Turkey: Standing Firm on Thin Ropes

Amid the drooling chaos in the endless contiguous conflict situations spiralling across the Middle East; from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the raging civil wars in Iraq, Syria and Yemen; the international community stands perplexed at simmering thoughts of an additional unstable country within that region. With nearly all Middle Eastern countries having an intriguing stake in the belligerent activity across the region, and somewhat at a risk of conflagrating into violence, the recent situation in Turkey stands out in the perplexing Middle East conflict intrigues.

Straddling between Europe and Asia, and a heritage of the last Great Empire of the which controlled the Middle East in the Ottoman Empire, Turkey stands as a physical bridge and buffer between Europe and Asia; and between the ‘West’ and ‘East’.

After long enjoying long relative peaceful spells in her dual relations with the ‘West’ and ‘East’ and even Israel (A country which most Muslim Countries hold an unending animosity with), the turn of the decade flayed cracks on a seeming perfect multi-bloc relationship Turkey had long maintained.

First it was with Israel after the Gaza flotilla incident of May 2010 in which 10 Turkish activists were killed by Israeli troops; Turkey severed diplomatic relations with Israel after that incident. Then the onset of the Syrian Civil War smouldering from the Arab Spring in 2011.  After initial fence sitting on the crises, the Turkish position moved from passive to active opposition of the Government as initially highlighted from downing incidents of Syrian Jets by Turkey and vice versa in 2014 and 2012. And then came incidences with Russia November 2015 when the Turkish air force downed two Russian jets supporting the Syrian government’s war effort in an alleged accusation of encroaching its air space; this incident of course attracted sanctions from Russia which threatened to ground Turkish businesses in the tourism and construction sector.

A resurgence of Kurdish separatism especially borne under the auspices of an alleged tacit Turkish support for Jihadist rebel groups in Syria who in turn simmered instability in parts of Turkey via suicide bombings, and Turkish wariness of an autonomous Kurdish armed entity in Syria, raised the flares of instability within Turkey via armed attacks against the Turkish State by the PKK.

On the political front, the governing AKP struggled to consolidate a majority government in the last elections after surviving electoral scares from the pro-Kurdish HDP in preceding elections. In a firm attempt to stamp political authority, the governing AKP led by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has sought to purge dissenting voices especially from Fethullah Gulen an ex-ally, and from within the Military who have long been touted as the protector of Turkish Democracy and guardian of Ataturk’s ideals. This has set the Turkish government at odds in its long sought bid for EU membership. Though some concessions have been reached in recent times following the Turkish-EU agreement over the Syrian refugee crises, it all seems to be under threat following a backlash with EU ideals and Turkish local policies. In fact, all seemed to be coming to a bridgehead following the botched Coup d’état of 15th July.

Turkish Civilians flogging surrendered Coupist on the Bosphorus Bridge
Source: bbcnews.com

Recognizing her strategic importance in the Middle East and as the Eastern frontier Bastion of the NATO Western military alliance, and considering the inundation by Syrian refugees from the neighbouring Syrian conflict; and potential Military isolation by her NATO allies in its recent standoff with Russia whose sanctions thudded economic savagery, Turkey has begun to repair its relationship fault lines consequential from its recent foreign policy which seemed to negate the Kemalist ideals of ‘Peace at home and peace in the World’.

Caricature of US based Turkish Cleric, Fethulah Gulen, The acclaimed villain of recent Turkish political squabbles
Source: bbcnews.com

First in the foreign relation restoration drive in June was Israel, followed by an apology to Russia over the November 2015 jet downing incident and then extension of the olive branch to the Assad led Syrian Government after severing diplomatic ties in 2011.

"We normalised relations with Russia and Israel. I'm sure we will normalise relations with Syria as well. For the fight against terrorism to succeed, stability needs to return to Syria and Iraq."..... Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yildirim

Turkey has forged the progressive path in normalizing relations with Countries which it has had recent diplomatic spats with. This progressive diplomatic gains seem to be clogged by recent internal political squabbles thus casting a shadow on recent diplomatic reconciliations in the international front.

Ultimately, the ‘pull’ and ‘push’ forces throbbing the soul of Turkish polity will have to resonate to an acceptable equilibrium to help the current Turkish Government maintain foundational Kemalist principles and retain her strategic role as a physical bridge and buffer of the global bipolar world.

Turkey and the fight against the Islamic State

Turkish policy is "to pretend that it is waging a war against IS, while at the same time following up on another goal, which is to destroy the PKK"-----  Kerem Oktem, (Professor, Centre for Southeast European Studies at the University of Graz Austria).

Amidst the throes of neighbours enmeshed in the resultant troubles of the Arab Spring, Turkey has remained an island of stability in the volatile Middle East. Despite its secular pro-Western stance, and its membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Turkey’s neutrality and stability has been called to question following the current Syrian conflict.

As an ex-empire controller which held sway over the Middle East under its Ottoman heritage, despite seeming indifference to the conflict situations in its neighbours, Turkey’s intervention to these conflict case point would always be a question of ‘a matter of time’. After initial fence sitting, the Turkish military has recently been called to action following a suicide bomb attack by the Islamic State (IS) on the town of Suruc close to the Turkish-Syrian border killing about 32 people on 20th July. This aroused a new twist, as Turkish-Kurdish PKK rebels blaming the Turkish government for alleged collaboration with the Islamic State in the Suruc attack, took a break from an existing cease fire, to kill two Turkish Policemen they accuse of facilitating the Suruc bombing. As such, an initial reluctant Turkey in the fight against IS and intervention in  troubled neighbours of Syria and Iraq was forced to call upon the USA to make use of its Southern Incirlik airbase as a launch pad for airstrikes against IS whilst also pursuing its interest against perceived enemies of the Turkish State.

Whilst the IS pose a threat to regional and global stability causing a coalition of regional and Western powers to launch airstrikes to contain the movement in Syria and Iraq, Turkey has until now chose to stand aloof in the fight against the IS despite it being on the receiving end of refugee inflows from neighbouring Syria and Iraq. This apparent indifference has caused suspicions in some quarters as to the real intentions of the Turkish government regarding IS, especially as it now serves a transit for foreigners seeking to join the IS in Iraq and Syria.

On the domestic front, Turkey has been trying to curtail the insurgent activities of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) since 1974; who have been agitating for independence of Kurdish areas from Turkey, alongside recent anti-government protests against perceived poor economic and political policies by the governing Justice and Development Party (AKP). Of all Turkish domestic troubles, the Kurdish question generates an unending regional resonance which sends jitters down the spines of the Ankara government.

United by ethnicity and language, the Kurds are spread across Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran, and they comprise about one fifth the population of Turkey. Failing to get a state of their own following the Treaty of Sevres after World War one, the Kurds of Turkey entrusted their future on the Turkish state that emerged following the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923, which guaranteed the rights of minorities within Turkish borders. With the inability of the Kemalists to provide a sustainable democratic solution to the rights of minority peoples within Turkish borders, the Kurds became the latest group on the receiving end after bitter ordeals of the Armenians, Assyrians and Greeks in the face of Turkish Nationalism which ultimately had exterminated their historic presence in what is known as modern Turkey today. The Kurds in Turkey had their identity repressed as they were to be referred to as Turks. The Kurdish language was banned even as a means of learning in Kurdish areas and was not granted official recognition by the Turkish government. This inflamed Kurdish rebellion against the Turkish government, initially calling for secession and recently greater autonomy and recognition of Kurdish rights in Turkey.

Recognizing the spread of the Kurds across its neighbours, Turkey keeps a close watch on the activities of Kurdish separatism across its borders more so as the PKK has found safe haven and unity of mutual kinship amongst its brethren in arms in Syria and Iraq. Turkey has sought guarantees of non-secession from the autonomous Kurdish government of Northern Iraq and pledges to curtail the activities of the PKK in return for mutual friendship and non Turkish aggression against these groups.

Nevertheless, the Turkish government is concerned to the heights following the increased Militarization of Kurdish groups across its borders who are actually seeking to consolidate the fight against IS. The Peshmerga of Iraq and the Kurdish Peoples Protection Unit (YPG) of Syria have both proved potent fighting machines curtailing the spread of IS, aided by coalition airstrikes lead by the USA. Thus, the PKK which has been on a long term cease fire with the Turkish government has sought opportunity to aid their kinsmen in arms against IS much to the chagrin of the Turkish government. As such, Turkey has sought to restrain the flow of Kurds across its borders to Syria and Iraq.

The recent standoff between the YPG and IS in kobane (Just across the Syria-Turkish border) in which the YPG was able to hold ground and ward off IS advance under the watchful eyes of an unconcerned Turkey, who, fearing an intervention could indirectly bolster the PKK, called to question the tendencies and sympathies of Turkey; seeing a common enemy in IS within inches at its borders. This tendency began anti-Turkish inflammation amongst the Kurds which gradually simmered into a fresh PKK insurrection against Turkey.

Source:bbcnews.com

Though Turkey has followed up the latest IS attack on Suruc with joining airstrikes against IS targets in Syria, there are also underlining fears that Turkish airstrikes against the PKK who have joined their brethren in the fight against IS in Syria and Iraq, might in the end sabotage the anti IS efforts.

Turkey occupies a strategic and indispensable bridge between the West and the Muslim Middle East; therefore, its concerns cannot be ignored by Western powers. Thus, the PKK (which Turkey has made to be seen as an outlaw and terrorist group in the eyes of the West) might just be sacrificial pawns in the latest fight against the IS.

However, with the seeming unabated military power of the IS and the potency of Kurdish groups in its curtailment, diversionary airstrikes against PKK positions already embedded with the Syrian YPG and Iraqi Peshmerga might prove disastrous on the long run.

Seeing the complexities of the diversionary trend of anti PKK airstrikes by Turkey, it will be in regional and global interest for a one and united effort against IS devoid of diversionary aims, whilst Turkey settles Kurdish differences at the negotiation table. Not even the creation of an IS free safe zone in Northern Syria patrolled by ‘moderate Syrian rebels’ will help the cause for peace in troubled Syria. Rather, a renewed and increased Turkish involvement in tandem with regional and global powers will do to help the Syrian cause.

Now that Turkey has deemed it fit to intervene in the conflict situation within its region, it must be done for a common good rather than for selfish aims.

The Extinction of Christianity in the Middle East

Christianity’s Holy Book, The Bible, is replete with the history and stories of the Jews and other peoples and places of the Middle East from the early civilization period to the early Roman times. Amongst several Biblical serial stories are those of the birth of Jesus Christ in Bethlehem, the founding the Church in Jerusalem and the tagging of Jesus Christ followers as ‘Christians’ in Antioch. Aside Biblical history, contemporary history also alludes to the origins of Christianity from the Middle East.

The Syrian flag flying in front of the dome of the Syrian Saint Sarkis Church for Armenian Orthodox in Damascus
Source: http://www.hudson.org/research/11072-isis-captures-christians-piece-by-piece-middle-eastern-christianity-is-being-shattered

As home of Christianity, the Middle East was home to four of the five Patriarchate cities namely: Jerusalem (Spiritual capital of the Church), Antioch (founded by Peter), Alexandria (founded by John Mark), Rome (Political Capital of the Western Roman Empire) and Constantinople (Political Capital of the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire). As such, only the Patriarchate of Rome existed outside the Middle East.

From humble origins in the Upper Room in Jerusalem, Christianity first spread amongst the Jewish acquaintances of Jesus Christ from Roman occupied Palestine during the first century AD, and then these initial Jewish converts (Apostles) spread their faith in series of evangelistic endeavours around the Roman Empire. By the Fourth Century AD, despite series of gruesome persecutions of the adherents of Christianity, the Faith was firmly rooted amongst the Copts, Berbers and Carthaginians of North Africa (Egypt, Libya, Ethiopia, Sudan, Tunisia and Algeria) and the Arab tribes of the Ghassinds and Lakhmids of Arabia; the Greek and Armenian population of the Anatolian Peninsula (modern day Turkey); and the Assyrians and Chaldeans of the fertile Crescent (modern day Iraq and Iran). At the turn of the 7th Century AD, Christianity was the dominant religion amongst the peoples dwelling in the area spanning West from the British Isles to the foothills Hindu Kush mountains of India in Near East.

The Zenith of Christian domains by the 4th Century AD
Source: http://maryourmother.net/Eastern.html

After the waning threat of persecution from Political authorities especially during the period of the Roman Empire, Christianity flourished at its best though its unity was threatened by doctrinal schisms which delineate Christendom till this day. Starting from the rejection of the outcome the Council of Chalcedon of 451AD mostly by the non-Greek speaking Christians of the Middle East, in which the Monophysite theology of Eutyches was condemned, gave impetus to the founding of autocephalous (self governing) religious communes of the Oriental Orthodox Churches in revolt against the Greek Speaking Byzantine Church. Thus the origins of:

1.     The Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria (Egyptian Orthodox)

2.     The Syriac Orthodox Church (comprising the non Greek speaking of the Eastern Mediterranean under the Patriarchate of Antioch

3.     The Ethiopian and Eritrean Orthox Tewahedo Churches

4.     The Armenian Apostolic Church

Yet there were several schisms in Christendom, the grandest of which was the Great Schism of 1054 between the Patriarchate of Rome and Constantinople thus eternally dividing Christendom along the rites of Latin and Greek Liturgy. Whilst the Roman Patriarchate held sway in the Western world and gave rise to the Protestant reformation that branded Christianity in Western Europe, the Americas and Sub Saharan Africa, the Constantinople Patriarchate administered the spiritual needs of Middle Eastern Christianity, Chiefly among the Greek population. As such, the remaining delineates of Middle Eastern Christianity were:

1.     The Holy Apostolic Catholic Church of Assyrian Church of the East

2.     The Byzantine/Greek Orthodox Church (Basically in Asia minor or Turkey)

3.     The Melkite Church (amongst the Greek and Arab Christians of the Middle East in communion with the Patriarchate of Rome)

4.     The Maronite Church (Phoenician/Lebanese Church in communion with the Patriarchate of Rome)

The encroachment of Arab invaders from the Arabian peninsula in series of conquest and Jihadist endeavours in the 7th Century began an epoch of existential threat to Christendom in the Middle East. Though Christians accounted for over 70% of the populace of the Middle Orient at that time till the Middle Ages, they were derided of political power under an accorded dhimmi status and made to pay the Jizya tax despite being accorded the status of people of the books which require special protection from the ruling Islamic Caliphate. The definitive blow of existential threat to Middle Eastern Christianity was delivered by the advance of the Seljuk Turks from Central Asia to the Anatolian peninsula in the 10th Century AD.

After an initial definitive victory by the Turks over the Byzantines in the battle of Manzikert in 1071 AD, the Byzantine Empire which was the protector of Middle Eastern Christianity began to crumble in bit and pieces in series of defeats and then perished in 1453 when the Ottoman army swept into Constantinople after months of bombardments. From thenceforth, the Hagia Sophia which was the seat of the Bishopric of Constantinople was converted to a mosque. Though the governing Ottoman Empire was initially benevolent to the plight of subjugated Christians under its domain, Christians were nevertheless subjugated to the worse especially during moments of war with Christian empires from the West. To endure series of targeted purges against their populace, most Christian groups retreated to highlands/mountainous areas e.g the Maronites retreated to the anti-Lebanon Mountains and the Assyrians concentrated themselves in the plains of Nineveh and highlands of Sinjar and Zagros mountains. At their interactive best, Christians aligned and actively participated in regimes of secular Middle Eastern governments such as the Baath Movement of Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and Syria’s Assad and Egyptian regimes of Nasser, Sadat and Mubarek; who were seen as their protectors from Islamic extremists.

In 1900, most of Constantinople’s residents were Christian; today, of Istanbul’s population of some 14.4 million people, fewer than 150,000 identify with any faith other than Islam. The major account for this trend was the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire. From the 19th Century, the non Turkish population of the Ottoman Empire (most of whom were Christian) where decimated in series of targeted killings. The Assyrians (despite being once empire holders in ancient times) were decimated into less than half of their populace in the 13th century following the Mongolian invasion of Mesopotamia by Tamerlane. They suffered worse fate under the Ottomans as they were seen to be siding with the British whilst the Ottomans fought alongside the Germans during the First World War. They were pillaged and faced the same fate as the Armenians. By the early 1930’s Christians who accounted for over 40% of the population of (Anatolia) modern day Turkey were extinct as the Greeks were forced to leave in series of population exchanges between Greek and Turkey, over 1 million Armenians and Assyrians were massacred and deported thus leaving the Christian population of Turkey at a meagre 1%!

The Assyrians who were the major Christian population of modern day Iraq suffered similar fate as their Anatolian kinsmen. Denied of their promised State of Assuristan just like the Kurds by the British following the Sykes and Picot agreement of 1916 which guaranteed Lebanon as the only Christian majority nation in the Middle East (60%), the Assyrian population was decimated in waves of Arab attacks and Arabization after the withdrawal of the British in 1922. Though they still numbered about 1.5 million at the turn of the 21st Century, their population has been heavily decimated after the fall of the Saddam Hussein regime in 2003. Following series of targeted persecutions and assassinations, an existential blow to what remains of the Assyrian peoples and history is being delivered by the Islamic State following the capture of major Assyrian population centres in Mosul (Nineveh) and Quaraqosh. Accounting for 40% of Iraqi refugees, the current Christian population of Iraq is now a few hundred thousand by estimates.

The ''Nasrani" Arabic symbol for Christians used to mark Christian properties in areas under the domain of the Islamic State

Source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/multimedia/image/10272014_b3-thomas8201jpg/

Christians in Syria are suffering similar fate under the domain of the Islamic State and are facing an existential threat as the Assad regime loose territory to Islamic extremists. Their population is fast dwindling from 10% of the Country’s 22million pre war population.

In Lebanon, the Christian population is down from the majority 60% in the 1930’s to just over 30% currently.  This was due to the Lebanese civil war between Christians and Muslims and then the influx of Palestinian Arab refugees following the creation of Israel in 1948; whilst low birth rate compared to high birth rate due to the practice of polygamy amongst the Muslim population severed a crucial factor.

Despite the extinction of Christianity amongst the Arab tribes of the Arabian Peninsula following the advent of Islam in the 7th Century, it must be noted that Christianity significantly thrives amongst the indigenous population of Bahrain accounting for 10%. Christian presence in the Arabian Peninsula is driven by the presence of foreign expatriates attracted by the regions burgeoning oil industry.

A damaged painting of Jesus Christ on the ground of Syriac Orthodox Um al-Zinar church in Homs, central Syria, May 12, 2014.
Source: http://www.hudson.org/research/11301-the-plight-of-the-middle-east-s-christians

Though Christianity has faced series of persecutions from its inception in the 1st Century AD, never in modern times has the conscience of the world been pricked to the plight of Christians in Islamic domains as this period. Most saddening is that the fact that Christian adherents of the Middle East constitute the original indigenous populations of these land dating back to over 3000years and their heritage is being wiped out by seeming Arabization and Islamic extremism.

The World owes the indigenous Middle East Christian population a duty to protect their heritage else their extinction.

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.