THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE QUESTION

In an address to a group of Nazi leaders and Wehrmacht Generals in 1939, the German Führer, Adolf Hitler was reported to have said:

“Who, after all, speaks today about the annihilation of the Armenians.......?”

The Armenian question was one of the infamous civilian butcher hallmarks of the First World War. Ever since that inglorious incident, an adequate description begs the question for that incident, as the Turkish government insists it was never genocide; whilst the Armenian government thinks otherwise. In any case, grammatical historical credence might be lent to the Turkish government claims, as the word ‘genocide’ never existed in grammatical parlance during the First World War.

The word ‘Genocide’ was coined by Raphael Lemkin (a Polish-Jew criminal and international law specialist), in 1944.  He being a survivor of the Nazi instigated Jewish Holocaust, Lemkin coined the word to describe the Nazi policy of systematic murder and targeted annihilation committed by the German government during the Second World War.

The word ‘Genocide’ is a conglomeration of the Greek word ‘geno,’ meaning race or tribe and the Latin word ‘cide,’ meaning killing.

On December 9, 1948 the United Nations adopted the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, thus defining Genocide as an international crime. Signatory states were obliged to prevent and punish the perpetrators 

According to the Convention, genocide is can be insinuated when

• There are mass murders of a target group(s) of people
• There is serious bodily or mental harm to the members of a group
• There is deliberate creation of such living conditions for a group that brings about its complete or partial physical extermination
• There are implementation of measures aimed at preventing birth rates within the group
• There are forcible transfers of children from one group to another 

Though long subjugated under Ottoman rule since the Middle Ages, Armenians made up the chunk of the Christian population of Ottoman administered Anatolia and the Caucasus alongside the Greeks. Ever since the Ottoman conquest of Anatolia from the Byzantines and consequent fall of Constantinople (modern day Istanbul) to the Ottomans in 1453, the Ottomans who then assumed the torch bearers of the Islamic Caliphate or Sultanate sought a mutual cohesive governance of its subjugated populations who where majorly distinctively Christian and Muslim by religion. This nevertheless came with some restrictions to the once dominant Christian population as some Churches (e.g Hagia Sophia) were converted to Mosques and the dhimmi contract (taxable restrictive protection) was imposed on non-Muslim subjects (Jews and Christians) living within the Ottoman domain.

Following the Crimean war (1853-1856) in which Western European powers (Great Britain and France) sought to contain Russian expansionist aims in the Danube, Caucasus and around the Black Sea, the European powers advocated for the abolition of the dhimmi contract on Christians and called for equality of all religious groups in the Ottoman empire in return for their support for the Ottomans against the Russians. The Russian war effort in itself had a religious clout under the auspices of its expansionist aims. Seen as the protector and custodian of the Christian Orthodox religion (a successor and relic of the Byzantine Empire), the Russians had intent to liberate Christian minorities (most of whom were of the Orthodox faith) from Ottoman rule. This intent seen as fiat compli by the Ottomans and Russians fuelled mutual mistrust and ultimately war between both sides during the Russo-Turkish war (1877-1878) and World War One (1914-1918). Following initial gains by the Russians against the Ottomans in the Caucasus from Russo-Turkish War and Ottoman loss of territory in the Balkans which forced series of population exchanges of Muslims and Greeks (most of the Muslim population Thrace and the Balkans were forced to migrate into Anatolia whilst Greeks and other Christian minorities in Anatolia moved in the opposite direction); there was a growing simmering mistrust of the Christian population of Anatolia (who at this time were majorly Armenians). It was alluded by the Ottomans that though the Armenians (who lacked a homeland) but granted equality status (though being Christians) under the ‘Tanzimat’ programme will still be sympathetic to the cause of the Russian enemy who where their religious brethren.

The Armenian question within the Ottoman empire was first lime lighted in a speech by Ottoman Sultan, Abul Hamid II in 1890 where he was referred to have talked about resolving the ‘Armenian question’ once and for all:

 “I will soon settle those Armenians.....”

“I will give them a box on the ear which will make them…relinquish their revolutionary ambitions.”

Upon the freedom of the Slavs and Greeks from Ottoman rule in the late 19th century, the Armenians agitated for greater freedom (or possible independence) from Ottoman rule. This resulted in killings targeting the Armenians within the Ottoman Empire during that period. Following the start of the First World War, the Ottomans who allied with the Central powers (Germany and Austro-Hungary) sought to reclaim lost territory especially in the Caucasus from the Russians who were fighting on the side of the Allies (Great Britain, France and later the United States). Clicking on the hint of the failure of the 1915 Gallipoli campaign of the allies and heavy Russian loses and subsequent capitulation in the hand of the Germans, the Ottomans moved in a sweep to settle old scores with the Russians and other dissident groups within their already crumbling empire in a bid to bring about a volte face to the dwindling fortunes of the waning empire.

On April 24, 1915 several hundred Armenian intellectuals and representatives of national elite (mainly in the capital of the Ottoman Empire, Constantinople) were arrested and later killed. As such, Armenians regard this act as the beginning of the ‘Armenian Genocide’; hereinafter, Armenians worldwide commemorate the ‘Armenian Genocide’ on April 24 of every year. In a military onslaught against Russian territory in Caucasus (which also is the Armenian homeland), hundreds of thousands of Armenians and other non-Turkish minorities in East Anatolia (the Caucasus) where deported to ‘safe zones’ in the Syrian desert and Mesopotamia in series of forced marches. As a result of this several deaths occurred in wilful murders by the Ottoman army, heat stroke, disease and other resultant deaths. It is estimated that about 1.5million people were deported in this exercise; a chunk of them being Armenian. 

Deportation routes by the Ottoman army
Source: en.wikipedia.org

As such, this form the basis of the ‘Armenian Genocide’ question claims by both parties alongside tagetted killings of Armenian Soldiers serving with the Ottoman army at that period (60000 were reported killed). The Turkish government (successor of the Ottoman Empire) claim that not only Armenians were deported in this military exercise though it took place in the Armenian heartland which substantiates the Armenian claims of genocide.

Armenian forced deportation marches by the Ottoman Army
Source: www.thinglink.com

After the First World War in 1918, new national borders were drawn by the Allies, and the Ottoman Empire (which was now powered by a group of army officers by the mantra of the ‘Young Turks’) scavenged for territory to salvage the glories of the Ottoman Empire. Midwifed by Ataturk Kemal, a new nation known as Turkey was born in 1922 from the ashes of the Ottoman Empire. With borders redrawn, Anatolia (modern day Turkey) was emptied of its Christian population (Greeks had already moved out in population exchanges in the late 19th century and now Armenians most of whom were deported to their deaths had its survival residue racing across the borders to Russia and other Countries). Not until 1991 after the collapse of the USSR did Armenia attain sovereignty once again after millennia of subjugation.

A hundred years on from that incident we can still ask:

was the Ottoman-Armenian question genocide?

Every man with knowledge can be a judge in this matter.

THE ARAB SPRING: IMPLICATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED

The public uprisings across the Middle East that greeted the dawn of the year 2011 came as a bewilderment to many. Ever since the middle ages, the Middle East-the home of the Arabs and the Spiritual home of the Islamic world has been ruled by several theocratic minded  governments and empires; in all, the reign of the Caliphs is still being referred to as the gloriest of all. The end of the First World War saw the demise of the Ottoman Empire and for the first time since the time of the Crusades, parts of the Arab world was ruled by Western Powers under the League of Nations Mandate. At first, the Arab world basked in the euphoria of freedom from Ottoman rule but later, Arab independence was sought.

Unlike the time of the Caliphs when the Arab world was under one government, this time the Arabs found themselves partitioned into several countries and at independence, Western powers (Great Britain and France) installed monarchical governments from the Hashemite clan to rule. Iraq had King Faisal 1, Jordan had King Abdullah, Egypt had King Fouad and Libya had King Farouk.

Apparently, these installed Monarchies were client regimes to the Allied powers and so a wave of Arab Nationalism arose shortly in the mid 20^th Century- The Baath party and Muslim brotherhood movement was born. The former party seized power through zealous Nationalist Military men and installed a wave of secular regimes across the Arab world.

These regimes were characteristically Sunni led except that of Syria and Iran which was Alawite and Shiite led. From the time of the Caliphs, the Arab world has been split along sectarian lines in terms of Islamic orthodoxy and this trend is a marked irreconcilable rift among the adherents to the Islamic faith; the Sunni and Shia sect being the most prominent among other miniature Islamic sects and subsects. At a time of Arab consciousness, the over 1000year rift once again came to prominence.

The Western powers preached democracy and were ready to take their crusade to heights in Africa especially at times of financial aid. However, when it came to the Middle

East, just like the USA’s power play in Central/Latin America in the 20th century, the West was basically interested installing client regimes-‘doesn’t matter whether democratic or autocratic’ provided the Jewish State was safe and their loyalty was ascertained.

For too long, several minority groups or indeed the Arab world in its entirety was held under repression. The Kurds, Berbers, Muslim Brotherhood, Sunni, Shiite, human rights et al; where held below freedom limits and thus a revolution was not farfetched! The USA and her allies despite fighting off Iraqi expansionist tendencies in the first gulf war and destroying significant Iraqi military machinery were involved in the first regime change in the Middle East all in the quest for ‘democracy among other motives’- the result, an unstable and ungovernable democratic Iraq!

Saddam Hussein's Statue at the centre of Baghdad being felled by Iraqi's after US troops entered the city in April 2003
Source: bbcnews.com

Like the fall of Saddam’s Statue in Baghdad, the Arab spring was greeted with cheers and thoughts of a prospective Utopia and Nationalistic bliss. Starting with the fall of the Tunisian regime of Ben Ali (who has always won previous elections by 98%) to Egypt’s Mubarak, the agony of the Arab Spring oozed with the military repressions in Libya, Yemen, Bahrain and Syria. Yet, the unimaginable fall of the regime of the King of Kings of Africa and Imam of Muslims in Gaddafi’s Libya through Western help gave the impetus for a prolonged Syrian uprising that has seen Bashir Al-Assad sit tight despite having over 100,000 killed and just a little less than 2million displaced internally and externally as refugees.

Hosni Mubarak and Muammar Gaddafi while they still held sway
Source:bbcnews.com

For Tunisia, it witnessed multiparty elections with a religious backed party forming the government; the apparatus of state being intact though expectations are still yet to be met.

The fall of Gaddafi did usher elections too, but with the apparatus of State in full collapse and the country awash with weapons, the Spring has brought nothing but an unsafe state truly governed by armed clans and gangs.

In Egypt, the Military did play a role in fall of the Mubarak regime and when elections finally came, the long repressed Muslim Brotherhood came to power. With expectations high, it’s been one protest after the other for and against government policies. Everybody now has a say and the exuberance was felt on the streets. The resultant- with just a year in power, the Muslim brotherhood led democratic government was brought down by protests albeit a Military coup.

Bodies of slain Egyptian protesters, most of them members of the Muslim Brotherhood
Source:bbcnews.com

The Egyptian Streets and squares have exhibited the democratic exuberance of all sides and parties in Egypt and for progress sake; the Military has stepped in a crackdown to clear the streets of protesters but not without a drop of blood!

The Egyptian Military clearing
Source:bbcnews.comthe Muslim Brother hood protesters in Cairo

It has been bloody in Yemen and Bahrain and Syria continues to shed more. What lessons do we have to learn?

      Revolutionary results as initially swift will not come easy and fast. Patience is the virtue.

      Religious parties have to redefine governance in a secular atmosphere, such that would accommodate minorities and respect the rights of everyone. Maybe Tunisia scored important points in this case.

      Care must be taken to ensure the preservance of the apparatus of state because revolution aftermaths are usually chaotic. Once again, thumbs up Tunisia!

      Revolutions should have a defined cause, devoid of significant external influence

 But the hardest lesson is that, by itself, people power is not enough. Translating popular protest and popular anger into real and lasting change is the real deal for any successful revolution.

TURKEY—‘A MUCH NEEDED MIDDLE EASTERN POWER?’

The first major victory of the Seljuk Turks over the forces of the declining Byzantine Empire at the battle of Manzikert on 26th August 1071, gave prominence to the Turkic peoples especially those associated with Osman the great Turkish Muslim warrior. These peoples later became known as the Ottoman Turks or Osmanlılar (Turkish for “those associated with Osman”).

Like the battle of Gaugamela in 331BC, in which Alexander the great dealt a crushing blow to the glorious Persian armies of Darius III, the Seljuk Turks or Ottomans in series of military triumphs, dealt the final blow to what was left of Emperor Constantine’s empire in the levant in the subjugation of Constatinople by Mehmed II in 1453. The conversion of the Hagia Sophia (the capitol of orthodox Christianity and the seat of the Patriach of Constatinople) an architectural master piece of Athemios of Tralles and Isodorus of Miletus by the victorious Ottomans to a mosque emphatically announced the rise of another Islamic power after the decline of the glorious age of the Arab Caliphs and Caliphates.

The Ottomans (a non-Arab Muslim people) struck a chord different to the rulership style of their spiritual Arab brethren (the originators of Islam) in that, they sought a blend between the Orient and Occident. This was clearly emphasized in the administration of Sultan Mehmed II the Conqueror (1432-1481) to Süleyman I, The Magnificent (1494-1566), Sultan of the Ottoman Empire (1520-1566), during whose reign the empire reached its zenith of power and splendour. During his reign, the Ottomans rocked the gates of Vienna----the seat of the Hapsburgs and lords of the Holy Roman empire.

At a moment when the Arabs lacked natural leadership, the Ottomans (Spiritual Bethren of the majority Arab Muslim middle east), proved a congruous force in bringing the middle east at par with advances of the ever seeking dominant European powers. The Ottomans were able to effectively administer their heterogenous religious and ethnic populations with minimal issues of tensions among the various subjugated peoples.

                              A   PATH       TO         DECLINE

In signing the treaty of Karlowitz in 1699, the Ottoman Empire began to tread the path of a steady decline and non-relevance in international politics; and by the end the first world war in 1918, the Ottoman empire was in ruins! All subjugated peoples of the empire had gotten their agitation for independence and Constatinople (the Seat of Ottoman power) was under Allied (British, French and U.S) occupation.
At the moment of Ottoman desperation, a vanguard for Turkic liberation arose in Mustafa Kemal who in his nationalistic fervour  revoked the Treaty of Sèvres and pushed the Allied occupation force out of Constatinople. Abolishing what was left in the 623 year rule of the Ottoman Sultanate in deposition of Mehmed IV Vhadettin, Turkey became a republic on November 1, 1922. Mustafa Kemal, later known as Ataturk (Father of the Turks) instituted revolutionary reforms in his new found republic among which are:

  The abolishment of  the Sultanate and Caliphate (making Turkey a republic),

  The ban on the wearing of Islamic dress in public (the fez cap and the hijab),

  The separation of religion from state,

  The Latinization of the alphabetical characters used in writing the Turkish language—a departure from the use of Arabic alphabetical characters. He also de-Arabized the Turkish language.

  The introduction of European styled canonical law for governance.
Ever since then, Turkey began a pro-western path and it was no surprise when Turkey joined the western military alliance (NATO) in 1952; becoming a buffer against Soviet expansion in the Levant during the height of the cold war.

Thus, Turkey has been a darling to both the western powers and its Arab and Muslim neighbours in its unique relationship with both the middle orient and the occident. No wonder Turkey (a Muslim nation) has diplomatic relations with Israel (an unwanted entity to most Arabs) to the tune of joint military cooperations.

From its fall after the second world war, the population of Anatolia has witnessed a steady rise in Muslim population while the traditional Christian population has declined. Persecuted Muslim populations of the Caucasus found a welcoming home in Turkey and thus the Muslim population of Turkey has swelled from over 50% in the early 1900’s to 99%.


Despite Turkish attempts in joining the European Union after series of westernization policies, Turkish membership has been declined in reminisce of  its religious significance as a Muslim majority nation. This may not be seen as a set back for Turkish cause as she needs to identify her role as a bridge between the Levant and the Occident.

Whilst this role was well administered by the defunct Ottoman empire in its glory days, mordern day Turkey can draw an inspiration from its glorious Ottoman past. Her ability to chide Israel and still maintain diplomatic sanity with the Jewish state, walk arm in arms with the Western powers and still maintain spiritual communion with its Arab muslim neigbours most of whom practice Sunni Islam (the orthodox form of Islam) does lends a credence to any purported form of Turkish dominance of levantine politics.

Whilst Egypt, Iraq, and Syria have tried and failed trump the Arab and Muslim cause in the middle east and Iran (a majority Shiite nation) not seen as a credible option by most Sunni Arab Muslims, Turkey provides a worthy leadership.

At a time when western powers are wary of military intervention in the middle east in the face of inconclusive battles and withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan, there’s a vacuum for a Muslim leadership in the middle east as the Arab league lacks clear leadership vigour in tackling the unrest in the middle east.

As the Syrian conflict drags unending with countless hundreds of thousands of civilian causalities and the UN security council powers bickering their interests rather than resolve the quagmire, the initiative beckons on Turkey to front the leadership of the Muslim middle east!