Was It a Genocide?

Definition of Genocide

Article II of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide establishes that ‘genocide’ means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group as such:

1. Killing members of the group;
2. Causing serious bodily mental harm to members of the group;
3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within that group;
5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Upon the practical acts that may give rise to genocidal acts, the definition significantly makes two qualifications: the mens rea and the actus reus. The latter involves the causation of harm, either physical or mental, to members of a group.

Significantly, the object need not be the extermination of the entire group; a part of the group will suffice. However, the ‘part’ targeted must be identifiable or significant within the whole. As evidenced in the Bosnia v Serbia decision, a ‘substantial’ part must be targeted.

The mental element, the mens rea, is of more contentious. Proving the commission of genocide requires evidence of “special intent,” meaning the perpetrator had the intention to carry out the act that is charged as a crime.[1]The Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, Judgment, ICTR TC, 2 September 1998. This necessary intention can be proven through the perpetrator’s confession or inferred from various other factors such as their words, deeds, or a pattern of purposeful action.[2]The Prosecutor v. Kayishema and Ruzindana, para 93. Importantly, genocidal intent can be inferred from the context in which other culpable acts were committed. This may include the scale of atrocities and the systematic targeting of victims based on their membership in a particular group[3]The Prosecutor v. Akayesu, para 523

Legal jurisprudence demonstrates the difficulty in proving discriminatory intent held by public officials, but such intent to destroy may be inferred from any acts that demonstrate malice towards the group. Often, historical evidence of persecution will exist.[4]Was there an Armenian Genocide? Geoffrey Robertson QC’s Opinion 9 October 2009, Point 22 Such acts may include evidence of fervent nationalism, which boasts the racial supremacy of the perpetrators and subjugates the victim group. Thus, the existence of a plan or policy by government officials is not a “legal ingredient” of genocide. [5]The Prosecutor v. Jelisic, Case No. IT- 95 -10 -A, Judgement, ICTY AC, 5 July 2001, para 48

Finally, there is no immunity for the commission of the crime of genocide. Consequently, genocide covers ‘constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.’ (Article III of the 1948 Convention) Thus unequivocal documentary evidence of a government decision is irrelevant.

The Issue of the Armenian Massacres and Definition of Genocide

The Armenian massacres of 1915 should be examined within the context of the ‘Young Turk’ movement growing in power. Such a movement developed a race supremacy theory indicative of a build-up to genocide, as it promoted the idea that the Turanian nationality represented a badge of supremacy. Such strident nationalism took Turkey into WWI on the side of Germany and was then transposed into state policy. Indeed, following the coup d’état of 23 January 1913, government decrees deprived Armenians of their property by directing banks to transfer Armenian assets to liquidation commissions established by the state[6]Was there an Armenian Genocide? Geoffrey Robertson QC’s Opinion 9 October 2009, Point 45, and telegram directives ordered that villages, rivers, or towns that had been taken over by the Young Turk regime were to be renamed if they bore Armenian names. By 1914, a series of secret meetings were held to discuss the ethnic cleansing of Anatolia and plans were made for re-settlement of areas ‘cleansed’ of Armenians. [7] Ibid. Point 49hus, it becomes evident that the massacres involved both de jure and de facto agents of the Ottoman Empire. Therefore, it is undeniable that the Ottoman government was in ‘overall control’ in Anatolia in 1915. Under the doctrine of state responsibility, the liability of the state for genocide may be engaged.[8]Ibid. Point 27

Of note is that the facts of the massacres are not in question. On April 24, 1915, the Young Turk regime rounded up several hundred Armenian intellectuals, who were then arrested, deported, and some even lynched. In May, orders were issued for the deportation of other Armenian groups from Eastern Turkey to Syria. Hundreds of thousands were killed on these “death marches” simply because they were Armenian and because they had been deliberately subjected to conditions of life calculated to bring about their destruction in whole or in part. The Young Turk regime’s orders aimed to put an end to the “Armenian problem” once and for all.[9]Ibid. Point 52

The massacres of 1915 are evidence of the racial hatred surrounding the Young Turk’s programme of ‘Turkification.’ The mass burnings, drownings, and asphyxiation of Armenians at desert camps, as well as the rape and forced marriages of Armenian women and girls, demonstrate this racial hatred. Moreover, the Young Turk regime’s justification of its deportation policy as a means of providing self-defence for Turkey does not alter the characterization of Turkish actions as genocide. Although it would be inaccurate to discount the perception of Turkish leaders that the Armenian population may ally itself with Russia in the event of an invasion, as was demonstrated in Van on April 20, the vast majority of Armenians were in no state to launch a full-scale invasion. Between 1914-15, Armenians were relentlessly monitored and terrorized by the Young Turk regime.[10]Ibid. Point 58 As such, even if the Armenian population had been in a position to rebel against the Turkish regime, it would have been irrelevant. A policy aimed at ridding the nation of a racial minority can never be justified, even during times of threat and national emergency.

There is an abundance of contemporary accounts to corroborate the events of 1915. These include New York Times journalists, German bankers, missionaries, aid organisers, documents from the German and British Foreign Office, Documents from the Political Archives of the German Foreign Office, Documents from the Danish Political Archives, The archives of the League of Nations in Geneva, Switzerland, and many more. For instance, Henry Morgenthau, the American Ambassador, did not doubt that policy was ‘directed from Constantinople’ in an attempt to exterminate the Armenian race.

In short, the evidence is compelling that the Ottoman state is responsible for commissioning the genocide of the Armenian race. The deliberate development of racial superiority theories in the Turkification programme, the deportation orders, and the context and consequences of the massacres demonstrate that Turkish state agents not only acquiesced but also instigated the killing of a significant part of the Armenian race.

Despite the overwhelming evidence, the Turkish government has long denied that the events of 1915 constituted genocide, and the issue remains a sensitive one in Turkish politics. However, many countries, including the United States, France, and Canada, have recognized the Armenian Genocide as a historical fact.