The Armenian Question

In this section you will find some brief information about the Armenian Question and the events of 1915. You will also find some important information about the background of those events compiled from impartial sources.

The so-called “Armenian Question” is generally thought of as having begun in the second half of the nineteenth century. One can easily point to the Russo-Turkish war (1877 -78) and the Congress of Berlin (1878) which concluded the war as marking the emergence of this question as a problem in Europe, although the origins might go way back. The problem escalated during the 1st World War, and officially ended at the Lausanne Peace Treaty.

  • Overview

    Ottoman Empire found itself involved in to 1st World War when 2 German battleships took refuge in Ottoman waters bombing and running away from the British Navy. The nationalism movement amongst the minorities weakened the Empire even long before the war started, there were revolts in Balkan, Sinai, Northern African and Arabian states of the Ottoman Empire. Although the Empire was very weak due to the decades of wars, revolts and civil wars in the previous century, Ottomans defended their land against Britain, Greece, Italy, Russia, France, Australia, New Zealand, India and many more who all came to exterminate and invade the Ottoman Empire. Although the Ottomans won almost all of the battles on their land, their alliance with Germany and Austria-Hungary lost the war hence the Ottomans.

    Armenians were one of the most praised minorities of Ottoman Empire, they were even called “Millet-i Sadika” – the Most Loyal Nation . West-imposed nationalist ideology was becoming popular amongst Armenians. Also, France and Britain were provoking them to start an uprising and found an Armenian State in Anatolia. In 1894, Armenian gangs and nationalist groups started an armed uprising towards the Ottoman Government of Union and Progress Party which resulted in deportation of the Armenian people from Ottoman lands to current Armenia. The resistance to that uprising and deportation were used as twisted propaganda materials by the British and the French to elevate the tensions and attract more of their people to fight for their governments when Ottoman Empire joined the War against them. With the start of WW1 the clashes and uprising has turned into a bloody civil war, the armed Armenian gangs became proxies of the invading forces against the Ottoman Empire. Because they were promised an Armenian state on Eastern Anatolia when the Empire collapsed.

    There were many civilian attacks from both sides during this time, many lives were lost. In fact there are hundreds of historical evidences of Armenian gangs attacking to Turkish and Kurdish villages in the region and killing hundreds of thousands. Ottoman Government was fighting in almost 10 different battles at the time so it was not able not prevent this civil war to become more deadly. Kurdish and Turkish gangs also started to attack the Armenians villages. When the deportation and the war ended all we left were many great tragedies and loss of hundreds of thousands of innocent people from all different ethnicities living in Ottoman Empire.

    ATA-A does not deny the loss of many lives of the Ottoman Armenians. Even killing one innocent person is unacceptable. But there is no historical evidence showing that Ottoman Government ordered a systematical killing of the Armenian people like Hitler did against the Jewish people in Europe. In other words the events of 1915 can not be labelled as “genocide”. If this assertion was true,  then do you think that government would execute its own military personnel responsible for the security of the Armenians for failing to protect them during the relocations? There many hundreds of Turks also lost their lives during the WW1, not only as a result of the civil war, but also by the invading forces. Turks tend to bury the pains of past to history, we do not teach hatred to our new generations. The best example is the famous words of Ataturk, said to the fallen ANZAC soldiers’ mothers just a few years after the war. In fact Ataturk has allowed all the residents of Ottoman Empire to come back to Turkey and gain Turkish citizenship, including the Armenians who were under Soviet occupation at the time.

  • Turks and Armenians before 13th Century

    Turks and Armenians before 13th century

    The Armenians broke away from the Byzantine church in 451, 150 years after they accepted Christianity, leading to long centuries of Armenian-Byzantine clashes which went on until the Turks settled in Anatolia starting in the late 11th century, with the Byzantines working to wipe out the Armenians and eliminate the Armenian principalities in order to maintain Greek Orthodoxy throughout their dominions. Contemporary Armenian historians report in great detail how the Byzantines deported Armenians as well as using them against enemy forces in the vanguard of the Byzantine armies. As a result of this, when the Seljuk Turks started flooding into Anatolia starting in the late 11th century, they did not encounter any Armenian principalities; the only force remaining to resist them was that of Byzantium. The Seljuk ruler Alparslan captured the lands of the Armenian Principality of Ani in 1064, but it had previously been brought to an end by the Byzantine in 1045, nineteen years earlier, with Greeks being brought in to replace the Armenians who had been deported. It is therefore false to claim that the Seljuk Turks destroyed any Armenian principality, let alone a state. This already had been done by the Byzantines, and it was in fact the social and economic ferment that resulted which greatly facilitated the subsequent Turkish settlement. Contemporary Armenian historians interpret this Turkish conquest of Anatolia to have constituted their liberation from the long centuries of Byzantine misrule and oppression. The Armenian historian Asoghik thus reports that “Because of the Armenians’ enmity toward Byzantium, they welcomed the Turkish entry into Anatolia and even helped them.” The Armenian historian Mathias of Edessa likewise relates that the Armenians rejoiced and celebrated publicly when the Turks conquered his city, Edessa (today’s Urfa).

    An Armenian principality did arise in Cilicia starting in 1080 but it was the result, not of the Turkish settlement in Anatolia, as has been claimed, but, rather, of the Byzantine destruction of the last Armenian principalities in eastern Anatolia, which caused a flood of Armenians fleeing into Cilicia. This principality maintained good relations with the Turks even as it provided assistance to the Crusaders who passed through its territory on their way to the Holy Land, while accepting the suzerainty, first of Byzantium, and then after it declined, of the Crusader Kingdoms, the Mongols, and, finally, the Catholic Lusignan family which gained control of Cyprus. This sort of relationship with “unbelievers”, however, displeased the Gregorian Armenian church, with the resulting internal divisions playing a significant role in the Principality’s conquest by the Mamluks of Syria and Egypt in 1375. In the end, the most significant consequence of this last Armenian principality was the establishment of a separate Armenian church from the one centered at Echmiadzin, which added to the internal divisions within Armenian Orthodoxy which remain important to the present day.

    Armenian propagandists have claimed that the Turks mistreated non-Muslims, and in particular Armenians, throughout history in order to provide support for their claims of “genocide” against the Ottoman Empire, since it would otherwise be difficult for them to explain how the Turks, who had lived side by side with the Armenians in peace for some 600 years, suddenly rose up to massacre them all. The Armenians moreover, have tried to interpret Turkish rule in terms of a constant struggle between Christianity and Islam, thus to assure belief in whatever they say about the Turks on the part of the modern Christian world. The evidence of history overwhelmingly denies these claims.

    They abolished the oppressive taxes which the Byzantines had imposed on the Armenian churches, monasteries and priests, and in fact exempted such religious institutions from all taxes. The Armenian community was left free to conduct its internal affairs in its own way, including religious activities and education, and there never was any time at which Armenians or other non-Muslims were compelled to convert to Islam. The Armenian spiritual leaders in fact went to Seljuk Sultan Melikshah to thank him for this protection. The Armenian historian Mathias of Edessa relates that,

    “Melikshah’s heart is full of affection and goodwill for Christians; he has treated the sons of Jesus Christ very well, and he has given the Armenian people affluence, peace, and happiness. “

    After the death of the Seljuk Sultan Kilich Arslan, the same historian wrote,

    “Kilich Arslan’s death has driven Christians into mourning since he was a charitable person of high character. “

    How well the Seljuk Turks treated the Armenians is shown by the fact that some Armenian noble families like the Tashirk family accepted Islam of their own free will and joined the Turks in fighting Byzantium.

    Turkish tradition and Muslim law dictated that non-Muslims should be well treated in Turkish and Muslim empires. The conquering Turks therefore made agreements with their non-Muslim subjects by which the latter accepted the status of zhimmi, agreeing to keep order and pay taxes in return for protection of their rights and traditions. People from different religions were treated with an unprecedented tolerance which was reflected into the philosophies based on goodwill and human values cherished by great philosophers in this era such as Yunus Emre and Mevlana Celaleddin Rumi who are well-known in the Islamic world with their benevolent mottoes such as “having the same view for all 72 different nations” and “you will be welcome whoever you are, and whatever you believe in”. This was in stark contrast to the terrible treatment which Christian rulers and conquerors often have meted out to Christians of other sects, let alone non-Christians such as Muslims and Jews, as for example the Byzantine persecution of the Armenian Gregorians, Venetian persecution of the Greek Orthodox inhabitants of the Morea and the Aegean islands, and Hungarian persecution of the Bogomils.

  • Ottoman Armenians - The Most Loyal Nation

    Ottoman Armenians – The Most Loyal Nation

    The establishment and expansion of the Ottoman Empire, and in particular the destruction of Byzantium following Fatih Mehmed’s conquest of Istanbul in 1453 opened a new era of religious, political, social, economic and cultural prosperity for the Armenians as well as the other non-Muslim and Muslim peoples of the new state. The very first Ottoman ruler, Osman Bey (1300-1326), permitted the Armenians to establish their first religious center in western Anatolia, at Kutahya, to protect them from Byzantine oppression. This center subsequently was moved, along with the Ottoman capital, first to Bursa in 1326 and then to Istanbul in 1461, with Fatih Mehmet issuing a ferman definitively establishing the Armenian Patriarchate there under Patriarch Hovakim and his successors.4 As a result, thousands of Armenians emigrated to Istanbul from Iran, the Caucasus, eastern and central Anatolia, the Balkans and the Crimea, not because of force or persecution, but because the great Ottoman conqueror had made his empire into a true center of Armenian life. The Armenian community and church thus expanded and prospered as parts of the expansion and prosperity of the Ottoman Empire.

    The Gregorian Armenians of the Ottoman Empire, like the other major religious groups, were organized into millet communities under their own religious leaders. Thus the ferman issued by Fatih Mehmet establishing the Armenian Patriarchate of Istanbul specified that the Patriarch was not only the religious leader of the Armenians, but also their secular leader. The Armenians had the same rights as Muslims, but they also had certain special privileges, most important among which was exemption from military service. Armenians and other non-Muslims generally paid the same taxes as Muslims, with the exception of the Poll Tax (Harach or Jizye), which was imposed on them in place of the state taxes based particularly on Muslim religious law, the Alms Tax (Zakat) and the Tithe (Oshur), from which non-Muslims were exempted. The Armenian millet religious leaders themselves assessed and collected the Poll Taxes from their followers and turned the collections over to the Treasury officials of the state.

    The Armenians were allowed to establish religious foundations to provide financial support for their religious, cultural, educational and charity activities, and when needed the Ottoman state treasury gave additional financial assistance to the Armenian institutions which carried out these activities as well as to the Armenian Patriarchate itself. These Armenian foundations remain in operation to the present day in the Turkish Republic, providing substantial financial support to the operations of the Armenian church.

    By Ottoman law all Christian subjects who were not Greek Orthodox were included in the Armenian Gregorian millet. Thus the Paulicians and Yakubites in Anatolia as well as the Bogomils and Gypsies in the Balkans were counted as Armenians, leading to substantial disputes in later times as to the total number of Armenians actually living in the Empire.
    The Armenian community expanded and prospered as a result of the freedom granted by the sultans. At the same time Armenians shared, and contributed to, the Turkish-Ottoman culture and ways of life and government to such an extent that they earned the particular trust and confidence of the sultans over the centuries, gaining the attribute “the loyal millet”. Ottoman Armenians became extremely wealthy bankers, merchants, and industrialists, while many at the same time rose to high positions in governmental service. In the 19th century, for example, twenty-nine Armenians achieved the highest governmental rank of Pasha. There were twenty-two Armenian ministers, including the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Finance, Trade and Post, with other Armenians making major contributions to the departments concerned with agriculture, economic development, and the census. There also were thirty-three Armenian representatives appointed and elected to the Parliaments formed after 1826, seven ambassadors, eleven consul-generals and consuls, eleven university professors, and forty- one other officials of high rank.

    Over the centuries Armenians also made major contributions to Ottoman Turkish art, culture and music, producing many artists of first rank who are objects of praise and sources of pride for Turks as well as Armenians in Turkey. The first Armenian printing press was established in the Ottoman Empire in the 16th century.

    Thus the Armenians and Turks, and all the various races of the Empire lived in peace and mutual trust over the centuries, with no serious complaints being made against the Ottoman system or administration which made such a situation possible. It is true that,
    from time to time, internal difficulties did arise within some of the individual millets. Within the Armenian millet disputes arose over the election of the patriarch between the “native” Armenians, who had come to Istanbul from Anatolia and the Crimea, and those called “eastern” or “foreign” Armenians, who came from Iran and the Caucasus. These groups often complained against each other to the Ottomans, trying to gain governmental support for their own candidates and interests, and at the same time complaining about the Ottomans whenever the decisions went against them, despite the long-standing Ottoman insistence on maintaining strict neutrality between the groups. The gradual triumph of the “easterners” led to the appointment of non-religious individuals as Patriarchs, to corruption and misrule within the Armenian millet, and to bloody clashes among conflicting political groups, against which the Ottomans were forced to intervene to prevent the Armenians from annihilating each other.

    These internal disputes, as well as the general decline of religious standards within the Gregorian millet led many Armenians to accept the teachings of foreign Catholic and Protestant missionaries sent into the Empire during the 19th century, causing the creation of separate millets for them later in the century. The Armenian Gregorian leaders asked the Ottoman government to intervene and prevent such conversions, but the Ottomans refrained from doing so on the grounds that it was an internal problem which had to be dealt with by the millet and not the state. Bloody clashes followed, with the Gregorian patriarchs Chuhajian and Tahtajian going so far to excommunicate and banish all Armenian protestants.6 Later on, serious clashes also emerged among the Armenian Catholics as to the nature of their relationship with the Pope, with the latter excommunicating all those who did not accept his supremacy, forcing the Ottomans finally to intervene and reconcile the two Catholic groups in 1888.

    The freedom granted and the great tolerance shown by the Ottomans to non- Muslims was so well known throughout Europe that the empire of the sultans became a major place of refuge for those fleeing from religious and political persecution. Starting with the thousands of Jews who fled from persecution in Spain following its re-conquest in 1492, Jews fled to the Ottoman Empire from the regular pogroms to which they were subjected in Central and East Europe and Russia. Catholics and Protestants likewise fled to the Ottoman Empire, often entering the service of the sultans and making major contributions to Ottoman military and governmental life. Many of the political refugees from the reaction that followed the 1848 revolutions in Europe also fled for protection to the Ottoman Empire.

    The claims that the Ottomans misruled non-Muslims in general and the Armenians in particular thus are disproved by history, as attested by major western historians, from the Armenians Asoghik and Mathias to Voltaire, Lamartine, Claude Farrere, Pierre Loti, Nogueres Hone Caetani, Philip Marshall Brown, Michelet, Sir Charles Wilson, Politis, Arnold, Bronsart, Roux, Grousset Edgar Granville Garnier, Toynbee, Bernard Lewis, Shaw, Price, Lewis Thomas, Bombaci and others, some of whom could certainly not be labeled as pro-Turkish. To cite but a few of them:


    “The great Turk is governing in peace twenty nations from different religions. Turks have taught to Christians how to be moderate in peace and gentle in victory.”

    Philip Marshall Brown:

    “Despite the great victory they won, Turks have generously granted to the people in the conquered regions the right to administer themselves according to their own rules and traditions.”

    Politis who was the Foreign Minister in the Greek Government led by Prime Minister Venizelos:

    “The rights and interests of the Greeks in Turkey could not be better protected by any other power but the Turks.”

    J. W. Arnold:

    “It is an undeniable historic fact that the Turkish armies have never interfered in the religious and cultural affairs in the areas they conquered.”

    German General Bronsart:

    “Unless they are forced, Turks are the world’s most tolerant people towards those of other religions’.”

    Even when Napoleon Bonaparte sought to stir a revolt among the Armenian Catholics of Palestine and Syria to support his invasion in 1798-1799, his Ambassador in Istanbul General Sebastiani replied that

    “The Armenians are so content with their lives here that this is impossible.”

  • The Armenian Revolt 1894 - 1920 (Video)

    The Armenian Revolt 1894 – 1920

    In the late 19th century, Armenian nationalists began to revolt against the Ottoman Empire, spurred by Western political ideals and the desire for their own homeland. When World War I broke out, Russian troops invaded eastern Turkey and many Armenians joined their ranks. By 1915, the struggle between Christian Armenians and Muslims turned into a tragic bloodbath. Over the next five years, more than two million Armenians and Muslims — Turkish, Kurdish and Azeri — died from disease, starvation, exposure and outright massacre. This one-hour program examines the details of this horrible struggle, explains its causes and reveals the key role played by Western powers in the conflict.

    The Armenians Revolt uses archival film and photos from Turkish.Russian and U.S. sources, and includes interviews with such experts as:

    Norman Stone, History Department, Bilkent University Yusuf Halaçoğlu, Gazi Universty Strategic Research Center Justin McCarthy, History Department, Louisville University Yusuf Sarınay, Turkish Republican Archives Seçil Karal Akgün, History Department, Middle Eastern Technical University Stanford Shaw, History Department, Bilkent University. Special thanks to Tempus Fugit Productions

    The Armenian Revolt
  • What does the Armenian Lobby claim?

    Current Armenia (yellow)

    The land James Bryce offered the Armenian leadership in 1878 in exchange of their revolt against the Ottoman Empire. (green)

    The land Armenian Lobby is after.(red)

    The Azerbaijan land illegally occupied by Armenia after Khojaly Genocide. (black-brown)


    This all conflict can be summarised as “a land grab and compensation claim as a result of a failed uprising sponsored by the Entente during WW1 to further weaken the Ottoman Empire”. The land and compansation are the core of the demands of the Armenian Lobby.

    The Armenian Lobby (not surprisingly with strong affiliation to the Armenian Revolutionary Federation) is STILL claiming a land which is not and has never been theirs in the first place.

    Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF) is the very organisation which mobilised the Ottoman Armenians for the Entente sponsored Armenian Revolt against the Ottoman Empire during World War 1 to found an independent state (as outlined in the map above). The last leg of this revolt started just days before the ANZAC Landings in Gallipoli in the largest eastern city of Ottoman Empire, Van. As a result of this revolt the Ottoman Government, afraid of another land loss like in Bulgarian and Greek agitations, ordered the Armenian populations out of war zones to Syria, which was then still Ottoman Land.

    Today ARF’s affiliates is still operating as an opposition parties in Armenia. Here are some of the allegations by these Lobby groups.

    The Allegations of the Armenian Lobby

    The allegations of the Armenians can basically be summarised as follows :

    1. Turks undertook a planned and systematic massacre of the Armenians in 1915
    2. Talat Pasha sent secret telegrams ordering massacres.
    3. 1,5 million Armenians died during World War 1.
    4. Armenians originated in Anatolia lived for 3/4 thousand years.
    5. Turks have taken the lands of Armenians by force.
    6. Turks have misruled the Armenians throughout the history
    7. Turks tried to massacre the Armenians starting in the 1890’s

    You can find the answers for those allegations on our “Questions and Answers on Armenian Allegations” page.

  • Armenian Lobby Loses in the courts

    The Legal Battle – Diaspora Looses in the Court

    There has been many legal cases both in Europe and in the US where the allegations of the Armenian Diaspora was challenged and proven unsupported and biased.

    In our Legal Cases about Armenian Allegations page you will find some examples of those.

  • Armenian Terrorism

    Armenian Terrorism

    Following the Lausanne Treaty, the ‘Armenian Question’ ceased to exist. However, the Armenians of Diaspora, clinging firmly to their allegations, unleashed a series of terrorist attacks on Turkish diplomatic missions abroad as of 1970. All these attacks were masterminded by ASALA for short, the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia. Under a mask of independence, ASALA carried out ruthless and dastardly attacks. Psychologically and logistically supported by the Hinchaks, ASALA engaged in acts of terror against Turkish diplomats, representation offices and other organizations. These armed assaults rapidly escalated in a short period of time. Armenians who had assured bases for their activities in both Europe and the East, Syria and Lebanon in particular, continued their acts of terror in collaboration with Greeks and Greek Cypriots. As a result of the world wide repercussion of these armed attacks on Turkish diplomats, Armenian terror organizations changed tactics in the 1980’s and began this time to collaborate with the separatist terror organizaion PKK, and later abandoned the scene to this organisation.

    Having proclaimed the period between April 21 and 28, 1980 as the ‘Red Week’, the PKK terrorist organisation started organizing meetings to commemorate April 24 as the so-called ‘Armenian Genocide Day’. At a joint press conference held in the Lebanese City of Sidon, the two terror organizations made public a joint declaration. When this initiative aroused reaction, the PKK and ASALA decided to maintain secret ties in their illegal activities. In fact, these two organizations assumed responsibility for the bomb attacks perpetrated on November 9 of the same year on the Turkish Consulate General in Strasbourg and on November 19th on the Tukish Airlines offices in Rome. Honorary membership of the Association of Armenian Writers was conferred upon separatist terrorist leader Abdullah Ocalan for his ‘contributions to the idea of a Greater Armenia’.

  • Armenian Diaspora in Australia

    Armenian Diaspora in Australia

    The influx of Armenians into Australia has come from many different Diaspora countries; these countries include Armenia, Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Israel, Turkey and India. Today the Austral-Armenian community includes members born in up to and over 43 different countries. The main concentration of Armenians in Sydney are in the City of Ryde followed by City of Willoughby and City of Warringah. Smaller communities exist in Adelaide, Brisbane and Perth. According to the 2006 Census, Armenian Australian population is estimated to be around 15,000. The Armenian Lobby exaggerates this number to be 50,000 without any evidence or data.

    Similar to other Armenian diasporas, Australian Armenians also brought their traditional parties (Social Democratic Hunchakian Party, Armenian Democratic Liberal Party, Armenian Revolutionary Federation) to Australia. All three have their roots back in the Ottoman Empire. These parties were all founded to start an uprising against the Ottoman Empire and they represent the ultra nationalist Armenian view. These parties along with some other Armenian organisations were first founded to provoke the Ottoman Armenians against the government and have an affiliate history of terrorism, assassinations, murder and violence.

    In fact some terrorist members of the Armenian diaspora is responsible for the assassination of the Turkish Consul-general in Sydney, Mr Sarik Ariyak and his bodyguard in 1980, and the Melbourne Turkish Consulate car bombing in 1986. You can not hear the Armenian lobby groups condemning the terrorist acts committed by the members of ASALA and/or JCAG in Australia besides some of those groups even organise an annual celebration gathering for those attacks

  • The Conflict Today

    The conflict today

    Turkey is among the first countries to recognize Armenia’s independence in 1991 and to extend full support to this country in her efforts to become a full-fledged member of the international community.
    However, after almost a decade and a half, it has still not been possible to establish diplomatic relations with this country.

    Three factors affect the current state of affairs between Turkey and Armenia:

      1. Armenia’s refusal to officially recognize the common border between Turkey and herself and related territorial claims :The border between Turkey and Armenia is drawn up by the Kars Treaty of 1921. Signed between the Soviet Republics of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey, this international Treaty also delineates Turkey’s present borders with Georgia and Azerbaijan.However, since her independence, Armenia refuses to officially recognize the validity of this Treaty. As such, Yerevan displays a conflicting attitude by calling for the opening of the border on the one hand and not officially recognizing it on the other.Article 11 of the Armenian Declaration of Independence and Article 13 of the Armenian Constitution are also to be noted. Armenian Declaration of Independence, refers to the Eastern Anatolia Region of Turkey as “Western Armenia”. Furthermore, article 13, paragraph 2 of the Constitution of Armenia states that Mount Agrı, which is in Turkey, is the state symbol of Armenia.Non-recognition of the border with a neighboring state and references as such to a neighbor’s country in constitutional documents, are to be interpreted as territorial claims.
      2. Historical allegations :Armenia, disregarding historical facts, accuses Turkey of having committed a “genocide” and seeks for its international recognition. This allegation had also been included in the Armenian Declaration of Independence. Achieving worldwide recognition of this fabrication as a fact constitutes one of the main objectives of Armenian foreign policy.
      3. Armenia’s refusal to abide by international law and principles:Armenia continues to occupy almost 20 percent of Azerbaijani territory for years.
        Though several UN Security Council Resolutions (822, 853, 874 and 884) call for an end to Armenia’s occupation and invite her to respect the territorial integrity of other countries in the region, Armenia refuses to adopt an attitude in line with internationally accepted norms and principles, and undermines regional peace and security.Turkey expects Armenia to become a responsible member of the international community, halt unfriendly policies towards her neighbors and help efforts to create an environment conducive to building peace and stability in the South Caucasus.

    Turkey is willing to normalize her relations with Armenia. It is however necessary to underline that this could only be done if some progress is achieved in solving the above- mentioned issues. With this understanding, dialogue channels have been kept open with the officials of this country.
    In line with her vision of gradual normalization of relations with Armenia, Turkey has put into effect various confidence building measures included in the road map agreed by the two sides, within the context of the dialogue process between the Ministers and Ministries of Foreign Affairs of the two countries.
    However, the normalization of the bilateral relations depends also upon Armenia’s political will and constructive approach to build her relations with Turkey and her other neighbors on the basic principles of international law and good-neighborliness, as well as Armenia’s readiness to contribute to the peaceful settlement of the longstanding Nagorno- Karabakh conflict.

    When Armenia displays her will to reciprocate Turkey’s moves, Turkey will not fail to respond accordingly.

  • NSW Parliament's Motion on Armenian Allegations

    NSW Parliament’s Bill on Armenian Allegations

    On May 5th 2013, NSW Parliament’s Legislative Council has passed a bill recognising not only Armenian but also Assyrian and Greek “genocides”. On May 8th, 2013 NSW Legislative assembly followed. On June 16th, a rally in front of the NSW Parliament was organised by ATA attended by almost 5 thousand Turks.

    The response of the Turkish Consulate in Sydney to this bill :

    We strongly condemn and reject this motion which is in no way compatible with historic facts. The fact that this motion has been passed through a fait accompli by a local politician, whose antagonism to Turkey in his attitude and behavior is well-known, during a session at the State Parliament attended by a small number of parliamentarians, shows how lightly and unsoundly such a sensitive issue is dealt with. It is evident that history will not be rewritten by such motions passed with petty political calculations under the influence of ethnic lobbies known for their excesses and prejudices.

    Although the solid friendly relations existing between the peoples of Turkey and Australia will not deteriorate because of this unilateral decision which is the fait accompli of a small group, its negative repercussions are nonetheless inevitable. In this context, the proponents of such initiatives aimed at dealing a blow to the very special relations that exist between our peoples will doubtlessly be deprived of the hospitality and friendship that we will never withold from the people of Australia. These persons who try to damage the spirit of Çanakkale/Gallipoli will also not have their place in the Çanakkale ceremonies where we commemorate together our sons lying side by side in our soil.

    Necessary representations with Australian authorities have been made, stressing that our primary expectation from the Australian authorities for the sake of our relations that have developed so far on the basis of friendship, is that they be more attentive to unacceptable claims directed towards Turkey and the Turkish identity and that they take timely action against initiatives carrying anti-Turkish content and hate-speech.

  • Armenia and Azerbaijan Conflict (A Genocide committed by Armenia)

    Armenia and Azerbaijan Conflict

    (For More information about the conlict please visit our Armenia – Azebajan Conflict page )

    For over two decades, almost 20% of Azerbaijan’s internationally recognized territory, including the region of Nagorno Karabakh and seven adjacent districts, has been under an illegal occupation by neighboring Armenia and nearly one million Azerbaijani civilians have been displaced as a result of the Armenian policy of thorough ethnic cleansing. While Armenia continues to reject the numerous international legal documents calling for withdrawal of its troops from the Azerbaijani lands, Azerbaijan has been engaged in the internationally-mediated talks in order to reach a peaceful end to the Armenian aggression in accordance with the fundamentals of international law.

    At the core of the conflict are divergent fundamental worldviews. For Azerbaijan, a nation is built on inclusive civic identity, which makes no distinction among citizens based on ethnicity or religion. Moreover, the Republic of Azerbaijan sees Azerbaijani co-ethnics in neighboring states as citizens of those states and contributors to building friendly relations with neighbours.

    For Armenia, the ethnicity- driven identity defines its politics, making the country predictably most mono-ethnic state in Eurasia. Simply put, the vision is that country itself is for Armenians and presence of an Armenian community beyond Armenia’s borders provides an opportunity for territorial claims. The two contrasting results of these divergent visions are successful regional integration championed by Azerbaijan and Armenia’s continued underdevelopment and self-isolation. Unfortunately, the anachronistic, past-oriented vision espoused by Armenian politicians undermines the future of the entire region, including Armenia itself.

    Various international organizations have expressed concern with the humanitarian consequences of the conflict and called on Armenia to comply with the norms of international law. Both the United Nations General Assembly and the Security Council, the European Parliament, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the Organization of Islamic Conference, the Council of Europe, other international groups and individual governments have repeatedly issued statements calling for the withdrawal of Armenian troops. In fact, all members of the international community, with the sole exception of Armenia, recognize the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. Ironically, even Armenia itself, while purporting to promote the “independence” of the ethnic separatist regime on Azerbaijan’s occupied territories, has refused to recognize it and instead has tried to legitimize a territorial expansion by claiming the region as part of Armenia.

    The four United Nations Security Council Resolutions 822, 853, 874 and 884 reflected the international community’s alarm at the threat to regional peace and security posed by Armenian military adventurism. Later, the United Nations adopted a number of resolutions on the situation on the occupied territories of Azerbaijan, the latest one in 2008 .

    Not surprisingly, U.S. President Bill Clinton wrote in his 1998 Presidential Determination:

    “The actions taken by the government of Armenia in the context of the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh are inconsistent with the territorial integrity and national sovereignty principles of the Helsinki Final Act. Armenia supports Nagorno-Karabakh separatists in Azerbaijan both militarily and financially. Nagorno- Karabakh forces, assisted by units of the Armenian armed forces, currently occupy the Nagorno- Karabakh region and surrounding areas in Azerbaijan. This violation and the restoration of peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan have been taken up by the OSCE.”

    The United States, France and Russia co-chair the OSCE Minsk Group, which has been engaged in mediating between Armenia and Azerbaijan since 1992. Currently, the mediators have offered the parties the so-called “updated Madrid Principles” , which Azerbaijan has accepted in principle, while Armenia has not been able to formulate a clear response for over a year. As a result, of Armenia’s unwillingness to be a part of the search for a peaceful solution, the situation along the line of contact remains tense and fragile in spite of the cease-fire, which has been agreed in 1994. Even though Russia took an active part in brokering the cease-fire and is now actively engaged in talks between Armenia and Azerbaijan, it was the military assistance from Russia, including $1 billion in illegal arms transfers, which significantly contributed to Armenian military expansion in the early 1990s. Today, with the Russian military bases on its territory and Russian border guards protecting its borders, Armenia’s self-imposed dependence on external powers has become a visible and sad outcome of its short-sighted policy of aggression towards neighboring states.

    Recognizing that the current stalemate is not sustainable, a group of experts has recently developed a detailed plan to rebuild and rehabilitate the occupied territories as well as to finance such an endeavor. Initial estimates put the material damage to the infrastructure of the occupied territories at some $ 300 billion

Video courtesy of