, Ankara, TBMM, pp.278-303; Tetik, Ahmet (2008) ‘4’üncü Ordu Komutanlığının Bölgesinde Salgın Hastalıklarla Mücadele ve İnsani Yardım Çalışmaları’, Ermeni Araştırmaları, 30, pp.86-112. 20 Babacan, Hasan (2005) Mehmed Talat Paşa 1874-1921, Ankara, Türk Tarih Kurumu, p.144.
| 524 | İbrahim Ethem ATNUR information has not been found in other records yet. According to the writ,21 there was the Armenian MP Matyos Nalbantyan Effendi22 among the visitors who visited Talat Pasha for presenting congratulations to him for being a grand vizier. In this meeting, Talat Pasha stated that he would work for enhancing the living conditions of all Ottoman society without discrimination, do his best for satisfying Armenians, in this regard, give permission to Armenians deported to return to available cities, enable them to make trade as well as recognize right to travel within the country under the existing circumstances and he would not deny anything for providing a happy and safe life for the society. Pasha also requested Nalbantyan Effendi to share his opinions with Armenian people. According to the record of the Austria which probably took this information from Nalbantyan Effendi, no news concerning this issue was published on the Turkish and Armenian newspapers. It was claimed that a volte-face of Talat Pasha was arising from Cavid Bey who accepted to joined in the cabinet under this condition. By all means, the decision regarding the return of Armenians and the return of their properties was not a general decision in 1917, some local implementations were carried out by expressing the intention on the issue. As it was reflected on the records of Austria-Hungary, the governor of Tekirdağ invited Armenians who were deported and came back for different reasons to return to their houses, likewise returned their properties and forced Turkish migrants to evacuate their houses. According to this record, the Government really attached importance to this issue and took these actions.23 The political détente started with the October Revolution in 1917 continued with the declaration regarding “Turkish Armenia” (Türk Ermenistanı) proclaimed by Stalin on 31 December 1917,24the “Armenian Decrees” (Ermeni Kararnameleri)25 known as Dekret No 13, promulgated by the Soviets on 11 January 1918, and the Wilson Principles declared on 13
21 Österich-Armenien VII (1916-1917), p.5268. 22 The name was appeared as the Armenian MP Natanian Effendi in the original record. Whereas, there was no MP having this name in this period and there was no record about someone notable with this name. This person is probably the MP Matyos Nalbandyan Efendi of Kozan. 23 Österich-Armenien VII (1916-1917), pp.5330-5331. 24 İ.V. Stalin Eserleri (1947) C.IV. Bakû, pp.31-37. 25 Dokumenti Vneşney Politiki SSSR, Tom, I, Moskova, 1959, Doc. 43, pp.74-75.
| 525 | İbrahim Ethem ATNUR
January 1918. It was the 4th year of the War. The front-lines and borders seriously underwent change and direction of the war made progress in the favor of the Allied Powers. At that time, at their negotiations both with German and Russian authorities, Turkish statesmen expressed that the general amnesty would be announced for Armenians and they would be returned to their houses.26 There were plenty of reasons for the Ottoman Government with regard to making Armenians return to their former places. In the first place, the change on the conditions of the front-line in the country moved away Armenians from being a threat and the armies of Allied Powers were also getting near the regions to where Armenians were, to a high degree, transferred. According to Stanford Shaw, the policy of the Ottoman administration concerning the transfer and resettlement of large mass of people failed.27 Because of the mobilization order, wars, the transfer of Armenians, Russians and even a little Arabs and the Muslims who were displaced by the reason of occupations28 damaged the agriculture and trade in Anatolia. It was very essential to make them resettled in their former regions. Yet the more important thing was that temporarily transfer of the people subjected to the deportation by the Ottoman Government. The Law was already enacted in this way and their property was regulated accordingly this Law. The threat was now over, Czarist Russia supporting the Armenians was a thing of the past. The Ottoman Government started works for the return of people subjected to the deportation as from the end of March of 1918.29 First of all, the return of Rums, Armenians and Arabs who were over sixty years and aidless to their hometowns, at the meeting of Meclis-i Vükela (the Council of Ministers) on 10 April 1918.30 Following this, the government accepted the
26 Kılıç, Selami (2003) Ermeni Sorunu ve Almanya-Türk Alman Arşiv Belgeleriyle, İstanbul, Kaynak Yayınları, p.60–61; Kurat, Akdes Nimet (1990) Türkiye ve Rusya, Ankara, T.C. Kültür Bakanlığı, p.372. 27 Shaw, Stanford J. (1998) ‘Resettlement of Refugees in Anatolia 1918-1923’ The Turkish Studies Association Bulletin, 22/1, p.58. 28 Öğün gave the numbers of these as 1.604.031 (Öğün, Tuncay (2004) Unutulmuş Bir Göç Trajedisi Vilayat-ı Şarkiye Mültecileri (1915-1923), Ankara, Ebabil, p.40). 29 Shaw, p.58. 30 BOA, MVM, 211/169.
| 526 | İbrahim Ethem ATNUR allocation of sixty million piaster from the allowance of mobilization for the resettlement and subsistence of the Rum, Armenian and Arab migrants.31 It is seen that the Ottoman Government expedited its works on the issue as from the summer months of 1918.32According to what Talat Pasha said to the MP of Halep Gezeyan Effendi, the Government accepted the allocation of two billion piaster for the expenses of return of deported people. As for whatever the deported people wanted was to return to their former places before winter started. 33 However, the Ottoman Government did not have this capacity to fulfill this demand because of the conditions of the period. Even so, some migrants who took their travelling allowances from the local authorities, started to return their old houses in some regions beyond the central government’s knowledge.34 Returns performed without any arrangement were annoying the Government. Returns of Armenians and Rums would be definitely ensured, but there were some works to be done in the regions to be returned. The main problem was that some Turkish people and even a little some state officials, who escaped from the Rum invasion and the atrocity of Armenian gangs and took shelter in inside of Anatolia, had been living at Armenians’ houses. They would be sent back to their houses and after the evacuation of these houses, non-Muslims migrants would be able return to their former regions.35The Ottoman Government was forced to commence the return of Rums, Armenians and Arabs without making any
31 BOA, BEO, 338597. 32 See Atnur, İbrahim Ethem (1991) ‘Tehcirden Dönen Rum ve Ermenilerin İskânı Meselesi’ (Unpublished Master’s Thesis), Atatürk Üniversitesi, Atatürk İlkeleri ve İnkılap Tarihi Ens- titüsü. 33 İstihbarat-ı Siyasiye-I Umumiye Mecmuası (İSUM) (10 August 1334/1918) Hariciye Nezareti Matbuat-I Umumiye Müdüriyeti, İstanbul Matbaa-ı Amire, Aded:135, pp.20–22. On the writ dated 19 September 1918 which was sent to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs from the Halep Consulate of Hungary, it was written that the travel expenses of Armenians who would return would be definitely paid, a guarantee was given for them to earn a liveli- hood, but because they did not trust the government, very few people initially intended to return. (Ohandjanian, Artem (Hg.) (1995) Österreich-Armenien 1872-1936 Faksimile- sammlung Diplomatishcher Aktenstücke (Fotokopien), Band X, September-December 1918, Wien., p.7352-7353). 34 İSUM, (29 Ağustos 1334/1918), Aded:152, p.4–5. 35 Maliye Nazırı Cavid Bey (2000) Felaket Günleri Mütareke Devrinin Feci Tarihi I, İstanbul, Temel Yayınları, p.14–15; Atnur, İbrahim Ethem (1994) ‘Osmanlı Hükümetleri ve Tehcir Edilen Rum ve Ermenilerin Yeniden İskânı Meselesi’ Atatürk Yolu, Yıl:7, 4/14, p.123–124.
| 527 | İbrahim Ethem ATNUR arrangements (In fact, there was no capacity to do these arrangements) due to the fact that the return of some Muslim migrants to the East enabled the evacuation of some houses in the regions, the wars was about to end and the attitude of the Allied Powers with respect to the deportation. On the Pronunciamento read on the Ottoman Parliament, Ahmed İzzet Pasha, who was charged with forming a government, in place of Talat Pasha, stated that it was decided that the deported citizens would be gradually returned to their former places, the action was taken in this regard, their movable and immovable properties would be returned and if any of these were sold, money would be paid to their owners.36 These provisions were approved and extended by the Meclis-i Vükela (the Council of Ministers) were conveyed to the provinces and lieutenant governors by the Ministry of Interior on 23 October 1918. These provisions were as follows: People wanted to return would not be prevented and they would be settled in their old houses. As people living at non-Muslims’ houses would be evacuated, the refugee law of these Muslims would be also paid regard. The number of people who want to return and their locations would be notified, and the questions of whether they could be settled in the regions to which they return and whether they had road safety or not would be investigated. Any negligence of the officials dealing with these works would be seriously punished.37 At the time when the resettlement of Armenian migrants started, it is seen that there was also a restriction. The provinces of Diyarbakır, Mamüretül-Aziz, Van, Bitlis and Erzurum and the lieutenant governor of Erzincan were excluded from the temporary settlement area because of impossibility of transfer, lack of residence and shortage of subsistence within these regions. Nevertheless, it would be permitted migrants to return in parts as long as the deficiencies were overcome.38 As the minister of Finance Cavid Bey pointed out, Turk migrants who left the Eastern Anatolia because of the
36 Meclis-i Mebusan Zabıt Ceridesi (MMZC), 5. İçtima, 4 İni’kad, Devre: 3, p. 17. 37 BOA, DH-ŞFR, 92/38, 92/235, 92/236; Ati, 22 Teşrin-ievvel 1334/22 October 1918; BOA, DH-ŞFR, 92–187. 38 BOA, Hariciye Siyasi (HR.SYS), 2569/1-2; Ati, 22 Teşrin-I Evvel 1334/22 October 1918; Osmanlı Belgelerinde Ermeniler, p.176; Bakar, Bülent (2009) Ermeni Tehciri, Ankara, Atatürk Araştırma Merkezi, p.171-172.
| 528 | İbrahim Ethem ATNUR invasion did not return to their regions yet. There was a possibility that Turks in the region might have been minority within the region after plebiscite made if Armenians were immediately settled. Because of this disadvantage, the Government decided that firstly the Armenians in the West, then the Armenians in the East would return.39 Exempting of the Eastern cities from the return by the Government was surely very important in terms of the conditions of the period. The claims of Armenians over the region and the attitude of the victorious states on the issue, it goes without saying, disturbed the Ottoman Government. Moreover, the marks of massacres performed by Armenians gangs during and after the Russian invasion were still so alive in the regions of Erzurum, Van and Bitlis. It was inevitable to face to some undesirable problems in the case of Armenians’ return to the regions in such an environment. The Directive dated 5 November 1918 and sent to the all provinces and lieutenant governors included remarkable regulations with regard to the return of Armenian migrants.40 According to this Directive, 1) A travel warrant required to be shown by Armenians would not be asked any longer, as it was hard to be issued. Nonetheless, whenever the migrants entrained, a list would be kept. 2) Armenian migrants had difficulty to have bread, in this respect, their needs would be fulfilled. 3) Owing to the fact that trains would be allocated for Armenians twice a week by the Ministry of War, the administrators would make regulations accordingly this. 4) Due to the fact that travel expenses of Armenians would be covered by the allowance of the Ministry of War, payments would be made from this allowance. 5) People proselytized by force would be released and information concerning this process would be given to Istanbul from time to time. 6) All measures would be taken for the protection of Armenians from any assault or attack during their travels. Despite of the orders given, it was seen that there were officials who did not give enough attention to their jobs acted nonchalantly. It must have importantly known that administrative chiefs would be personally held responsible because of any complaints arisen. As concerns Article 7 of the Directive, which was put only for the province of Konya, was about the procurement of the church belonged to the Armenian community in Konya.
39 Akşin, Sina (1983) İstanbul Hükümetleri ve Milli Mücadele, İstanbul, Cem Yayınevi, p.32. 40 BOA, DH-ŞFR, 93/57.
| 529 | İbrahim Ethem ATNUR
The writ sent by the Ministry of Interior on 13 November 1918 to all provinces and districts (sanjak) included a number of warnings with regard to the return from the deportation.41 According to this writ, only the transfer operations of those wanted to return their old places shall be done. People did not want to return for now shall not been forced and they shall been supplied with catering and encouraged to occupy themselves with their jobs. Forasmuch as, having difficulty was inevitable for a large number of migrants who would return, because of unavailable conditions in the regions to be returned. As long as problems occurred, some decisions were taken even though some of those were in contradiction with each other. The Directorate of Migrants42charged with the problem of migrants and refugees was in the position of dealing with 1500.000 people according to records of the period.43 The Directorate of Migration, which primarily concentrated on the problems of non-Muslim migrants rather than Muslim refugees, discussed the problems and took decisions particularly satisfying the Armenian Church by making meeting with the representatives of the Rum and Armenian Church under the chairmanship of Director Hamdi Bey.44 According to these decisions, the migrants who had already set off or had been waiting at the stations would be transferred, the migrants who had jobs and no houses in the regions to be returned would not be transferred, an official with the same nationality with the migrants would be given to those migrant who would be returned or stayed in their current regions. The migrants who could guarantee that they would procure their food and shelter wherever they went by being better off would be set free. Poor and powerless migrants found in the villages would be gathered in the certain centers by the government and their subsistence would be supplied. The Directive sent to all provinces and districts (sanjak) by the Ministry of Interior on 9 December 1918 was concerning travel allowance of Rum and Armenian migrants who wanted to return, but did not have enough financial
41 BOA, DH-ŞFR, 93/142 42 Sabah, 22 Teşrin-i Evvel 1334/22 October 1918. 43 Bakar, p.180. 44 Bakar, p.179-180.
| 530 | İbrahim Ethem ATNUR possibility.45 Money would be paid to these migrants by considering their population, goods, distance that they would pass and vehicle used for their transportation, and an official document would be given to them about this. It would be announced that money would not be paid to those who could not submit this official document and set off by not taking a permission from the local administration. Payment would not be made to the migrants who had financial possibility and wanted to return the regions other than their own regions by considering existing local conditions. The orders previously fell into the government programme and sent to the provinces and lieutenant governors at various times were enlarged by unifying as a result of the works of the Branch of the Settlement of the Directorate of Migration concerning the return of Rums and Armenians. The Ordinance, wrongly known as the Return Decree, dated 18 December 1918 which was sent to the grand viziership by the Minister of Interior Attorney-at-Law Mustafa Arif Bey on 22 December 1918 and following this, sent to Ministry of Justice on 24 December 1918 because of its relevancy, included these principles46: 1) People wanted to return would benefit from this opportunity and nobody would be transferred against his/her will. 2) The transfer would start after negotiating with administrators in the former regions and fulfilling the conditions in an effort to prevent from situations that people to be transferred would be wretched and have difficulty to find shelter and food in the regions they went. 3) Houses and lands would be given to Rums and Armenians returned under these conditions, but the former rules would be also taken into account in this operation.
45 BOA, DH-ŞFR, 94/92 46 BOA, BEO, 341055. The same Ordinance was also indicated as “18 Kanun-ı Evvel 1334/31 December 1918 the return decree” by Halaçoğlu (Halaçoğlu, p.82–84) and Özdemir and his friends (Özdemir, Hikmet / Çiçek, Kemal / Turan, Ömer / Çalık, Ramazan / Halaçoğlu, Yusuf (2004) Ermeniler: Sürgün ve Göç, Ankara, Türk Tarih Kurumu., p.114–115). The date of this Ordinance, as we can call as general orders, is 18 December 1918. Forasmuch as, the addition of 13 days ended as from 1917.
| 531 | İbrahim Ethem ATNUR
4) Houses of Rums and Armenians would be evacuated before they return,47 the settlement of local people, officials and soldiers would be ensured without negligence. If it was necessary, some families would be kept together. 5) It was obligatory and convenient to settle two or three Rum or Armenian families together temporarily until Muslim migrants kept from being homeless. 6) Building such as churches and schools, their equipment and revenue generating estates would be immediately returned to the community to which they belonged. 7) Orphans would be given back to their parents or community after a diligent investigation when there was a demand in this regard. 8) Verts (people who were proselytized) were free to do whatever they wish accordingly the constitution. 9) Verts and women married with Muslims were able to convert to their former religions. In this case, marriage would be invalid. The issues concerning women who did not wish to convert to their former religions and did not agree to separate from their husbands would be solved by the courts. 10) Properties of Rum would be returned as longs as their owners returned. The properties of Armenians, divided into two groups, which were not transferred on behalf of the General Directorates of Finance and Foundations were not necessary to keep on rent, therefore they would be evacuated and given to their owners. As to the ones registered on land registration and devolved to the treasury would be resolved by the assents of state officials dealing with property. Furthermore, a law was being prepared on this issue. If properties were reinstated, rent would be paid to the owners returned and the law would be awaited until it passed.
47 Rums used to temporarily live at Armenians’ houses in Bilecik. According to the American Report dated 9 January, the arrangements were being made in order to give these houses back to Armenians after the evacuation and reparation of those houses. (USA.NA, Near Eastern Affairs, Microcopy 353/7, 867.00/848).
| 532 | İbrahim Ethem ATNUR
11) The solution would be found by considering the interests of both sides if any restoration or addition to a building were made on the houses or shops to be returned to their owners, by the migrants residing in those houses or shops or planting was made on land or olive groves to be returned. 12) The expenses of transfer and subsistence for needy Rums and Armenians would be paid by the allowance of the Ministry of War. 13) Information regarding the numbers of Rums and Armenians transferred up to now and their nationalities would be given to the Ministry by telegraph. Moreover, information about whereabouts and how many Rums and Armenians were transferred would be given on fifteenth and last day of each month. 14) The transfers would be only for people who were replaced within the country and the ones went out the borders would not be accepted. Warnings of the Ministry of Interior and the importance given to the issue by the government under the pressure of Allied Powers required great attention to be paid about people returned from the deportation. For that reason, returns of those people were very well organized. Security was provided within the bounds of possibility. People whose houses were close to the camps were sent to their houses on foot or by car at the earliest opportunity.48 The transfer started for the ones who were in long distance, even if it is late, after made some arrangements. Apart from on foot or by car, the transfer of migrants was carried out by ships and trains. The organization was made by the Directorate of Migrants. As it can be clearly seen on the media of this period, trains and ships were carrying non-Muslim migrants and there were a great number of migrants in the country.49 The transfer of Armenians, particularly centred around Istanbul, to their houses in the
48 Shaw, p. 61. 49 Atnur, (1994b), p. 128–30.
| 533 | İbrahim Ethem ATNUR country was one of priorities of the Ottoman authorities and their transfer was generally carried out by ship.50 It is understood that the Ottoman Government, which had serious financial difficulties on those days and frequently exchanged letters with its institutions when its financial resources run out,51 spent too much for Armenian migrants -even though it was not sufficient- by seriously neglecting Muslim refugees52 who had a similar fate with the Armenians. The biggest help of the Directorate of Migrants on the settlement of non-Muslim migrants was to bear all the expenses of their transfer, settlement and subsistence. As it mentioned before, the Directorate rented a ship for the ones transferred by sea and bought train tickets for the other ones. In addition, houses destroyed during the war were repaired by the Directorate,53 new buildings were raised for the ones who did not have houses, guesthouses were reserved for the ones who came to Istanbul temporarily until the dates of their transfer. By the Government, seed, foodstuff and agricultural implements were given to non- Muslim migrants returned to their villages, monetary aid and subsistence were provided to those living in the cities and towns.54 Moreover, an employment opportunity was offered to them in some regions. Migrants were went through medical examinations and vaccinated against serious illnesses by the doctor sent by the Directorate of Migrants. In addition to these, fifty non- Muslim migrants settled in Kadıköy were sent to a bathhouse every day to have a bath.55 In this period, the investigation committees (Tedkik Heyetleri) were sent to houses of resettled non-Muslims in order to see and solve their problems on site, and members of minorities together with representatives of the Allied Powers took part in these committees.56 Apart from these, it is seen that a range of decisions in the favor of Rums and Armenians were put into effect by the Ottoman Government. First
50 BOA, BEO, 341557 51 BOA, BEO, 341017; BOA, BEO, 340862. 52 The term of “migrant” was used for Armenian and Rum migrants and the term of “refugee” was used for Muslim migrants on the records of the period. 53 BOA, BEO, 345294. 54 BOA, DH-İUM, ES4 / 35. 55 Atnur, (1994b), p.132–134. 56 BOA, MVM, 213/74; BOA, DH-ŞFR, 93-59, 93-66, 94-184, 98-318, 319, 320, 99-165, 101- 18,19-5, 102-209, 104-201.
| 534 | İbrahim Ethem ATNUR of all, tithe of olive of 1918 was pardoned. Secondly, all tax debts of religious, scientific and charitable foundations, which belonged to deported people and closed during the deportation, both accrued before deportation and during the years of deportation were cancelled. Migrants and foundations belong to them were free of real estate tax, land tax and income tax of 1918, 1919 and 1920.57 Non-Muslim migrants were also pardoned in relation to cleaning services and council taxes.58 Following the decision of the Ottoman Government regarding the resettlement of deported people to their former regions, the return of properties of those people was brought to agenda. Regarding the return of properties of Armenian migrants, firstly their houses were evacuated and returned to them. In this way, non-Muslim migrants subjected to the settlement could be settled in their houses. The main issue on which the Government was working was the preparation of draft bill on the return of movable and immovable properties of migrants. For this purpose, the preparations started, and a commission was formed. The commission took two important decisions when it started works. According to this, until the preparation of the draft bill, some of properties of migrants would be returned. Advance would be paid from their own money to the ones whose properties had been formerly sold by the liquidation commission. Until the end of January of 1920, almost all abandoned properties of Rums and Armenians, which were registered on behalf of the treasury or were not sold even though they were abandoned, were returned to their owners. Churches, schools and their revenue generating properties of communities of non-Muslim migrants were returned to them. Even some migrants who sold their own properties voluntarily before the deportation, took them back by giving back to money as long as they requested. The British High Commissioner Admiral Calthorpe, in Istanbul, confirmed that the Ottoman Government returned the properties of non-Muslim migrants. Most of the properties of people subjected to the settlement were returned, yet a draft bill was required for the legal arrangement concerning these properties and how the properties under state’s responsibility or sold would be returned. Therefore, the works started as from November 1918 were concluded on 8
57 BOA, DH-İUM, 20–21, 14–30; BOA, BEO, 347520; Düstur, Tertip; 2, C.XI, pp. 196–250. 58 İfham, 23 Teşrin-i sani 1335/23 November 1919.
| 535 | İbrahim Ethem ATNUR
January 1920, a decree on the properties subjected to the liquidation in due course of the deportation was promulgated by the Meclis-i Vükela (Council of Ministers).59 In this period, the Armenian Church and the Armenian National Aid Committee were substantially interested in the issue of Armenian migrants. The Armenian Church, which turned into a supra-governmental power by dint of the Allied Powers, alongside gained strength with the support of the Ottoman Governments and particularly the British, dealt with the problems of its own community and carried out activities for a solution.60 Similarly, the Armenian National Aid Committee carried out works on the same issue.61 The Armenian National Delegation in Paris created a Commission of Re- Naturalization for free Armenia being expected to be formed in accordance with the decisions of the Peace Conference and in this regard, the activities were commenced for the return of Armenians to the country, who went to different countries from Turkey.62 The Ottoman Governments were under pressure of the Allied Powers, in particular England, while carrying out settlement activities.63 They, as winners, had the intention to protect the rights of Rums and Armenians as their allies during the war and relieve their distress, and while doing these, they wished to achieve their goals over the Ottoman Empire more easily. Particularly the British, always used the minority issue as a trump card. For that reason, they often stepped in activities regarding Rum and Armenian migrants, manipulated the Ottoman governments and put pressure on them.64 The British authorities also personally carried out activities for the solution of this issue. In this sense, the Armenian- Rum Branch was formed within the body of the British High Commissioner in Istanbul. Meetings were held 87 times at this Branch, which was formed on February 1919, until
59 For detailed informantion see. Atnur (1991), p.166–187; Atnur, İbrahim Ethem (1994a) ‘Tehcirden Dönen Rum ve Ermenilerin Emvalinin İadesine Bir Bakış’ Toplumsal Tarih, 9/2, pp.45-48. 60 See. Atnur, (1991), p.115-124. 61 Atnur, (2005), p.216, 226. 62 Ohandjanian, Artem (Hg.) (1995) Österreich-Armenien 1872-1936 Faksimilesammlung Diplomatishcher Aktenstücke (Fotokopien), Band XI, 1919-1923, Wien, pp.7691-7692. 63 British Foreign Office (FO) 371/7876. The Report dated March 1922. 64 BOA, DH-ŞFR, 97-157; BOA, BEO, 352690; BOA, DH-KMS, 50-1/62.
| 536 | İbrahim Ethem ATNUR
March 1922. While British officials and officials of the Armenian and Rum Church mostly attended in these meetings, sometimes Greek, American and some other western officials having different responsibilities and representatives of Assyria (Asur) and Chaldean (Keldani) also attended in these meetings. Meeting minutes were sent to Lord Curzon in London.65 It is meaningful in terms of reflecting the existing atmosphere of the period, that there was no Turkish member on behalf of the Ottoman Government, which played the main role for the solution of the problem, attended in any of these meetings.66 The meeting minutes of the Armenian-Rum Branch are important in terms of reflecting particularly the activities and intention of Armenian and Greek-Rum side, as well as how the western states approached to the issue and what they did for the solution. These meeting minutes are also significant in terms of understanding the period from different point of view, as the works of the Ottoman Government was the subject of the meetings and evaluations were made in this regard. The first meeting at the Armenian-Rum Branch was made on 26 February 1919 and the second one was made on 4 March 1919 among the British authorities and the American- Near East Aid Agency or “American Repatriation Officers” as it was called on the meeting minutes and representatives of American Return to Homeland. The third meeting was made on 5 March 1919 with the participation of representatives of the Armenian and Rum Church. After indicating that these organizations were
65 Yeghiayan, Varteks (2007) British Reports on Ethnic Cleansing in Anatolia 1919-1922: The Armenian-Greek Section, California, Center for Armenian Remebrance. It is observed that Yeghiayan, who collected these meeting minutes into a book, used the term of Ethnic Cle- ansing pertain to the end of the 20th century, therefore was not possibleto be mentioned on these documents, in order to twist the history and manipulate the readers in accordance with his belief. 66 At the meeting dated 17 March 1919, General W. H. Deedes suggested the participation of Nihat Bey who was working as an undersecretary in the Ministry of Interior to the weekly meetings, yet Armenian and Rum representatives objected to this suggestion and agreed that he could be invited to the meeting in which it was possible to benefit from him. (Yeg- hiayan, p.17). However, his name was not seen on the meeting minutes which shows that he was not invited to any meeting. It is very clear that, under the conditions of the period, there was no possibility to not to participate in the meetings as long as an invitation was sent.
| 537 | İbrahim Ethem ATNUR made by the Allied Powers and consisted of the representative of the British, French, Italian High Commissioners and the American Commission, the actions and directives to be done after three meetings were collected under those titles: Actions: 1) Locations and numbers of settled people and migrants. 2) Turkish perpetrators and unlawful arrest 3) Islamized children 4) Property 5) Detainees 6) Return to homeland Directives: 1) Turkish authorities shall make migrants return to their homelands and provide food for them until they can fend for themselves 2) Houses of migrants shall be evacuated if their house were occupied. 3) Their properties shall be returned. 4) People arrested unlawfully shall be released. 5) Internal security shall be provided for migrants. Officials for the return to homeland would exert their moral influence and powers under these conditions below: 1) Available help would be performed for the works of American Aid Committees. Without the directive of the High Commission, no decision shall be taken against them. 2) Turkish local authorities shall be indirectly interfered insofar as possible. 3) Any work to be done shall be in accord with the will of allies.67 If it is paid attention, the works to be done on behalf of the Armenian-Rum Branch were generally the activities on the Ottoman Governments programmes and most of them were the issues started to be solved as from October 1918. As well as making constant meetings in the direction of the articles above, the Armenian- Rum Branch collaborated with American missionaries who were very active in these regions. The branch carried out activities by means of its own representatives and controlled whatever were done in these regions. In particular the Ottoman authorities were directed by being warned about the issue. The constant collaboration was followed with the churches and aid agencies and, in this sense, this Branch functioned as a superior controller and director on the issue. Therefore, it is possible to see the summary of the period on the minutes of the Armenian-Rum Branch. The Armenian- Rum Branch made its last meeting on 29 March 1922 and the meetings were terminated with a short evaluation. The representative of the Armenian Church Dr. Teodiokis, in his evaluation mentioning that
67 Yeghiayan, p.2-11.
| 538 | İbrahim Ethem ATNUR there were still unsolved problems, in summary, stated that in this critical period the Armenian-Rum branch succeeded to return of deported Christians to their houses, return of their properties and save Islamized thousands of women and children.68 Especially in the period started from the end of October 1918, Armenian migrants commenced to return their houses together with the measures taken. By 28 November, the number of properties returned by means of the Directorate of Migrants was 15.594. It was estimated that the number of people returned through their own means was 8.000.69 The number given by the Ati Newspaper was 62.000 on 22 December. This number showed the number of people both returned by means of the Government and through their own means. According to the information given by the same newspaper, the number of people returned by means of the Directorate of Migrants reached 41.000 on 2 January 1919. While the number of migrants settled by the government was 145.000 by February 1919, 79.453 of whom were Armenian.70 By spring, the number started to increase. By the end of April, the number of migrants returned by means of the government was over 270.000. According to the news on the İleri Newspaper, the number of migrants registered as Rum or Armenian was 335.883 and all of them returned to their houses by means of the government. 71 Naturally, most of these people were Armenians and it was the fact that the number would increase when the number of people returned through their own means and people who did not wish to leave the places that they went were added to these numbers. It is observed that the returns continued, even a little, in 1920 and 1921.72 Yet, these returns were mostly to Istanbul and its around. Information regarding the return of Armenians on the Armenian and Western records was also important. It was written that there were 12.000 Armenians in Konya, “Local Aid Committee”, Izmir Armenian Bishopric and
68 Yeghiayan, p.263-264. 69 Ati, 28 Teşrin-i sani 1334/28 November 1918. 70 Bakar, p.190-191. 71 Atnur, (1994b), pp.127, 129–131. The Renaissance Newspaper, published in French by Armenians in Istanbul, generally made news about pains expereinced in the past, yet from time to time made news about locally returns (Renaissance, 25 Decembre 1918, 29 De- cembre 1918, 12 Janvier 1918). 72 Bakar, p.195-196.
| 539 | İbrahim Ethem ATNUR
American Lady E. Cushman were helping them on an American Report dated 9 January 1919 and signed by C. E. S. Palmer. The Governor Cemal Bey was clearly willing to help them, yet he did not have money. Armenian migrants coming to Eskişehir, Bilecik and Sivrihisar were settled in their houses. It was free for them to return their villages.73 The report dated 20 June 1919 and prepared by the Manager of the Merzifon American College George E. White, also mentioned about the return of Armenians to the region.74At the same time, according to the information given to American Ralp F. Chesbroug by the British Lieutenant J. S. Pering, good results were obtained by the efforts of Pering and in spite of obstructions of Turkish authorities. A few hundred Armenians returned their houses and their properties were restored. Arrangements were being made for the return of properties had been sold.75An American report giving information about Halep which was no longer within the borders of the Ottoman Empire was also important. According to the report, Armenians were returning their houses with the French and British Goverments’ support. Up to now the number of Armenians returned their houses was 36.319. The places Armenians returned mostly were Istanbul: 2.518, Adana: 10.056, Antep. 4.221, Maraş: 4.825, Urfa: 1.492, Haçin (Saimbeyli): 1.518, Dörtyol: 1.022, Islahiye: 491 etc. The number of Armenian stil stayed in Halep was 15.000.76 The report dated 23 August 1919 and sent to Washington by the signature of the American Consul of Halep J. Jackson was also about the numbers of Armenian migrants.77 Jackson stated the number of Armenian migrants returned between 1 January and 20 July 1919 as 74.431 pursuant to the information taken from the French. 60.980 of those were departed from Halep. The Consul prepared a detailed chart showing that how many people returned from where to where. The number of Armenians returned as to date was as follows: İstanbul: 8603, Ankara: 3214, Bursa: 3614, İzmir: 990, Konya: 9890, Adana: 17190, Halep and around of it:78 6520, Diyarbakır: 769, Çeşitli:
73 USA, NA. Near Eastern Affairs, Microcopy, 353/7, 867.00/848. 74 USA. NA. Near Eastern Affairs, Microcopy, 353/7,867.00/900. 75 USA, NA, Near Eastern Affairs, Microcopy, 353/7, 867.00/923. 76 USA, NA. Near Eastern Affairs, Microcopy, 353/7, 867.00/897 77 USA. NARA. 867.48/1316. 78 These people were the ones probably deported from this region, because they returned from different regions.
| 540 | İbrahim Ethem ATNUR
6255, Antep: 5607, Maraş: 7987, İskenderun: 375979. As Jackson conveyed, again based on the French resources, as of the date of 20 July, there were still 72.493 migrants waiting for return and their distribution was as follow: Halep80: 9320, Hama: 468, Humus: 454, Şam: 2.396, Antep: 2.215, Maraş: 315, Urfa: 478, Nusaybin: 6.250, Beirut: 1.280, Birecik: 1317, Sincar: 3.000, Mosul: 5.000, Baghdad: 20.000, at Arab houses: 10.000 and other places: 10.000. In the summer months of 1919, General Harbord, who inspected in Anatolia and came to Caucasus told that “We estimate that there are approximately 270.000 Armenians in Turkish Armenia today. 75.000 of these returned from Syria and Mesopotamia. Other ones returned from different regions. For some reasons, some of these stayed in the places that they went. There were approximately 300.000 Armenians in Caucasus. Thousands of them also spread other parts of the Near East.”81 It was stated by Barton, the number Armenians returned Adana was over 200.000 during the French occupation. 82 The number given to the King-Crane Committee by Dr. Davidyan on 1 August 1919 as the number 550.000 which expressing the number of Armenians existing in Turkey83 would be real-like if the number of people came to Turkey after this date added to this number. As of the beginning of 1921, according to the table prepared by the Armenian Church and showed the number of Armenians returned to Turkey the total number was 644.900.84 As it is understood from this table, most of these people were within the present borders of Turkey. Despite the fact that some of the numbers were exaggerative like the number of children, it is
79 According to the chart on the Report, there was no Armenian returned Kastamonu, Sivas, Trabzon, Erzurum ve Harput (Elazığ). Except Erzurum, it was impossible that there was no return other regions on those days. This fact can be accepted as lack of information. 80 According to the information which was based on the German-Armenian Bulletin, on an Austria Report dated 25 July 1919, in this period, there were approximately 20.000 Armeni- ans in Halep, who came to Halep after the deportation. (Österreich-Armenien, XI, p.7688). 81 Harbord, James G. (1920) Report of the American Military Mission to Armenia Washing- ton, Washington Government Printing Office, Millitary Mission, to Armenia. p.11–12. 82 Barton, p.183. Various number given about Armenians returned Adana was around 120.000 (Akbıyık, Yaşar (1990) Milli Mücadelede Güney Cephesi: Maraş, Ankara, Kültür Bakanlığı, p.274), 300.000. (Özdemir / Çiçek / Turan ve diğerleri, p.122, 127–129). 83 Howard, Hary N. (1963) The King-Crane Comission, Beyrut, Khayats, p.162. 84 Özdemir / Çiçek / Turan ve diğerleri, p.120–123; Çiçek, Kemal ‘Türk-Ermeni İlişkileri ve Tehcir’: Çalık, Mustafa (Editör) (2006) Ermeni Soykırımı İddiaları Yanlış Hesap Talat’dan ve Tehcir’den Dönünce, Ankara, Cedit Neşriyat, p.177.
| 541 | İbrahim Ethem ATNUR observed that some data regarding the provinces were lacking. According to the table dated 12 December 1922, which fell within the records of the League of Nations and based on the British Embassy in Istanbul and American Near East Aid Organization, the distribution of current Armenians in some regions of Turkey were as follow:85 Istanbul: 148.998, Ankara: 13.254, Konya: 9.994, Kastamonu: 5.542, Sivas: 14.458, Trabzon: 19.927, Diyarbakır: 3.000, Harput: 35.000, Van: 500, Bitlis: 13.000, Erzurum: 1500, Çukurova, Maraş, Antep, Kilis etc.:15.000, total: 280.173. When 100.000 people who remained in the area of Greek occupation and its details were not shown on the table, and 20.000 of the number of 30.000, which was given under the title of Eastern Thrace and Macedonia were added to this number, the result was 400.173. Armenians in the Turkish Army, who were working on the road construction, were not included in these numbers as it is stated in the relevant source. It is also observed that tens of thousands orphans, who were started to be excluded from Anatolia as from 1920, were not included these numbers.86 It is also known that over hundred thousand Armenians migrated from the country during the years that the French lost control over the South part of Turkey. The differences on the numbers given above were sometimes inconsistent as to some conditions such as point of view for the conditions of the period, sound information sources, population movements and their nearness to the region. However, it is necessary to accept these data under the conditions of the period by remembering that inconsistencies appear even on the numbers of today concerning social events. The Ottoman Governments, which was under serious pressure of the Allied Powers, carried out remarkable works with regard to the return of Armenians and return of their properties. Some shortcomings and lacking naturally appeared. All the actions were not performed as they were on the paper. Nonetheless, it would be understood that how it was difficult to carry out actions free of problems when it is considered that there was a chaos of migrants on this period and there were not only citizens returning the country but also tens of thousands of foreign migrants compulsorily or purposively
85 Österreich-Armenien, XI, p.8098. 86 See Atnur, (2005).
| 542 | İbrahim Ethem ATNUR coming to Anatolia from abroad. Under these conditions, the Ottoman governments mostly worked on Armenian and Rum migrants by neglecting Muslim migrants. While decisions concerning spending money for Muslims migrants generally remained on paper,87 more than 1.150.00 Lira was spent for non-Muslim migrants and hundreds of officials were employed dealing with this issue. Both the transfer of migrants to their homelands and the return of their properties were carried out by the committees consisting of commissioned officer appointed by the British Great Commissioner together with Ottoman officials and one of officials from the relevant nations.88 Hundred of thousands of Armenians were returned their houses. Ten thousands of them returned through their own means. As a matter of course, the Armenian occupations, supported by the British, around Kars and Nakhchivan in the East, the existence of the French in the South, Greeks moving forward the Western Anatolia, the occupation of Istanbul, TBMM (Grand National Assembly of Turkey) centred in Ankara and the ongoing wars changed the balances in the country. The Armenian collaboration with the victorious states, outburst of minorities in the occupied regions, Turks thinking that the country would be disintegrated after the Treaty of Sevres, tensions among the people and the increasing power of Ankara made Anatolia insecure for the Armenians. For that reason, following the battles of Maraş, Urfa and Antep, homeless women and children were transferred to Syria as from 13 May 1920.89 Upon the Turkish-French agreement, as from the end of 1921, Armenians in Anatolia, primarily in Çukurova, commenced to migrate to the South, the Greek occupied area, the islands, Istanbul and Bulgaria.90 Armenians in the other regions largely left Anatolia after the growing military successes of Turks.91 In October 1922, giving the right of free passage for local Christians of Turkey, by the Ankara
87 For detailed information see. Öğün, p.56 and continuing pages. 88 Cemiyet-i Akvam ve Türkiye’de Ermeni ve Rumlar, (1337/ 1921) Dâhiliye Nezareti Mu- hacirin Müdüriyet-i Umumiyesi Neşriyatından, Numro:6, İstanbul, p.14. 89 USA. NA. Near Eastern Affairs, Microcpy, 353/9, 867.00/1262. 90 Archives du Ministére des Affaires éntrangéres de France Levant Arménie (AMAF),1918-1929, Vol:17, Folio, 25. The Writdated 8 July 1922, to the Minister of Fore- ign Affairs Raymond Poincare from the Armenian National Council. AMAF, 17, F. 125. The Writ dated 15 November 1922, to Raymond Poincare from the United Armenian Dele- gations. 91 AMAF, 17, F. 204. 16 February 1923.
| 543 | İbrahim Ethem ATNUR
Government, facilitate the migration.92Although during the Lausanne negotiations Armenians demanded a “country” for their population moved out from Turkey, the result was negative for them.93 The Turkish Committee, which was very sensitive for this issue after sufferings, even did not accept to negotiate this demand. The offer of the Turkish side was to return of migrants to their former homelands.
92 Kieser, Hans Lukas (2005) Iskalanmış Barış Doğu Vilayetlerindeki Misyonerlik Etnik Kimlik ve Devlet 1839-1938, (Translated by Dirim, Atilla), İstanbul, İletişim Yayınları, p.705. 93 Österreich-Armenien, XI, p.8060-863; AMAF, 17, F. 25, 181, 193, 204, 259, 262-263, 265, 278-279. Also see. Meray, Seha L. (Translator) (2001) Lozan Barış Konferansı Tutanaklar – Belgeler Birinci Takım I, Kitap I, C.I, Kitap II, İstanbul, Yapı Kredi Yayınları; Nur, Rıza / Grew, Joseph (2003) Lozan Barış Konferansının Perde Arkası, İstanbul, Örgün Yayınevi.
| 544 | İbrahim Ethem ATNUR
BIBLIOGRAPHY ARCHIVES, PUBLISHED ARCHIVES DOCUMENTS AND OTHER SOURCES
Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi. Archives du Ministére des Affaires éntrangéres de France Levant Arménie 1918-1929. United Kingdom The National Archives British Foreign Office. United States of America National Archives. Ohandjanian, Artem (Hg.) (1995) Österreich-Armenien 1872-1936 Faksimilesammlung Diplomatishcher Aktenstücke (Fotokopien), Band VI (1914-1915), Wien. Ohandjanian, Artem (Hg.) (1995) Österreich-Armenien 1872-1936 Faksimilesammlung Diplomatishcher Aktenstücke (Fotokopien), Band VII (1916-1917), Wien. Ohandjanian, Artem (Hg.) (1995) Österreich-Armenien 1872-1936 Faksimilesammlung Diplomatishcher Aktenstücke (Fotokopien), Band VIII, Janner-Juni 1918, Wien. Ohandjanian, Artem (Hg.) (1995) Österreich-Armenien 1872-1936 Faksimilesammlung Diplomatishcher Aktenstücke (Fotokopien), Band IX, Juli-August 1918, Wien. Ohandjanian, Artem (Hg.) (1995) Österreich-Armenien 1872-1936 Faksimilesammlung Diplomatishcher Aktenstücke (Fotokopien), Band X, September-December 1918, Wien. Ohandjanian, Artem (Hg.) (1995) Österreich-Armenien 1872-1936 Faksimilesammlung Diplomatishcher Aktenstücke (Fotokopien), Band XI, 1919-1923, Wien. Cemiyet-i Akvam ve Türkiye’de Ermeni ve Rumlar, (1337/ 1921) Dâhiliye Nezareti Muhacirin Müdüriyet-i Umumiyesi Neşriyatından, Numro:6, İstanbul. Dokumenti Vneşney Politiki SSSR, Tom, I, Moskova, 1959.
| 545 | İbrahim Ethem ATNUR
Meclis-i Mebusan Zabıt Ceridesi (MMZC) 5.İçtima, 4 İni’kad, Devre: 3. T.C. Başbakanlık Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü Osmanlı Arşivi Daire Başkanlığı (1996) Osmanlı Belgelerinde Ermeniler (1915-1920), Ankara, Başbakanlık Basımevi. Düstur. Takvim-i Vekâyi. İstihbarat-ı Siyasiye-i Umumiye Mecmuası Ati. Hadisat. İfham. Renaissance. Sabah. The Times. Askeri Tarih Belgeleri Dergisi. Atatürk Yolu Dergisi (Ankara Üniversitesi). İstanbul Üniversitesi Güney Doğu Avrupa Araştırmaları Dergisi. The Turkish Studies Association Bulletin. Toplumsal Tarih
BOOKS Akbıyık, Yaşar (1990) Milli Mücadelede Güney Cephesi: Maraş, Ankara, Kültür Bakanlığı. Akçora, Ergenöz (1994) Van ve Çevresinde Ermeni İsyanları (1896– 1916), İstanbul, Türk Dünyası Araştırma Vakfı. Akşin, Sina (1983) İstanbul Hükümetleri ve Milli Mücadele, İstanbul, Cem Yayınevi. Atnur, İbrahim Ethem (2005) Türkiye’de Ermeni Kadınları ve Çocukları Meselesi (1915-1921), Ankara, Ebabil Yayınları.
| 546 | İbrahim Ethem ATNUR
Atnur, İbrahim Ethem (1991) ‘Tehcirden Dönen Rum ve Ermenilerin İskânı Meselesi’ (Unpublished Master’s Thesis), Atatürk Üniversitesi, Atatürk İlkeleri ve İnkılap Tarihi Enstitüsü. Babacan, Hasan (2005) Mehmed Talat Paşa 1874-1921, Ankara, Türk Tarih Kurumu. Bakar, Bülent (2009) Ermeni Tehciri, Ankara, Atatürk Araştırma Merkezi. Barton, James (1930) Story of Near East Relief (1915–1930) An Interpretation, New York. Bayur, Yusuf Hikmet (1983) Türk İnkılabı Tarihi, II/III, Ankara, Türk Tarih Kurumu. Bayur, Yusuf Hikmet (1983) Türk İnkılâbı Tarihi, III/III, Ankara, Türk Tarih Kurumu. Cemal Paşa (1996) Hatırat, İstanbul, Arma. Chernichenkina, Natalia (Hazırlayan) (2015) Rus İmparatorluk Kayıtlarında Ermeni Sorunu (1912-1917), Erzincan, Erzincan Üniversitesi Yayınları. Çiçek, Kemal (2005) Ermenilerin Zorunlu Göçü 1915-1917, Ankara, Türk Tarih Kurumu. Erden, Ali Fuad (2006) Birinci Dünya Savaşı’ında Suriye Hatıraları, İstanbul, Türkiye İş Bankası. Göyünç, Nejat (1983) Osmanlı İdaresinde Ermeniler, İstanbul, Gültepe. Gust, Wolfgang (2012) Alman Belgeleri Ermeni Soykırımı 1915-1916 Alman Dışişleri Bakanlığı Siyasi Arşiv Belgeleri, İstanbul, Belge Yayınları. Gürün, Kâmuran (1988) Ermeni Dosyası, Ankara, Bilgi Yayınevi. Halaçoğlu, Yusuf (2001) Ermeni Tehciri ve Gerçekler (1914-1918), Ankara, Türk Tarih Kurumu. Harbord, James G. (1920) Report of the American Military Mission to Armenia Washington, Washington Government Printing Office. Hovannisian, Richard G. (1967) Armenia On The Road to
| 547 | İbrahim Ethem ATNUR
Independence, Los Angeles, University of California Press. Howard, Hary N. (1963) The King-Crane Commission, Beyrut, Khayats. İ.V. Stalin Eserleri (1947) C.IV. Bakû. Kılıç, Selami (2003) Ermeni Sorunu ve Almanya-Türk Alman Arşiv Belgeleriyle, İstanbul, Kaynak Yayınları Kieser, Hans Lukas (2005) Iskalanmış Barış Doğu Vilayetlerindeki Misyonerlik Etnik Kimlik ve Devlet 1839-1938, (Translated by Dirim, Atilla), İstanbul, İletişim Yayınları. Kressenstein, Kress v. (1943) Türklerle Beraber Süveyş Kanalına, (Translator: Özalpaslan, Mazhar Besim), İstanbul, İstanbul Askeri Matbaa. Kurat, Akdes Nimet (1990) Türkiye ve Rusya, Ankara, T.C. Kültür Bakanlığı. Maliye Nazırı Cavid Bey (2000) Felaket Günleri Mütareke Devrinin Feci Tarihi I, İstanbul, Temel Yayınları. McCarthy, Justin (2006) The Armenian Rebellion at Van (Utah Series in Turkish and Islamic Studies), Salt Lake City, The University of Utah Press. Meray, Seha L. (Translator) (2001) Lozan Barış Konferansı Tutanaklar –Belgeler Birinci Takım I, Kitap I, C.I, Kitap II, İstanbul, Yapı Kredi Yayınları. Milas, Herkül (Ed.) (2002) Göç: Rumların Anadolu’dan Mecburî Ayrılışı (1919–1923), İstanbul, İletişim. Nalbandian, Louise (1967) The Armenian Revolutionary Movement The Development of Armenian Political Parties Through The Nineteenth Century, Los Angeles, University of California Press. Nassibian, Akaby (1984) Britain and the Armenian Question, 1915– 1923, New York, Croom Helm. Nur, Rıza / Grew, Joseph (2003) Lozan Barış Konferansının Perde Arkası, İstanbul, Örgün Yayınevi. Ortak, Şaban (2011) Osmanlı’nın Son Manevralarından Suriye ve Garbi Arabistan Tehciri, Ankara, Pegem.
| 548 | İbrahim Ethem ATNUR
Öğün, Tuncay (2004) Unutulmuş Bir Göç Trajedisi Vilayat-ı Şarkiye Mültecileri (1915-1923), Ankara, Ebabil. Özdemir, Hikmet (2009) Cemal Paşa ve Ermeni Göçmenler 4. Ordunun İnsani Yardımları İstanbul, Remzi Kitabevi, Özdemir, Hikmet (2005) Salgın Hastalıklardan Ölümler 1914–1918, Ankara, Türk Tarih Kurumu. Özdemir, Hikmet / Çiçek, Kemal / Turan, Ömer / Çalık, Ramazan / Halaçoğlu, Yusuf (2004) Ermeniler: Sürgün ve Göç, Ankara, Türk Tarih Kurumu. Rohner, Beatriche (1936) ‘Pfade in groben Wassern’ Verlagsangaben. Sabis, Ali İhsan (1990) Birinci Dünya Harbi II, İstanbul, Nehir Yayınları. Süslü, Azmi (1990) Ermeniler ve 1915 Tehciri Olayı, Ankara, Yüzüncüyıl Üniversitesi. Svazlian, Verjine (2005) Ermeni Soykırımı ve Tarihsel Hafıza, İstanbul, Belge Yayınları. T.C. Genelkurmay Başkanlığı (1986) Birinci Dünya Harbinde Türk Harbi, Sina-Filistin Cephesi, IV/1, Ankara, Genelkurmay Basımevi. Uras, Esat (1987) Tarihte Ermeniler ve Ermeni Meselesi, İstanbul, Belge Yayınları. Yeghiayan, Varteks (2007) British Reports on Ethnic Cleansing in Anatolia 1919-1922: The Armenian-Greek Section, California, Center for Armenian Remebrance.
ARTICLES Ahmad, Feroz / Rustow, Dankwart A. (1976) ‘İkinci Meşrutiyet Döneminde Meclisler 1908-1918’ Güney Doğu Avrupa Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4-5, pp.245-284 Atnur, İbrahim Ethem (1994a) ‘Tehcirden Dönen Rum ve Ermenilerin Emvalinin İadesine Bir Bakış’ Toplumsal Tarih, 9/2, pp.45-48. Atnur, İbrahim Ethem (1994b) ‘Osmanlı Hükümetleri ve Tehcir
| 549 | İbrahim Ethem ATNUR
Edilen Rum ve Ermenilerin Yeniden İskânı Meselesi’ Atatürk Yolu, Yıl: 7, 4/14, pp.121-139. Atnur, İbrahim Ethem (2003) ‘Zihinlerde Yaşatılan Göç’ 23 Temmuz Erzurum Kongresi ve Kurtuluştan Günümüze Erzurum I. Uluslararası Sempozyumu (23-25 Temmuz 2002 Erzurum), Ankara, pp.53-63 Çiçek, Kemal ‘Türk-Ermeni İlişkileri ve Tehcir’ : Çalık, Mustafa (Ed.) (2006) Ermeni Soykırımı İddiaları Yanlış Hesap Talat’dan ve Tehcir’den Dönünce, Ankara, Cedit Neşriyat, s.135-178. Çiçek, Kemal ‘Göçmenlerin Yaşamı’ : Özdemir, Hikmet (Ed.) (2007) Türk-Ermeni İhtilafı Makaleler, Ankara, TBMM, s.255-275 Hasanlı, Jamil (2014) ‘Armenian Volunteers On The Caucasian Front (1914-1916)’ The Caucasus & Globalization Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies, 8/3-4, Sweden, pp.183-201. Karacakaya, Recep (2001) ‘Ermeni Tehciri’ Yeni Türkiye Ermeni Sorunu Özel Sayısı, I, 7/37, pp.373-384. Rohner, Beatriche (1920) ‘Unter heimatlosen Armeniern in Aleppo’ Evangelisches Missionsmagazin Basel 63, pp.338-344. Sarınay, Yusuf ‘Ermeni Tehciri Sırasında Alınan Tedbirler ve 1915- 1916 Yargılamaları’ : Çalık, Mustafa (Ed.) (2013) Ermeni Soykırımı İddiaları Yanlış Hesap Talat’tan Dönünce, Ankara, Cedit Neşriyat, pp.203-228. Shaw, Stanford J. (1998) ‘Resettlement of Refugees in Anatolia 1918- 1923’ The Turkish Studies Association Bulletin, 22/1 pp.58-90. Tetik, Ahmet (2008) ‘4’üncü Ordu Komutanlığının Bölgesinde Salgın Hastalıklarla Mücadele ve İnsani Yardım Çalışmaları’ Ermeni Araştırmaları, 30, pp.86-112. Yavuz, Celadettin ‘Göçmenler ve Cemal Paşa’ : Özdemir, Hikmet (Ed.) (2007) Türk-Ermeni İhtilafı Makaleler, Ankara, TBMM, pp.278-303.
| 550 |
ARMENIAN GENOCIDE CLAIMS: FACTS BASED ON EVIDENCE*
Jean-Louis MATTEI**
First of all I would like to state that I am not a law specialist, but it could be beneficial to help law specialists in certain issues. Likewise, law specialists could also help us to develop a more rational point of view on this matter. We hereby face a multi-dimensional subject on the matter of the Armenian Issue. Yet the central point of this matter is based on the events of 1915. Once an Armenian or a Western historian hears this expression of mine, he would claim these following statements with an outrage: “How is that possible? You are not using the term Armenian Genocide!” And I shall reply: “Did Armenian Genocide happen? Are you sure? Have you examined all the evidence? Have you reviewed all the arguments (including Turkish theses)?” If those historians respond me by stating that: “Everybody already agrees that the Armenian Genocide is true” then this shall be my answer: “Your approach is unlawful! In law, the defendant has a right of defense in face of charges. What you do is nothing but extrajudicial execution.” As a matter of fact, let us take a look on how the Armenian Genocide article is presented to readers on French Wikipedia. In fact, this 31-page-long article is full of false information. For instance, Monsieur Mushegh who was responsible for the Armenian rebellion who initiated all the acts is never mentioned whatsoever in the section that deals with 1909 Adana events. Mushegh, who has leading the Reformed Hinchaks committee, was to be sent to Egypt by a bishop. Yet this person who provoked and provided weapons to his kin and who was a member of the Reformed Hinchaks committee was that very bishop himself1.
* This is the translated version of the original text. ** Researcher-Author 1 Cemal Paşa (1922) Memories of a Turkish Statesman-1913-1919, New York, George H. Doran Company, p.260.
| 551 |
Jean – Louis MATTEI
Likewise, Claude Kebabdjian and Yves Ternon never mention Mushegh in their book “Arménie 1900”. What is more, on page 131, co- authors have not presented any photographs depicting those who were on the gallows that are claimed to be all Armenians. This statement is also false as there were 15 men executed in total with 9 Turks and 6 Armenians who were charged with looting and murder. Both authors mention a butcher Misak among those men, which is not false, yet unlike the implications, butcher Misak was not an innocent Armenian2. In the following sections of the Armenian Genocide article on French Wikipedia reads as follows: “Tashnaktsutyun has organized a committee in October 1914 to arm the Armenian population in Van.” Apparently, the author of this article was not informed about the fact that there was already a Tashnak Committee in Van since 1904. The Armenian committee is an expert on terrorism towards Armenians. In 1904, terrorist Ishkhan has brutally slaughtered priest Arsen3. In 1912, Ishkhan’s comrade Aram has ordered the execution of the Governor Kapamaciyan. Moreover, in 1910 Copenhagen Socialist Convention, Tashnaks have openly declared that they armed the civil Armenian population. Indeed, this was unfavorable to the ruling Committee of Union and Progress in Turkey. However, western socialists in the Copenhagen Convention have not objected to this act that was against the agreements made between the Committee of Union and Progress and Tashnaktsutyun as they perceived Tashnaks as a socialist party. The objective of the author who penned that article on Wikipedia was to justify the Van Rebellion. Yet by doing so, he has proved the accuracy of Turkish theses. The Van rebellion was prepared by the committees many years before. It is noteworthy to add that the recurring sources in the article are Yves Ternon, Taner Akcam, Anahide Ter Minassian and Dadrian. There are no mentions of Kamuran Gurun, Bilal Simsis, Kemal Cicek, Turkkaya Ataov or Yusuf Hallacoglu. Only Murat Bardakci’s “The Remaining Documents of Talaat Pasha” is referenced.
2 Mattei, Jean-Louis (2008) Belgelerle Büyük Ermenistan Peşinde Ermeni Komiteleri, Anka- ra, Bilgi Yayınevi, p.213. 3 Kazanjian, Levon (1950) Renaissance: Van-Vaspooragan (1850-1950) Cultural Golden Age, Boston, Toumaian Brothers, p.57.
| 552 | Jean – Louis MATTEI
It is striking that both in the French and English article the “Blue Book” by James Bryce and Arnold Toynbee is referenced. According to our view, it is “unjust” because James Bryce who is a liberal member of the parliament has done his best on the Armenian case. Therefore, we have discovered that Bryce was a member of the Anglo-Armenian Association. This association was nothing, but an Armenian Committee based in London. The head of the committee was Garabed Agopyan. Mkrtich Portukalyan, on the other hand, was the head of the Marseille Committee. In other words, these two make the same association and the Armenagan Party was related to this. The father of the motto “Tebi Yerkir” (Towards the Nation), Mkrtich Khrimian respectively became the catholicos of Echmiadzin during the Russian rule and previously was the founders of the Armenagan Party. This respected clergy who continued his activities in 1893 has attempted to carry arms that were coming from England to Turkey that were transferred from Russia. This honorable person was in fact the founder of Sev Hach (Black Cross) and Bashtpan Hayreniats (Guards of the Nation) along with Mkrtich Portukalyan. In 1878, Khrimian has called Armenians to bear arms with his famous sermon “The Paper Ladle”. All this information is confirmed by Armenian sources and real and historical facts. And to us, Khrimian was not a clergyman but a terrorist who had spread hatred and vengeance. A Christian shall not act as such because a real man of God is reconciliatory. Coming back to James Bryce, at the time he was both a member of the Armenagan Committee and has contributed to the authorship of the propaganda work called “Blue Book” that was penned during the First World War for Britain. I guess this should be regarded as both being an attorney and a judge. Yet, where is law in this case? Such bias and prejudice have probably never seen throughout history. To illustrate the evidence, in November 1893 the London Committee (Anglo-Armenian Association) issues a plate and on the center of this plate the photograph of Father Khrimian can be seen along with Mr. Stevenson, head of the association; Iskender, the representative of Paris and James Bryce and Mandalla, members of the British parliament4 A
4 T.C. Başbakanlık Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü Osmanlı Arşivi Daire Başkanlığı (2004) Osmanlı Belgelerinde Ermeni-İngiliz İlişkileri (1891-1893) II, (Yayın No. 68), Anka- ra, Başbakanlık Basımevi., p. 198 and 539, 540.
| 553 | Jean – Louis MATTEI photograph related to this document is also provided in the book. Khrimian and James Bryce can be seen on the same plate. The real chief of the committee in London is Agopyan, though he is not pictured in the plate for he has a rather shy character. However, the activities of the Armenagan Party did not stop in 1893. We once again encounter with James Bryce in a reception that took place in London about the issue of a gazette named “Armenia” dated June 22, 1914 which was published in Armenian by Portukalyan in Marseille. In the meantime, James Bryce was promoted as a viscount. Likewise, the chief of the London Committee that was leading the reception was Agopyan. Agopyan was also promoted and became a professor. Yet, it is not quite certain in which field he had become a professor. Unfortunately, we were unable to reach any photographs that depicted Agopyan. In another words, the Armenagan Party which was a terrorist organization was supported both by Britain and France. Supposedly the Armenagan Party had become a constitutionalist in 1908, yet in fact it was supporting the armed struggle once again in 1914. Here is the evidence of this: According to the Ottoman documents, Dikran Kelekyan who was a famous linguist and also one of the leaders of the Armenagan Party wrote a letter to Egypt in March 1914 with which he encourages an armed struggle against the Ottomans by making an alliance with the Hinchak Party5. We have discovered an incident in the “Armenia” gazette that had been unknown until today6. Head of the Armenagan Party, Portukalyan celebrated his jubilee in May 1914 by going back to Istanbul. Former committee members and the existing Armenian committee members attended to this ceremony. Among these were Hampartsum Boyaciyan, Vahan Papazyan (persons who executed Muslims and at the same time were promoted to
5 Rèpublique de Turquie Direction Gènèrale des Archives d'Etat du premier Ministèrè Publication de la Direction du Dèpartement des Archives Ottomanes (2001) Aspirations Et Agissements Revolutionnaires Des Comites Armeniens Avant Et Apres La Proclamation De La Constitution Ottomane, 2e édition, Ankara, p.118-119. 6 See: Mattei, Jean Louis (2012) ‘Mıgırdiç Portukalyan ve Armenia gazetesi: Terörizmden Şüpheli bir Ilımlılığa’ Ermeni Araştırmaları, S:42, pp.47-75.
| 554 | Jean – Louis MATTEI members of the parliament at the time), Taniel Varujan (attorney of Tashnaktsutyun), Rupen Zartaryan (supporter of Antranik) and indeed Dikran Kelekyan7. The fact that we cannot reach to any documents regarding these event, it is only possible that they had been cancelled in the last minute. Most probably, Young Turks were suspicious about the Armenian Committees and restrained such shows and ceremonies. Let us take a look at this date: The First World War was to break out in August 1914. Great European Empires started their oppressions and Turkey was subject to embargos. In short, Portukalyan’s attempt to celebrate his jubilee in Istanbul was rather late. Yet we also see that the Ottomans had reasons to arrest certain Armenian personalities on April 24, 1915. If we develop a point of view in terms of legal terms, the following conclusions can be made. The Ottomans did not arrest Armenian leaders to cleanse Armenians, but to strike the Armenian committees that threatened the government. After these events, it was easy to deem every action of the Turkish army as “massacres” and “genocide”. Yet, these are only “propaganda”, not facts. The task of Armenian historians and their supporters are very easy: It is very simple to create a base for such a display by using the term “genocide” in every article and book. These are all propaganda, not evidence. For example, in France today, books that support Turkey are harshly subject to embargo, therefore only the Armenian perspectives are presented. This perspective applies to England, USA and other nations as well. Now that we mention law and justice, I would like to give a personal example. Before I came to Turkey in 1976, I had little information about Turkey. Some positive and some negative information. It has only recently occurred to me that some claims against Turkey are over exaggerated or full of mistakes. For instance, I had thought that in the issue of Cyprus I believed Turkish side had a right to live. I did not recognize every attempt of the Greeks. There is a principle of Law and Justice: we have to hear both sides.
7 Dikran Kelekyan was a very talented linguist. He is the author of Turkish-French Diction- ary, 1911. Unfortunately, he joined the Armenian committees that targeted the Ottoman Empire by falling into wrong politics.
| 555 | Jean – Louis MATTEI
When I came to Turkey as a French teacher in 1976, I found a different nation than it was presented through propaganda. I met with people who were hospitable, non-racist and caring to help. I also encountered with a great history and a civilization. Moreover, I learned Turkish as well as Ottoman Turkish. But I still believed that there was a genocide that took place in 1915. I was unable to understand how Turks whom I had liked could have done such atrocities. When I got back to France in 1978, I started reading books regarding the matter. These books were either written by Armenians or people who had good relations with them. First, I was under the influence of the propaganda and I was unable to believe otherwise as the authors were convincing and one-sided. Still, I believed that Turkey deserved a better image but there was an unanswered question in my mind: what was the argument of the Turks? Once again, I was in Turkey in 1983. It was the first time I had read a book by Alper Gazigiray who mentioned Turkish theses in his work. It was also the first time I was informed about the real deeds of the Armenian Committees. Then, I started to understand. Unlike some historians claim, the Armenian Genocide was not like the Holocaust. For example, there were no armed Jewish groups. Or, there were no anti-Armenian propaganda in the Ottoman period. Young Turks were not actually racist. But still, the casualties were in question. I have seen photographs, documents. Did Turks really murder one and a half million people? The Armenian Case was actually a part of my research but when I encountered any book or a document or a newspaper, I would buy them. In order to evaluate the issue objectively, I started learning Armenian in 1991. Therefore, I collected both Armenian and Ottoman Turkish documents. One question remained on my mind: was actually the number of casualties 250.000-300.000 as Kamuran Gurun suggested? Kamuran Gurun is an honest historian and a researcher that worked in the archives. But the numbers she suggests are very different than those claimed by Armenian researchers. Was she telling the truth? Once Yusuf Hallacoglu’s books were published in 2005, I gained a clearer idea on the matter thanks to the documents he provided. The documents and numbers provided matched with those of Kamuran Gurun. What is more, I learned
| 556 | Jean – Louis MATTEI that nearly 450.000 Armenians had migrated to Iran from Erivan without the intervention of the Ottoman army. This information is already provided by Armenians as well. Many years ago, I thought that the number of victims were 900.000, not one and a half million. Then I thought it was 400.000. And now I believe that 350.000 Armenians died in 1915. Indeed, this number is also very high. This number is the memory of those who have suffered. Bu who remembers those Turks, Kurds, Circassians that died in war and immigration? Who cares about their numbers in Europe? If the Armenian diaspora is telling the truth, then why do they lie about such an issue? Did they have to provide such an exaggerated number? Now, are we so far away from justice? No. Knowing the exact numbers would contribute to lawfulness and to having an objective judgment. If there are lies, those lies will work against the liars. Now, let us get back to those who support the Armenian cause. There are three famous names in France who deal with this matter: Jean-Marie Carzou, Anahide Ter Minassian and Yves Ternon. I still have the book published by Jean-Marie Carzou in 1978. Neither in the book nor on its cover is mentioned that Jean-Marie Carzou has Armenian roots. Jean-Marie Carzou might very well be an Armenian and have every right to write on this issue but it was not very right that she hid her background. I had thought that Carzou was of French origin. There is an intention here. By acting such, Carzou probably thought that he would gain more credibility by hiding his origins. Supposedly, an objective historian provides us with the “genocide” theses. Yet for us, he has greatly lost his credibility with this attitude. Coming back to Anahide Ter Minassian. It is obvious from her name and last name that she has Armenian origins. She is the author of “La Question Arménienne” that was published in 1983 and she is a great researcher. Yes, Madam Minassian is an Armenian, no questions on that. In her book, she provides us with great information regarding the Armenian Committees. But she also is not very honest. Why? Because she hid the fact that she was the daughter-in-law of Rupen Ter Minassian who was a famous member of the Tashnaktsutyun Party. The same story: just like James Bryce,
| 557 | Jean – Louis MATTEI
Madam Minassian is also an attorney as well as a judge. For us, this is also unlawful because no enlightening and necessary information or data can be found in Minassian’s book. Yves Ternon of French origin is actually a victim himself: the victim of Armenian propaganda. Yves Ternon is actually a surgeon. Fooled by the Armenian Propaganda, Ternon thinks that the Armenian events are similar with the Holocaust. Maybe he thought that Turkish doctors were carrying out experiments on Armenians just like Nazi doctors did. But this is not a historical fact. In his 1989 book “Enquête sur la négation d’un génocide”, he attempts to prove that the “Andonian Documents” were not false. Yves Ternon speaks sincerely at times: On page 221, the author honestly confesses that he neither speaks Turkish, Ottoman Turkish or Armenian. Then who did he consult to in order to compensate his lack of knowledge? He states that he has referred to Armenian experts which mean that Ternon clearly shows his biased approach by refusing to consult to Turkish experts as well. This indeed is an unlawful approach. There are various mistakes in his book. Looking at the “Andonian Documents”, it can be seen that there is a situation which Ternon is unaware about: In the real documents, Talat Pasha did not sign the documents as the “Interior Minister Talat” but as “Nazir Talat” which means “Minister Talat”. In the “Andonian Documents”, the Basmala letter either does not exist, or is written wrong8. Even if the Andonian Documents were proved to be wrong, Ternon would still support them because they were “appropriate according to his point of view” How come a false document be in accordance with the truth? Would a person consult to false documents in order to support justice and truth? This was exactly what Andonian has done. Moreover, how come such controversial documents provided by Ternon prove the act of genocide? Besides, let us hear the following sentence quoted from the book of Jean-Marie Carzou: “refus des interventions exérieures même charitables” which means “even the exterior interventions that were done with good deeds
8 Mattei (2008), p. 268.
| 558 | Jean – Louis MATTEI were refused”. If we look at Kemal Cicek’s book called “The Forced Migration of Armenians”, we shall see that the Ottoman government has handed over the distribution of the charities to the community called “Near East Relief”. Likewise, we see in the documents provided by Kemal Cicek that the Armenian immigrants were receiving financial aid from their relatives in the United States through the Embassy of the US in Aleppo. This financial aid would not reach those people if the Ottoman Government did not let them. Then let us ask, is Carzou telling the truth? Here’s another observation: there were missionaries on Turkish soil. They were able to witness the events. Some of them joined the convoys that were sent to Syria. Both Carzou and Ter Minassian mention Hitler in their book. Supposedly, Hitler has expressed these words: “After all, who remembers Armenians today?” which allegedly means: “Everybody has forgotten how the Armenians were annihilated. Therefore, I can do the same to the Jews!” This so-called sentence has never been expressed by Hitler. Neither Carzou nor Minassian can provide any reference to this quotation. On the contrary, Hitler regarded Armenians as one of the master races, as the Aryan race based on the studies of German scientists. Hitler created the Armenian Legion and let them to publish a gazette named “Hayastan”. This legion has massacred Jews in the Caucasus during the Second World War. Its chief was a former committee member named Dr. Vahan Papazyan, former committee member from Van also admits his friendship with Dr. Rosenberg who was one of the pioneers of the Nazi movements in Berlin. This information has been gained on the Armenian Wikipedia. Vahan Papazyan, a Tashnak member, has made an alliance with a Kurdish Community named Hoybun for the purpose of splitting Turkey and revive the capitulations in 1927. Carzou, who never mentions these events in the book, writes that the Van Resistance (Rebellion) occurred on its own in 1915. Both Ottoman, French and Armenian documents prove the fact that Armenian Committees (especially the Tashnaks) had been preparing for such a rebellion since 1904. Carzou and Ternon have barely mentioned the Armenian Committees in their works. On the contrary, they are in the foreground of Anahide Ter Minassian’s book. Could the Armenian Committees be of no
| 559 | Jean – Louis MATTEI importance for the Armenian theses and at the same time be of paramount importance? How could this be? If we are to look at the documents submitted by all these three authors, it is understood that mainly Armenian or pro-Armenian sources are referenced. Let us assume that there is a court and would this court accept only the evidence submitted by one party only? No. Evidence and testimonials provided both by the attorney and the prosecutors will be heard and evaluated. This is what the law calls for. A counter-argument might be raised: “But the Ottoman archives were not open back in that period when these books were published…” Yes, that is true however once the works of Kamuran Gurun, Alper Gazigiray, Bilal Simsir, Sinasi Orel and Sureyya Yuca were also published, they were all ignored by the Armenian historians or they were simply mocked by them. Today, the members of the European parliament are not aware of the fact that the Ottoman archives have been open for twenty years and they are being silly as they blindly believe in the Armenian lobby. And now the Ottoman archives are open and there are many volumes that show the facsimiles of the documents. Yet, I wonder if the Armenian or pro-Armenian historians or neutral historians are using them? It is a fact that some pro-Armenian researchers are in pursuit of the meaning of those documents. However, usually leitmotivs and lies are also being applied. In a statement made by a Turkish researcher to a famous French History Periodical in 2008, the same lies are told and templates from the previous century and even from the 19th century are being provided. This person ardently uses the lies told in the “Blue Book”. Here, it is understood that the fact that this person is Turkish was used as a justification for an objective point of view. The good will of this researcher is doubtful. Anyways, the traces of Armenian propaganda can be seen in the western news media. Ottoman documents or Turkish theses are not included. The purpose of Anahide Ter Minassian was to depict Armenian committee members as the protectors of democracy or independence in her book. According to her, despite some mistakes, those fighters were derived from a progressive “leftists” movement. Turks, on the other hand, are supposedly reactionary and fanatical. Indeed Ter Minassian does not make
| 560 | Jean – Louis MATTEI exact statements, but she rather implies them. It is significant to perceive how Ter Minassian acts in order to present the flow of events in the book entitled “La Question Arménienne”. Anahide Ter Minassian makes references to many periodicals and newspapers that were published in Armenian. It is not surprising that Ter Minassian was not only Armenian, but also a member of the Tashnaktsutyun Party. She therefore mentions the “Mşak” periodical. “Mşak” was a liberal journal and it consisted of Russian Armenians. But there are no full quotations made in Ter Minassian’s book that are directly taken from “Mşak”. For a long period we tried to get a copy of “Mşak” to no avail. Instead we reached to another online book that was published in Tbilisi in 1894 whose author was Khrimian Hayrik. “Mşak” that was published in Russia as well as Krikor Ardzruni, the founder, who had passed away two years ago are mentioned in this book that was penned in Armenian which is also known as “The Continuous Press of Armenian”. We found out that in fact Ardzruni did not know Armenian very well. He has stayed in Germany for a long period. But once he returned back to Russia, he managed to gather people who knew Armenian very well, including the famous writer Raffi. Let us also remind that according to our findings in the “Armenia” gazette, young Mkrtich Portukalyan has been to Russia for a while and wrote in “Mşak” under the penname of “Hrant”. Therefore, it would not be surprising to find out in historical studies if the name Portukalyan is usually mentioned with Ardzruni and Khrimian. Therefore, we hereby witness that the pillars of Armenagan Party were founded, a party which was a former terrorist organization later to be supporting constitutionalism and in the end transforming into a terror organization once again in 1914. Instead of Minassian, one shall consult to Mehmet Perincek who translated the original Russian version of the book “Vostoçniy Vopros” (The Eastern Question” into Turkish in order to learn about Ardzruni’s ideas. In short, Ardzruni has written9: “Turks are having their living over Armenians. Turkish women are unproductive. Be it wealthy or poor, Turkish women are
9 Strateji, Cumhuriyet special issue, no 174/October 2007, p.20-21.
| 561 | Jean – Louis MATTEI born to satisfy men’s desires and garnish their harem. Armenians, on the other hand, are like Asian Germans with their hardworking attitude and wisdom”. An objective person would agree with us on this one: Krikor Ardzruni is a racist. He does not hesitate to insult Turks in order to glorify Armenians. If a Turk was to declare such harsh statements, Westerners would probably resent! That is why Minassian has been cautious about those texts and chosen to remain silent about them. Again, Minassian mentions many newspapers such as “Droshak” (Flag), “Masis” (Ararat). But once again Minassian does not provide a full quotation from those sources. And why is that? Because by doing so Minassian could have made a mistake by presenting the terrorist nature of the Armenian committees. We analyzed a couple of Armenian articles in the “Droshak” that were published in the beginning of 1897 and found out that in the article entitled “Komitas Kahanann”(Priest Komitas) it is stated that Tashnaktsutyun has assumed the extrajudicial execution of Komitas Vartapet in Van. The execution of poor Vartapet is detailed without providing the name of the criminal. Such an act, whatever the reasons were, would not be accepted by any courts. This is what law provides. And yet, the execution of a clergy is being told. Ter Minassian both approves and disapproves terrorism. In her book, the execution of Matheos Balyozyan from Izmir is depicted: Balyozyan was imprisoned and executed by Tashnaktsutyun (by Kristapor Mikaelyan) for being a spy or a denouncer. According to our studies, Matheos Balyozyan was in fact a charitable person from Izmir. He opened up some houses for Armenian orphans. He was a respected person among the Armenian community. These interesting details can be found on the Hushadedr/Diary chapter of the Masis periodical (vol. 35, page 564, August 31) that was being published in Armenian prior to the 1902 assassination10. It is clearly understood that the founder of “Droshak”, Kristapor Mikaelyan was one of the dangerous persons who committed murders, blackmailing and exaction. What is more, this person would commit
10 Mattei (2008), p.151.
| 562 | Jean – Louis MATTEI terrorism upon his own people, meaning towards the Armenian community. In another words, terrorism was being committed towards Armenians by Armenians. The examples of Komitas and Matheos Balyozyan are not isolated cases but at this time we will provide the examples of Priest Arsen (1904) (this was not initiated by Mikaelyan) and Governor Kapamaciyan (1912). The purpose of the committee members was to extort money from wealthy Armenians and then to attack on Turkish or Kurdish subjects by acts of terrorism. Thus, there was a plan of Greater Armenia by sending out the Muslim population. Indeed, Ter Minassian does not go into these details. According to her, the victimized Armenians are about to break their chains in history. Yet there are the examples of Greece and Bulgaria on this issue. But Ter Minassian does not provide precise details. Let us remember that in the issue of January 1897 “Droshak”, the words “terror” and “terrorism” did not have negative connotations. But were the Armenians a suppressed community? In fact, Armenians were the wealthiest group in the Ottoman period. They were managing the silk industry in Bursa. The Manager of the Silk Institute Kevork Torkomyan had studied in France. He was not subject to immigration in 1915 and he retired in 1922. He was a loyal Ottoman citizen. Who could give any example of Jews serving in the Nazi Germany!? We can even encounter Madam Siranush in 1915 Bursa newspaper no 316 entitle “Ertugrul” dating March 16, 1916. Even after the deportation, Madam Siranush resides in Bursa, works as a teacher and donates clothes to the Bursa Hospital. In the end, the staff members of the “Ertugrul” newspaper would thank Madam Siranush for her generosity. Where is genocide and racism in these examples? Kristapor Mikaelyan would probably execute Madam Siranush as well, if he could. In short, despite we admit that there were also poor Armenians working in the factories, majority of Armenians were wealthy. They were factory owners, merchants, tailors or doctors or officers or artists. Many of them were in touch with the Europeans. There were also interpreters. The Ottomans had problems with the Kurds. But Kurds also were making trouble for Turks. But usually, the millets (communities) did not have any problemswith each other in the region. They all lived in peace or at least tried
| 563 | Jean – Louis MATTEI to do so. Let us remember that it was Turks who enabled Western Armenians live in prosperity. Now they might say “you have not talked of deportation yet”. In fact, we did; we mentioned the Andonian Documents. Why would people who have confidence provide false documents? Because they were not so sure of themselves. We also mentioned Armenians in Bursa who were not deported. We checked the accuracy of Turkish arguments. Some Armenians were not deported. Many of them stayed in the Armenian lands (around 250 thousand or even more). This also does not match with the theory that supports the idea of a pre-established, planned act of genocide. We hereby prove that all the claims, statements and allegation of the Armenian diaspora and pro-Armenian groups are wrong or fake. Likewise, by analyzing the acts of Young Turks and accusing the Committee of Union and Progress with hypocrisy, Armenian historians attempt to prove that these two groups were preparing an act of genocide. Here is a summary of their deeds: between 1908-1914, Armenian parties and especially Tashnaktsutyun have been in alliance with the Committee of Union and Progress. This is correct, however in the meantime Armenian historians prove that Tashkantsutyun had also close ties with the Patriarchy. It is very absurd for the Patriarchy to have close ties with an atheist group, Tashnaktsutyun. Anyways, the Patriarchy has usually become the hostage of the Armenian committees, willingly or unwillingly. In fact some Armenian historians find Tashnaks naïve and fearful with their relations to Turks. They question the reason why Armenians did not have a stronger resistance during deportation. Actually, these historians (many of them who are Tashnaks!), do injustice to Tashnaktsutyun and to Hinchaks as well as to Reformed Hinchaks in a broader sense. Let us remind you that the Adana rebellion which was organized by clergy Mushegh Seropian as the local head of the Reformed Hinchak Party in 1909 turned out as a great event. In Van region, Tashnaktsutyun organized the 1915 rebellion many years earlier. Even the research done by Armenians
| 564 | Jean – Louis MATTEI point to this fact: The same acts and preparations were also made around the Bingol province by Armenian committees11. Who is the hypocrite then? Speaking of hypocrisy, let us point out that the Armenian diaspora has always done its best to accuse Turks. Around 30 years ago on Channel 2 in France, a documentary was broadcasted in which Turks were depicted as putting Izmir on fire. Yet according to Maxime Gauin’s documents that were found in the French archives, Izmir was put on fire by Armenians. It is not surprising because in the First World War, Armenians put their own villages on fire and blamed Turks. They have done the same thing about Izmir. The only difference was that Izmir belonged to all groups. Assassins who targeted Talat Pasha before WWI in 1914 consisted of Hinchak committee members. Among them were also famous Paramaz. Their instigator Sabah Gulyan fled to the USA while his comrades had to deals with the Turkish police. The conspirators were executed in 1915. At the time, death sentence was legal to those who committed crimes against the government therefore the case of Paramaz and his comrades were not unlawful. Armenian diaspora has represented them as the victims of genocide, yet they never mention the conspiracies that were targeted at Talat Pasha. Yet, at the time (1914) Armenians were not even deported yet. Weird, isn’t it? Committees continued their racist propaganda even during their alliance with the Committee of Union and Progress between 1908-1914. Also, there was a novel entitled “Avazagabedı” was published in Istanbul by Simbad Purad Publishing in 1913, yet we cannot know the exact year which its first issue was published. This book is full of chapters and sentences that call for racism against Turks and hate speeches. This book that was published by Simbad Purad is not the only one which has similar content. Another book that was released in Russia named “Nor Knar” (New Instrument) is full of “revolutionary” songs that call for revenge. It is possible that some schools (not all of them) may have been taught at schools. Then, who is the hypocrite here?
11 Akbulut, Yılmaz (1998) Ermeniler ve Bingöl’de Ermeni Tehcirleri, Ankara, T.C. Kültür Bakanlığı.
| 565 | Jean – Louis MATTEI
Yes, in the end many Armenians were deported. Nobody refuses the fact that they suffered. They were living in peace with Muslims for 800 years. Most of the time they lived together in peace, like brothers. But some of them were acting out of “vengeance”. We have seen “Mşak”. We reviewed the “Armenagan Party”, Tashnaks and Hinchaks. Speaking of ASALA that acts with the same ideology today might be another topic for another presentation. And now why does West listen only to the same party and why does it now allow them to speak up? This is against law and justice. In 1915, Talat Pasha had to perform this action. We have no intention to focus on his personality. We cannot know whether he did right or wrong. As far as we are concerned, he also wasn’t in favor of performing this act. It is certain that Talat Pasha was not the head of the mobs that massacred Armenians. But General Antranik slaughtered innocent Muslims with his gangs for 20 years. There are no statutes of Talat Pasha, but there is a statute of Antranik in Yerevan. We saw that the Armenian committees were gradually provoking the Armenian community. For a long period, Armenian population refused to cooperate with the Armenian committees. In fact the first victims of those committees were Armenians. But as of the constitutional period, the Armenian committees became legal and naturally their members or sympathizers increased. Genocide claims are groundless. Because Young Turks never had such an intention. There is no evidence regarding such an argument. As is known, April 24 is the date of the arrests that took place in Istanbul later to be regarded as the date of the so-called genocide. Some of the arrested men were authors or members of the parliament. In this case, the Ottoman government is not guilty because many of those men had declared war on the Ottoman Empire when the First World War started. According to many Turkish historians, the Committee of Union and Progress only started to assume a more nationalistic nature as of 1917. In 1915 commissions on “the letters of the deceased” were founded. In his book “The Forced Migration of Armenians”, Kemal Cicek explains how these commissions were established and mentions their intention of returning back the assets of Armenians after the war. Information gained through these
| 566 | Jean – Louis MATTEI documents are usually not known by Armenian historians, or simply discarded by them. Kemal Cicek gives the Trabzon example in his book by submitting the “Trabzon’da Mesveret” newspaper which was published in Trabzon. In his 1994 article “A Review on the Restitutions of Greek and Armenian Assets” which was published in the 9th issue of “Toplumsal Tarih” (Social History), Ibrahim Ethem Atnur writes: “In August 1918, Talat Pasha has provided two million (currency) to Gezeryan Efendi, a member from Aleppo, in order for the Armenians that were deported to return back where they came from. By the first quarter of 1920, majority of the Armenian and Greek assets were returned back to their owners”12. Raif Kaplanoglu, a friend of mine from Bursa, also mentions how even the deformed hoses of Armenian firefighters were delicately conserved in his book “Bursa: from the Constitutional Period to the Republican Era” and writes: “It is understood from the documents gained from Bursa Municipality Archives that the municipality and government took good care of the assets that were left behind by Armenians who were deported and were unable to take their belongings with them while leaving Bursa as a result of forced migration”13. In another chapter it is written: “It is seen that a commission consisting of the Municipality and the Gendarme Command was created during when immigrants from Bursa were being deported”. This statement justifies the argument of Kemal Cicek. I also would like to add to my testimonial that during my research in Bursa, I discovered many newspapers belonging to that period named “Hudavendigar” and “Ertugrul”. In these sources it is confirmed that some Armenians had deserted military service and the acts of Armenian organizations in and around Bursa had ended up in joining the enemy’s side. Head of the committee as well as the chief physician of the Bursa Hospital in 1915, Dr. Meliksat was hung and executed on the Setbasi Bridge
12 Atnur, İbrahim Ethem (1994) ‘Tehcirden Dönen Rum ve Ermenilerin Emvalinin İadesine Bakış’ Toplumsal Tarih, S.9, pp.45-48. 13 Kaplanoğlu, Raif (2006) Meşrutiyet’ten Cumhuriyet’e Bursa (1876-1926), İstanbul, Avras- ya Etnografya Vakfı, p.220-221.
| 567 | Jean – Louis MATTEI
(Hudavendigar gazette issue no 2688 is in question). Meliksat was sentenced in accordance with the military law. The name of this person can also be found in “Rapport Lepsius”. According to this report, Dr. Meliksat was supposedly arrested for no reason and was subjugated to an extrajudicial execution in Bursa in an unknown place on an unknown date. He simply disappeared. The gazette that we discovered, on the contrary, proves otherwise: the sentence had its reasons; it was not an extrajudicial execution. He was sentenced and judged in accordance with the customary law of Bandirma court martial because he was one of the chief members of the Armenian Revolutionary Committee. Meliksat was sent to Bursa and was sentenced in accordance with the military law there. He was not an innocent Armenian citizen as Lepsius suggests, but was a person who declared war on the Ottoman Empire. Turkkaya Ataov, on the other hand, writes in his book “What Happened to the Ottoman Armenians” that many weapons were discovered in 1915 Bursa. Once again, the reliability of the works like Rapport Lepsius”, “Morgenthau’s Story” and “Blue Book” have been proved to be weak. Lepsius only attempts to prove that Armenians were arrested and deported only for being Armenians. But he would hear news from Morgenthau and for him only gossips would suffice. This is not an insignificant detail because today the Armenian diaspora still consults to these fake, false or non-objective reports for proving the genocide. What I mean is that indeed there were many peaceful and good willed Armenians in Bursa. According to Raif Kaplanoglu they applied to the Ottoman officials for not being deported but their request was denied. This also is a historical fact. Tragedy and conflicts start from that. Since Armenian committees were very active in many villages around Bursa, the Ottoman government had to deport both the guilty and the innocent. Let us not forget that Armenian committees were also active in Izmit. Izmit is not very far away from Bursa. What would happen if there were rebellions in rural areas or in cities? How would the officials differentiate the guilty from the innocent in such a chaos and crowd? Thus Armenians started off a dangerous journey with their trek. Moreover, contagious diseases were spread around the
| 568 | Jean – Louis MATTEI
Ottoman Empire. Many Turks who were not deported also died from those diseases. In her book “Migrations to Anatolia after the Crimean War and the Inhabitants in Amasya” mentioning the forced migration of Circassians to Turkey in 1864, Emine Altunay Şam writes this interesting sentence: “Those who were deported to Anatolia were suffering from great troubles and were dying of hunger, diseases, harsh conditions”14. Nobody could argue that the Circassians were subject to genocide by Turks, nobody does that. All those deaths were caused from tough weather conditions, bad sanitation and hardships that were encountered on the road. The same would apply to Armenians in 1915. Likewise, the fact that many Armenians died from typhus and dysentery can be found in real and accurate documents15. It is not denied that the journey was a tough one. It is a fact that the Ottoman government did not have enough to feed everyone. Was there enough food for Turkish soldiers? Sometimes the gendarme behaved wrong. But this was not a systematic act. Sometimes the convoys were attacked by Kurds for looting, and sometimes they killed Armenians. It is thought that 20 thousand people died in the massacres, not one and a half million. Besides, the Armenian committees also killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Turks, Kurds and Circassians from 1890 until 1922. The Ottoman government did not order those massacres. According to documents, such acts were banned and even were subject to sentences. More than 1400 men who attacked the convoys were punished and some were executed. I wonder whether the SS soldiers or officers were ever put on trial for attacking Jews in the Second World War? As a result of my 20 year long research, I have concluded that we are not dealing with a genocide here as suggested by the Armenian diaspora; on the contrary the Young Turks were unable to intervene the Armenian committees timely because of their honesty or carelessness because there was an agreement between them and Young Turks were hesitant about exceeding
14 Altunay Şam, Emine (2011), Kırım Savaşı’ndan Sonra Anadolu’ya Yapılan Göçler ve Amasya’da İskân Edilenler, Ankara, Pegem Akademi, p.32. One might also see this source: Aydemir, İzzet (1988) Göç: Kuzey Kafkasyalıların Göç Tarihi, Ankara, Gelişim Matbaası. 15 Mattei (2008), p. 280.
| 569 | Jean – Louis MATTEI that delicate balance. For a long time, they did not perform an effective action on the Armenian committees that were breaking the agreement. The long report written on Bursa province proves this. Van region was in fact nearly a saved province. Loyal Armenian citizens also confirm our opinions. Here is a quotation from “Tanin” newspaper dating April 29, 1918 issue no. 2358 which is still published today as “Jamanak”: “In reply to ‘Tanin’, Jamanak answered that the Ottoman Armenians have nothing to do with this regrettable event and Turks are responsible for all these actions as they were unable to respond those vulgar committee members properly”. These lines are penned by an Armenian. Three years passed since deportation. “Jamanak” continued to be published. There were still many Armenians in Istanbul and they criticized Young Turks for not having intervened with the Armenian Committees in time. The Armenian issue has many perspectives. Here we mentioned only a few dimensions. In summary, we have understood as a result of our studies and research that there is no racism targeted at Armenians in Turkey and that Turks were simply supporting their nation. Documents that we found and analyzed generally prove the racism and aggressiveness of the Armenian committees and their chiefs. Armenian committees have provoked and terrorized the Armenian community and tried to have them support their terrorist actions. It is certain that many Armenian citizens became a victim and died because of the committees. The wrongful deed of the West is that it only remembers the Armenian victims. The West is not informed or simply it refuses the fact that Armenian committees slaughtered Armenians as well. They either forget or discard the fact that since 1878 Armenian committees had slaughtered or tortured Turks and Kurds. Deportation of 1915 was not a plan for extermination. The example of Germany is a totally different case. Because the Committee of Union and Progress had a variety of tendencies but in general it aimed to conserve Armenians within the Ottoman union. The forced migration of Armenians was actually a caution. The war had broken out and the Armenian committees betrayed Turkey. Committees were preparing the intervention of enemies by preserving their arms and ruling large regions. This clearly is called treason. Unfortunately, those who paid for
| 570 | Jean – Louis MATTEI the ill deeds of the Armenian committees were the innocent Armenian people. However, the Ottoman Empire and many Muslims were facing extermination. There were no other choices. The Armenians were planned to be returning back, as the documents suggest. There was not a pre-established act in which a race is targeted. “Deportation” and “Genocide” are not synonyms. Here there is no genocide, but there is an immigration case. Deportation does not meet the legal criteria of genocide. And what are left are two nations that are ruined as a result of the interventions made by Great Empires and also a mutual grief… As Ilber Ortayli says, there is a term in Roman Law: “Audi alteram partem” which means “listen to the other side”. The European Parliament who has listened only one side has taken a side and acted unlawfully.
| 571 | Jean – Louis MATTEI
BIBLIOGRAPHY Akbulut, Yılmaz (1998) Ermeniler ve Bingöl’de Ermeni Tehcirleri, Ankara, T.C. Kültür Bakanlığı. Altunay Şam, Emine (2011), Kırım Savaşı’ndan Sonra Anadolu’ya Yapılan Göçler ve Amasya’da İskân Edilenler, Ankara, Pegem Akademi. Atnur, İbrahim Ethem (1994) ‘Tehcirden Dönen Rum ve Ermenilerin Emvalinin İadesine Bakış’ Toplumsal Tarih, S.9, pp.45-48. Aydemir, İzzet (1988) Göç: Kuzey Kafkasya'lıların Göç Tarihi, Ankara, Gelişim Matbaası. Cemal Paşa (1922) Memories of a Turkish Statesman-1913-1919, New York, George H. Doran Company. Kaplanoğlu, Raif (2006) Meşrutiyet’ten Cumhuriyet’e Bursa (1876- 1926), İstanbul, Avrasya Etnografya Vakfı. Kazanjian, Levon (1950) Renaissance: Van-Vaspooragan (1850-1950) Cultural Golden Age, Boston, Toumaian Brothers. Mattei, Jean-Louis (2008) Belgelerle Büyük Ermenistan Peşinde Ermeni Komiteleri, Ankara, Bilgi Yayınevi. Mattei, Jean Louis (2012) ‘Mıgırdiç Portukalyan ve Armenia gazetesi: Terörizmden Şüpheli bir Ilımlılığa’ Ermeni Araştırmaları, S:42, pp.47-75. Rèpublique de Turquie Direction Gènèrale des Archives d'Etat du premier Ministèrè Publication de la Direction du Dèpartement des Archives Ottomanes (2001) Aspirations Et Agissements Revolutionnaires Des Comites Armeniens Avant Et Apres La Proclamation De La Constitution Ottomane, 2e édition, Ankara. Strateji, Cumhuriyet special issue, no 174/October 2007, p.20-21. T.C. Başbakanlık Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü Osmanlı Arşivi Daire Başkanlığı (2004) Osmanlı belgelerinde Ermeni-İngiliz ilişkileri (1891- 1893) II, (Yayın No. 68), Ankara, Başbakanlık Basımevi.
| 572 |
POSSIBLE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF GENOCIDE CLAIMS: CLAIMS FOR COMPENSATION AND TERRITORY∗
İbrahim KAYA**
INTRODUCTION
2015 is quite an important year since it is the 100th anniversary of the so-called Armenian Genocide of 1915. Armenian societies organized in Ar- menia and different parts of the world try hard in order to commemorate the events of 1915 and bring them into the agenda of the world. Armenians carry out extensive and comprehensive political activities for the recognition of “Armenian genocide”. Apart from the recognition, they also demand land and compensation. Recognition (Tanıma), Land (Toprak) and Compensation (Tazminat) could be called as 3T (as its Turkish acronym) in short. Armenians who have been partially successful in recognition in poli- tical terms refrain from taking action in in the legal field. In fact, there are not any national or international court that recognize the 1915 events as genocide. On the contrary, the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the Perinçek case indicates that genocide is contro- versial. Although the claims for compensation and land have political aspects, they should also have a legal basis. This paper examines the possible legal basis of the compensation and land claims, if any. The starting point of this study is the report titled Resolution with Justi- ce: Reparations for the Armenian Genocide, which was published in March 2015 and mentions the claims of the Armenian side.1However, this study will not focus on the issue of recognition.2 Indeed, land and compensation claims do not depend if these events are recognized as genocide or not by law. Yet, it is necessary to give background information at first.
∗ This text is translated by Oya Uslu Çetin. ** Professor at İstanbul University, Faculty of Law, Department of International Law 1 Resolution with Justice: Reparations for the Armenian Genocide: Report of the Armenian Reparations Genocide Reparations Study Group, 2015, available online at http://www.armeniangenocidereparations.info (Hereinafter “the Report”) 2 For Recognition, see Kaya, İbrahim “Uluslararası Siyaset Açısından Ermeni Meselesi: Sözde Soykırımın Tanınması Çabaları” Emperyalizm ve Ermeni Meselesi Sempozyumu, ESAM, Ankara, 18-19 April 2015
| 573 |
İbrahim KAYA
A. BACKGROUND During the World War I, 1915 was a very painful year for the Ottoman geography. For instance, the Sarıkamış Tragedy occured at the beginning of 1915 and Battle of Gallipoli ended up with serious losses. At the beginning of the war, the Armenian Tasnak Party, which had been organized for many years, preferred to give its allegiance to the Allied Powers specificly to Russia instead of Ottoman Empire.3 They expected to achieve independence anticipating that the Ottoman Empire will lose the war. Apart from the Armenian troops which were established in order to fight alongside with Russia, serious riots began across Ottoman territories. The Van Riot occured in March 1915 and immediately afterwards Armenians took charge of the city of Van, slaughtered most of the Muslims and expelled the rest. Armenians had started a lot of riots long years ago. With the expansion of the riots and terrorist attacks, Ottoman armies, which were then fighting on different fronts, were hit from behind and their supply lines were blocked. Moreover, Ottoman civilians most of whom were women, children and el- derly people were murdered. Therewith, Ottoman Empire issued the Decision of Relocation and Resettlement, which is known as “tehcir” or “compulsory migration” (relocation and resettlement). The scope, content and results of the decision are too wide to be examined in this paper. However, it should be noted that it is the aforementioned military necessity that initiated this deci- sion and it aims to settle the Armenians, who were forced to migrate, in diffe- rent parts of the country. It was very difficult to put into force and implement perfectly the Deci- sion of Relocation and Resettlement was difficult especially when the conditi- ons of war are taken into consideration. It should be noted that people who were subject to tehcir suffered heavy losses some of which resulted from pla- gues, famine, and weather conditions such as severe hot and cold. Other losses were based on human-made causes. Indeed, lack of safety helped the local gangs cause losses and sometimes certain government officers yielded casual-
3 Mandelstam, Andre (1970) La Societe des Nations et les Puissances Devant le Probleme Armenien, (Mentioned by Toriguian, Shavarash (1973) The Armenian Question Question and International Law, Beirut: Hamakaine Press, 1973, p. 98).
| 574 | İbrahim KAYA ties. In order to protect the Armenians, Ottoman Empire worked to prevent such events and for that matter tried some of those officers.4 The losses of Armenians who were forced to migrate were exploited es- pecially to arouse indignation in the eye of western public opinion and influ- ence the United States of America, which had then not participated in the war yet. Hereby, they tried to create the perception that Muslims slaughtered in- nocent Christians.5 Thus, a great number of government authorities and intel- lectuals were taken to Malta upon the invasion of İstanbul at the end of World War I. However, all of them were released since there were not enough evi- dence, information and document to try them. The current borders of Turkey were designated in accordance with Moscow and Kars Treaties along with the Lausanne Peace Treaty. Armenian terrorist attacks, which were considered as isolated events in the beginning of the 1970s, increased in consequence of Cyprus Peace Operation. Armenian terror came to a head in the early 1980s. In the beginning of the 1990s, Arme- nian state became independent with the dissolution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and it was recognised by Turkey. The invasion of Nagorno Karabagh and some other Azerbaijani territories by Armenians disrupted the development of the relations between two countries. In 2009, two protocols were signed in order to normalize the contacts between Turkey and Armenia, but they did not come into force.6 The protocols signed in Zurich in Switzer- land included terms and conditions which required the objective analysis of historical resources and archives with scientific methods in order to build reciprocal trust and solve the existing problems. Apart from the mutual re- cognition and opening of the borders, cooperations in the fields of education, tourism, trade, economy, transportation, communication, energy and envi- ronment were anticipated. Turkey presented these protocols to the Grand National Assembly of Turkey (TBMM) for ratification while Armenia submitted them to the Sup- reme Court for review. The Armenian Court found these protocols unconsti-
4 Kaya, İbrahim “Ermeni Sorununun Hukuksal Boyutları: Ulusal ve Uluslararası”: Lütem, Ömer E. et al. (ed.) (2003) Ermeni Sorunu El Kitabı, 2. Baskı, Ankara, TEIMK, p. 85. 5 For an example see Bryce, James / Toynbee, Arnold (2005) Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Erme- nilere Yönelik Muamele 1915-1916 (Mavi Kitap), İstanbul, Pencere Yayınları. 6 Kaya, İbrahim (2010) “Uluslararası Hukuk Açısından Türkiye-Ermenistan Protokolle- ri”Ermeni Araştırmaları, 10. Yıl Özel Sayı, p. 101.
| 575 | İbrahim KAYA titional arguing that Armenian Constitution refers to the Declaration of Inde- pendence which requires that “efforts to make the genocide accepted at inter- national arena”. Armenia brought the ratification process into an end in Janu- ary 2010 and moreover, revoked it after 5 years. It should be noted that the Declaration of Independence which is attributed in Armenian Constitution describes the east of Turkey as “Western Armenia”. On the ground that it is the 100th anniversary of Decision of Relocation and Resettlement, the year 2015 has symbolic importance. Thus, Armenia and Armenian Diaspora not only accelerated the efforts, which have been applied for a long time, to make the genocide recognized but also came up with claims for land and compensation in order to remedy the so-called genocide.
B. THE REPORT AND CLAIMS The Report entitled Resolution with Justice: Reparations for the Arme- nian Genocide was prepared by the Armenian Genocide Reparations Study Group and published in March 2015. The group commenced its work in 2007. Although the group which is composed of a president and other members was presented as “independent”, its work was financed by the Armenian Revoluti- onary Federation (Dashnaksutyun-Tashnak). The group was headed by Henry C. Theriault, who is a professor of phi- losophy. A member of the group, Ara Papian, who is a graduate of Eastern Sciences, also studied diplomacy and acted as the Ambassador of Armenia to Canada. Another member of the group is an assosiate professor Jermaine O. McCalpin, who is specialised in political science. There was only one lawyer in the group: Dr. Alfred-Maurice De Zayas. Thus, it could be said that the legal side of the composition of the group was very weak. The report offers an unprecedented comprehensive analysis of the legal, historical, political, and ethical dimensions of the question of reparations for the “Armenian Genocide” of 1915-1923, including specific recommendations for the components of a complete reparations package. The mission of the Study group was to make the first systematic, comp- rehensive and detailed analysis of the reparation issues resulted from the “Armenian Genocide”. According to the report, the Armenian genocide oc- curred between 1915 and 1923. Hence, it is possible to interpret that the aim was, beside Ottoman Empire, to include Turkish Republic in terms of respon-
| 576 | İbrahim KAYA sibility and reparation. Indeed, succession and continuity of states which are serious issues in international law were not mentioned in the Report. According to the Report, a comprehensive reparation package for any genocide should comprise the following five components: 1) Trials of all accused major perpetrators and assessment of the res- ponsibility of other perpetrators. 2) Return of all available expropriated property; payment of death in- surance benefits; and compensation for the death and suffering of persons, destroyed or unavailable property, and loss of cultural, reli- gious, and educational institutions and opportunities. 3) Recognition and apology. 4) Measures designed to support the reconstitution and long-term via- bility of the victim group. 5) Rehabilitation of the perpetrator society. Even though it is stated that all the components mentioned here are va- lid for all kinds of genocide, the terminology and those who use them refer to the events of 1915. For instance, life insurance is an issue that Armenians bro- ught into question in the eye of law and brought forward to American courts. Thus, it is impossible to assert that it is valid for all sorts of “genocide”. According to the Report, the aforementioned terms will be applied to the “Armenian Genocide” in the way as the following.
1. Punishment The Report states that although the punishment of direct perpetrators of a genocide is important for establishing the dignity and worth of the vic- tims, the direct perpetrators of “Armenian Genocide” are not alive and thus this term is not applicable. After all, the term direct perpetrator is remarkable. It implies that there might be indirect actors other than the direct ones who are not alive. Indeed, when the certain elements regarding the report, especially the compensation issue, are taken into consideration, it seems that real persons were also “pu- nished” as part of individual responsibility besides state responsibility. The suggestion by the Report for imposing a tax in order to pay compensation could be considered as an example of this and this issue is analysed in the following part.
| 577 | İbrahim KAYA
2. Recognition, Apology, Education and Commemaration According to the Report, the Turkish government and complicit non- governmental entities should officially recognize the Genocide and apologize for it. In this sense, the precise details of the Genocide including the actors and victims should be given. Moreover, the connection of contemporary Tur- key to the Genocide and its responsibilities towards Armenians should be identified. The expression regarding the apology of non-governmental entities is inexplicable. The Report states that comprehensive educational initiatives should be pursued by Turkey domestically and internationally at all levels. This includes making the so-called Genocide a major component of public education curri- cula in Turkey. Furthermore, it is demanded from Turkey to create “Genocide Museums” across Turkey and to restore “historically Armenian place names”.
3. Support for Armenians and Armenia According to the Report, Turkish state should provide political and ot- her means of support for the long-term viability of the Armenian state and Armenian identity at international level. Beyond material reparations and cessation of additional harmful activities, such as the two-decade blockade of the present Turkish-Armenian border, Turkey should take positive steps, inc- luding providing diplomatic advocacy for the Armenian Republic and protec- tion of the Republic against external security threats. The authors of the Report might mean the protection of Armenia from Azerbaijan and Turkey, especially the term “external threat” is taken into ac- count.
4. Rehabilitation of Turkey According to the Report, beyond an end to all denial activities and promotion of respect for Armenians and all non-Turkish groups in Turkey, the Turkish state and society should extirpate from all institutions, cultural elements, etc., vestiges of the attitudes and practices connected to the genoci- dal ideology and process of genocide against Armenians. When the statements about Assyrians and Greek are taken into consi- deration, it could be understood that not only the Armenians but also the other non-muslim communities were exposed to the so-called genocide and thus reparations are necessary for them as well.
| 578 | İbrahim KAYA
5. Return of Property and Compensation for Property, Death, and Suffering Land, buildings, enterprises, and other currently available immovable and movable property expropriated through the Genocide should be returned. Property destroyed or otherwise legitimately unavailable should be compensa- ted for. For returned and compensated property, there should also be ususfructus compensation for the lost use and profits during the period the property was held. Compensation for the deaths and suffering of victims of the Genocide should also be made. The Report foresees that individual and group land reparations should be adjusted to allow the political transfer of contiguous lands to Armenians. It is obvious that the authors clearly claim land. It is interesting that this issue is discussed within the scope of return of property. It is clear that addressing such a claim under this topic contradicts with the following principles of in- ternational law: stability of borders, territorial integrity and respect for politi- cal independence. As for the addressee of the compensation, the report implies that the di- rect heirs of those who seized them after the so-called Genocide should restore them and the Turkish government is responsible for paying compensation and developing a program for property return. The costs of this process sho- uld be fairly distributed across Turkish society. It is understood from these statements in the Report that “a genocide tax” should be imposed and in pa- rallel with the principle of justice, all Turkish citizens are expected to pay it. Regarding the indemnitee, the report states that Armenians have the right to get it as a whole group. However, those who hold exact documents of specific property constitute exception. The property and compensation will be directly given to their direct owners and other property and compensation will be given to Armenians as a group. These will be fairly distributed to Ar- menian government, international and local Armenian institutions and orga- nizations. It is possible that they are individually given to all Armenians aro- und the world. During the distribution of property and compensation, the need for immediate long-term survival of the group be taken into account. Moreover, this will be a process which will let all Armenians make themselves heard regardless of their location and position.
| 579 | İbrahim KAYA
It is understood especially from the statement “priority will be given to the living of Armenians as a group” that the organizations of Diaspora Arme- nians will be priotirized. It is apparent that the Tashnaks, the sponsor of this report, are one of the most important organizations among these. In other words, the Report expresses that Tashnaks will also be given property and compensation. Mentioning Armenians who are in need is an attribution espe- cially to the citizens of Armenia. Apart from the rich Diaspora, there are large Armenian populations facing unemployment and poverty. Compensation obtained from Turkey could be a glimmer of hope for them. Thus, support for current Armenian administration and Tashnaks are tried to be maintained by the Report. Although the Report mentions the voice of all Armenians, it is not clear who will distribute the compensation. As for the land to be given to Armenia, the report grounds on the Tre- aty of Sevres and the borders depicted in Wilson Principles. It also includes the amount of compensation calculated through different methods. On the whole, over one hundred billion dollars of compensation to be paid in cash is proposed. 7 It should be noted that this figure is not certain, on the other hand it is open to change and it might increase.
C. LEGAL ANALYSIS 1. Recognition8 It has been aforementioned that Armenians have come a long way in terms of recognition. However, it is not possible to refer to a legal success in this matter. In fact, there are not any court decisions regarding recognition as genocide. All the existing decisions have been made by political bodies, as- semblies or individuals. Legal aspect is Turkey’s strongest advantage.9 Indeed, the fact that Ar- menians permanently avoid legal arena is a concrete evidence of it. Not only
7 Report, p. 136. 8 See Kaya, İbrahim “Uluslararası Siyaset Açısından Ermeni Meselesi: Sözde Soykırımın Tanınması Çabaları” Emperyalizm ve Ermeni Meselesi Sempozyumu, ESAM, Ankara, 18- 19 April 2015.
| 580 | İbrahim KAYA the decision of International Court of Justice (ICJ) about Bosnia case and but also the decision of the European Court of Human Rights about Perinçek is in favor of Turkey. In terms of legal remedy, Turkey is not limited to existing courts. Arbit- ration is an alternative for Turkey. As expressed before, arbitration is another international judicial remedy that Turkey can apply for. The issue could be presented either to an existing arbitration court or to a new one. It could also be assigned to a tripartite commission composed of one arbitration for each party and one another mutually agreed by both parties. As Turkey and Arme- nia could apply for arbitration, non-governmental organizations from both parties could also apply for this remedy explaining that their governments support them. For the first option, since the applicants are states, the decision of the arbitration is obligatory for the states. However, for the second alterna- tive, the decision is not legally-binding for the states since the applicants are non-governmental bodies. It only imposes political pressure. Apart from ar- bitration, inquiry, data collection and reconciliation could be applicable as part of a diplomatic mechanism rather than a legal one. On the other hand, the consent of Armenia is required for the implementation of all these mecha- nisms. Yet, the ICJ is open for the application of Turkey against Armenia and other states that recognize the genocide. As a matter of fact, these states have already accepted the jurisdiction of the ICJ by becoming a party to the Geno- cide Convention adopted in 1948. It should be stated that the important thing during the application for either the ICJ or arbitration is the careful preparation of the file and memo- randum of arbitration. It is not acceptable to ask only if what happened to Armenians in 1915 was genocide. It would be a unilateral approach and there is no example of such arbitration. The thing that should be done is not to refer to the 1915 events as a whole but to ask a decision as to the description of cer- tain (specific) events as genocide or not. The claimant, Armenians in this case, have to prove the existence of proper intent of genocide in these specific events. The Turkish side could back down defensive behavior and introduce for example the massacres carried out by Armenians during the World War I and after then as genocide. Turkey should absolutely bring the Armenian slaughter during the Van riot forward. The carnage during Van riot and after
9 Kaya, İbrahim “Ermeni Soykırım İddialarının Hukuksal Çözümü”, Stratejik Düşünce Enstitüsü,
| 581 | İbrahim KAYA then not only seem applicable to be regarded as genocide in terms of the ele- ments of crime but also constitute a basis for the decision of Relocation and Resettlement (tehcir). Thus, these events are very significant for the advantage of Turkey.
2. Territory Even though the Armenians bring the claims of land into question wit- hin the scope of return of property and compensation, it should be considered as the claim of land and national territory. Indeed, giving Armenia a part of Turkey does not mean anything other than this. This problem was solved with the Treaties of Kars and Moscow. The Treaty of Moscow, which came to force on 22 September 1921, was signed with Soviet Russia. The current borders of Turkey with Caucasus were depic- ted in this treaty and with article 15, the Soviet Russia undertook that the Cau- casus Republics would accept these borders. As a result, the Treaty of Kars, which came to force on 11 September 1922, was signed by Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia.10 Since this issue had already been resolved, it was not among the issues dealt in the Treaty of Lausanne. Armenia did not attempt to prove that the Treaty of Kars is invalid. This actually does not have a legal basis. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) specifies that even though the terms and conditions chan- ge radically a treaty cannot be abrogated if the agreement specifies borders among the states. Moreover, according to the rules of succession in internati- onal law, the new states are subject to the border agreements signed by the previous state. In this sense, it can be stated that Armenian Republic is suppo- sed to abide by the border agreements concluded by the Union of Soviet So- cialist Republics (USSR). Besides their other confirmation, it should be re- membered that during their involvement in the Commonwealth of Indepen- dent States (CIS), Armenia committed to comply with the agreements signed by Union of Soviets. In that case, it is not possible to change the borders wit- hout the consent of Turkey and claims of land do not have legal grounds.11
10 Kaya, İbrahim “Ermeni Sorununun Hukuksal Boyutları: Ulusal ve Uluslararası”: Lütem, Ömer E. et al. (ed.) (2003) Ermeni Sorunu El Kitabı, 2. Baskı, Ankara, TEIMK, p. 85. 11 Kaya, İbrahim “Türkiye Ermenistan İlişkilerinim Normalleş(tiril)mesi: Hukuksal Değer- lendirmeler”: Dinçer, Osman Bahadır et. al. (ed.) (2010) Yeni Dönemde Türk Dış Politika-
| 582 | İbrahim KAYA
The report attributes the claims of land to the Treaty of Sevres and then the decision of arbitration made by Wilson, the president of the United States of America.12 According to article 89 of the Treaty of Sevres, the determina- tion of the border between Turkey and Armenia was left to arbitration. This treaty was not ratified by any state that signed it, except Greece. Thus, it did not come into force and become binding. In fact, the Treaty of Lausanne was adopted in 1923 and replaced the Sevres. The report asserts that article 89 is a compromis for arbitration and thus contrary to the overall of the treaty, it does not require ratification. Moreover, it pleads that the allied Powers asked President Wilson to arbitrate to depict the borders before the Treaty of Sevres.13 It does not comply with legal appro- aches to separate only one article of the agreement and argue that this article does not require ratification. As a matter of fact, if it was intended, there must have been a clause related to it. Besides, in order to refrain from giving more details, even if the decision of Wilson had been accepted to be valid, it could have been asserted that the subsequent agreements, Treaties of Kars, Moscow and Lausanne and state practices replaced it. It could be cited that the proto- cols signed in 2009 recognize the borders and this constitutes the justification of Armenian Constitutional Court. Thus, it is not necessary to give more deta- ils about the claims of land.
3. Compensation The claims of land should be considered together with the issue of re- turn of property. It should be stated in the first place that this issue concerns both the national and international law. It is natural that a national law should be accordant with international law. Otherwise, the state could be found res- ponsible. However, national laws could give more rights than the internatio- nal one, but it totally depends on the discretaion of the states. The first regulations regarding the property Armenians left behind (emvali metruke) were given in detail.14 Armenians who have claims about
sı, Ankara, USAK, p. 226. 12 Report, p. 51. 13 Report, p. 56. 14 Akyılmaz, Sevgi Gul̈ “Osmanlı Devleti’nde Ermenilerin Hukuki Statüsü̈ ve Geride Bıraktıkları Mallarla Ilgili̇ Ilk̇ Duzenlemeler”,̈ Tarihsel Veriler Temelinde 100. Yılında 1915 Olaylarına Hukuki Bakış Uluslararası Sempozyumu, Ankara 2015.
| 583 | İbrahim KAYA this issue could apply to land offices and Turkish courts. Furthermore, it sho- uld be noted that a temporary article was added to the 5737 numbered Law of Foundations on 27.08.2011. This aims to resolve the problems about the community foundations’ property registered in the declaration of 1936 and property that was obtained later and acquired by third parties. Hereby, 333 property was decided to be registered in the name of the foundations and the price of 21 property was to be paid.15 According to international law, right of property is not an absolute hu- man right. Therefore, it is possible to limit or suspend it. The claims against Turkey regarding this issue arise from the Additional Protocol No.1 to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Without giving more details, it should be specified that the ratione tem- poris of ECHR does not involve the events that occured before the Protocol came into force. The court made the following decision about the case of Prince Hans- Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany: “The Court observes that the expropriation [of paintings belonging to the applicant’s father] had been carried out by authorities of the former Czec- hoslovakia in 1946, as confirmed by the Bratislava Administrative Court in 1951, that is before 3 September 1953, the date when the Convention came into force, and before 18 May 1954, the date the Protocol No. 1 came into force. Accordingly, the Court is not competent ratione temporis to examine the circumstances of the expropriation or the continuing effects produced by it up to the present date.”16 It is not possible to extend the ratione temporis competence of the ECtHR until 1915. Hence, the claims of Armenians do not have any grounds. The ECHR uses the following statements in a similar case: “The Court would repeat that the Czech Republic did not have any ge- neral obligation to restore property which had been expropriated instantane- ously before they ratified the Convention. Moreover, it is clear that, under the applicable legislation, the applicants neither had a right nor a claim amoun-
15 Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü.
| 584 | İbrahim KAYA ting to a legitimate expectation, as understood in the Court’s case-law, to ob- tain such restitution and, therefore, they had no “possession” within the mea- ning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Accordingly, this aspect of the case may be deemed to be incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Con- vention (Article 35 §§ 3 and 4).”17 The applicants of this case, also, made an application to the Human Rights Committee, which was established in accordance with the Covenant, arguing that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Op- tional Protocol were violated. Their application gave the same result and the Committe made the following statement: “It observes that the Covenant cannot be applied retroactively. The Committee observes that the authors’ property was confiscated in 1945, at the end of the Second World War. It further observes that this was an instantane- ous act without continuing effects. Therefore, the Committee considers that, pursuant to article 1, of the Optional Protocol, it is precluded rationetemporis from examining the alleged violations that occurred prior to the entry into force of the Covenant and the Optional Protocol for the State party.”18 In the same case, the ECtHR issued the following statement which inc- ludes the claims of genocide: “As to the applicants’ allegation of genocide, the Court has examined the matter under Articles 2 or 3 of the Convention. It observes that the alleged acts of violence took place shortly after the Second World War, long before the Convention came to force with regard to the Czech Republic. Moreover, the context is not one of a continuing situation: The applicants’ complaints originate from specific events, i.e. individual acts of expulsion and confisca- tion which occurred shortly after the Second World War and which cannot be regarded as entailing the continued responsibility of the successor State – the Czech Republic. Accordingly, this aspect of the case may be deemed to be incompatible ratione temporis with the provisions of the Convention (Article 35 §§ 3 and 4).19
17 Bergauer and Others v. the Czech Republic (Application no. 17120/04) Decision 13 Decem- ber 2005. 18 Josef Bergauer et al. The Czech Republic, Communication No. 1748/2008, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/100/D/1748/2008 (2010). 19 Ibid.
| 585 | İbrahim KAYA
There is not any reason for ECtHR to depart from its established prece- dent.20 Therefore, the arguments of Armenains about property and compensa- tion are far away from having any legal basis.
CONCLUSION The attempts to introduce the events of 1915 as genocide have political aspects. The aim is to bring other claims into question because of the success of this one. In fact, Armenian side is disadvantaged in terms of legal aspects. This weakness reveals itself with the evasion of Armenians from applying for a legal institution or court for the evaluation of the events as genocide and star- ting legal attempts for their claims of land and compensation. In fact, reparations involving demands for land and compensation are independent from genocide. Thus, even for the cases which are not recognised as genocide, it is possible to claim reparations asserting that the the rules of international law are violated. However, since it is clear that this issue does not have legal grounds, first the events should be recognized as genocide to make a political pressure on Turkey according to the Armenian side. Turkey should take position, with the awareness that the legal system stands by it, to bring the issue to legal avenues and be prepared in accordance with these approac- hes.
20 For the ECtHR also see Ünal, Şeref (2011) Uluslararası Hukuk Açısından Ermeni Sorunu, Ankara, Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi and Doğan, İlyas Devletler Hukuku, Ankara, Astana Yayınevi.
| 586 | İbrahim KAYA
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Akyılmaz, Sevgi Gul̈ “Osmanlı Devleti’nde Ermenilerin Hukuki Statüsü̈ ve Geride Bıraktıkları Mallarla Ilgili̇ Ilk̇ Duzenlemeler”,̈ Tarihsel Veriler Temelinde 100. Yılında 1915 Olaylarına Hukuki Bakış Uluslararası Sempozyumu, Ankara 2015. Bergauer and Others v. the Czech Republic (Application no. 17120/04) Order 13 December 2005. Bryce, James / Toynbee, Arnold (2005) Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Ermenilere Yönelik Muamele 1915-1916 (Mavi Kitap), İstanbul, Pencere Ya- yınları. Case of Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany (Application no: 42527/98) Order 12 July 2001. Doğan, İlyas Devletler Hukuku, Ankara, Astana Yayınevi. Josef Bergauer et al. v. The Czech Republic, Communication No. 1748/2008, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/100/D/1748/2008 (2010). Kaya, İbrahim “Uluslararası Siyaset Açısından Ermeni Meselesi: Sözde Soykırımın Tanınması Çabaları” Emperyalizm ve Ermeni Meselesi Sempoz- yumu, ESAM, Ankara, 18-19 April 2015. Kaya, İbrahim (2010) “Uluslararası Hukuk Açısından Türkiye- Ermenistan Protokolleri” Ermeni Araştırmaları, 10. Yıl Özel Sayı. Kaya, İbrahim “Türkiye Ermenistan İlişkilerinim Normalleş(tiril)mesi: Hukuksal Değerlendirmeler”: Dinçer, Osman Bahadır et. al. (ed.) (2010) Yeni Dönemde Türk Dış Politikası, Ankara, USAK. Kaya, İbrahim “Ermeni Sorununun Hukuksal Boyutları: Ulusal ve Uluslararası”: Lütem, Ömer E. et al. (ed.) (2003) Ermeni Sorunu El Kitabı, 2. Baskı, Ankara, TEIMK. Kaya, İbrahim “Ermeni Soykırım İddialarının Hukuksal Çözümü”, Stratejik Düşünce Enstitüsü,
| 587 | İbrahim KAYA
Mandelstam, Andre (1970) La Societe des Nations et les Puissances Devant le Probleme Armenien, (mentioned by Toriguian, Shavarash (1973) The Armenian Question Question and International Law, Beirut: Hamakaine Press, 1973). Resolution with Justice: Reparations for the Armenian Genocide: Report of the Armenian Reparations Genocide Reparations Study Group, 2015,
| 588 |