The first duty is to honour the memory of those who died.

World War I was one of the deadliest conflicts in history. It was the first conflict that involved most countries of the world to be fought with modern destructive weaponary. More than 9 million combatants and 7 million civilians died. The outcome of World War I  changed the world order as it existed at the begining of the 20th century.

This weekend focus is on the events that happened one hundred years ago in the dying days of the Ottoman Empire. It had entered the war on the side of the Central powers - Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire, as they fought against the French, British and Russian Empires. Two very different but not unrelated episodes of human tragedy that happned in the early stages of World War I are being commemorated.

ottoman troops forced hundreds of thousands of Armenians into exile starting from April 1915Genocide, or simply atrocities?

In Armenia, guests from all over the world will join the Armenian political and religious leadership to pay homage to the hundreds of thousands of Armenians who perished through atrocities, famine or exhaustion at the hands of their Ottoman rulers. The scale and severity of the attorcities are now widely recognised, and were well documented even at the time. To deny them will simply be adding insult to injury. Armenians, and increasingly many others characterise the mass killings as genocide - an attempt to exterminate their whole nation. Not everybody has signed up to this terminology, including Turkey itself. Others say that since the term genocide stems from legal documents that were developed thirty years after 1915, it is not appropriate that it be used in the Armenian context, regardless of the severity of the crimes committed.

Unfortunately this discussion has over the last years, and in particular in the last months, been heavily politicised. For those who use the term genocide from a humanitarian perspective, failing to use the term genocide with regard to the Armenians in 1915 is a serious omission. For those who look at the argument from a legal perspective, the issue is more complicated.

On this day, this argument needs to be put aside, even if for a moment. Let us remember and honour those who died and suffered in this terrible episode of world history.

The allied landings in Gallipoli on 25 April 1915 (picture courtesy of the Imperial War Museaum, Londo

Gallipoli Landings or the Battle of Çanakkale

As events were unfolding in Eastern Anatolia in 1915, on the western shores of the Ottoman Empire another tragedy started unfolding. Allied forces landed on the Gallipoli Peninsula starting one of the bloodiest battles of World War I in which ten of thousands of youing men in the prime of their life lost their lives. Those killed were Turks, defending their country, others who were part of the Ottoman armies, British and French soliders, and soldiers from the colonies - from as far away as Australia and New Zealand; from India and other imperial possessions.

Turkey has invited leaders from all over the world to join it in honouring the dead, and other ceremonies will be held in many countries. It was an episode of war at its most cruel and most bloody, the memory of which remains vivid in the consciousness of many nations. Here too one can discuss at length the politics of it all: who was right and who was wrong. But not today. This weekend should be to honour those who died from whichever side it was.

source: commonspace.eu.

 

Photo1: Soldiers of the Ottoman Empire herd Armenians in their thousands to exile in April 1915.

Photo 2: Allied landings on Gallipoli on 25 April 1915 (picture courtesy of the Imperial War Museum, London)

Related articles

Editor's choice
News
Landmines present to the European Union both a contradiction and a dilemma

Landmines present to the European Union both a contradiction and a dilemma

Finland’s decision to buy one million landmines creates a serious contradiction in the policy of the European Union, and is symbolic of a bigger dilemma facing European countries as they get used to the need to acquire “hard” power to face an increasing threat from Russia. Finland is seeking to acquire one million anti-personnel mines at a cost of 100 million euros. Finland, together with Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia last year abandoned the Ottawa agreement, the international framework that bans the use of anti-personnel mines, which the EU had been instrumental in establishing and supporting. All five countries cite the threat from Moscow as the reason. Colonel Riku Mikkonen of the Army Command told Finland’s national news agency STT that officials are now gathering information from suppliers regarding the deal, the AFP news agency reports. Helsinki would like domestic manufacturers to supply the mines, with contracts signed by the end of 2027 and production up and running by 2028. “It would be useful in many ways if Finnish companies produced the anti-personnel mines in Finland,” Mikkonen said. About half a dozen Finnish firms qualify, he told STT. “However, at this stage, buying the mines from abroad is not totally ruled out,” he added. LANDMINES PROVIDE THE EU WITH BOTH A CONTRADICTION, AND A DILEMMA Eliminating landmine contamination worldwide is one of the EU’s main soft power postures, and it basks in its record as the biggest funder of anti-landmine action in the world. But the fact that 5 of its 27 member states  have now left the Ottawa Treaty dents the EU moral high ground. It is a contradiction that is too big and important to be ignored. It also presents the European Union with a deeper dilemma. The threat from Russia is changing what the EU has stood for decades, namely a force for good able to mobilise its considerable soft power for the greater good of humanity. How the Union will implement this change will define its future. In the meantime landmines have not become any less lethal, benign, or unimportant. They remain in many parts of the world a major threat to life, an impediment to prosperity, and a potential trigger to further conflict. The 22 EU members states that still adhere to the Ottawa treaty must regroup, and be more assertive in their quest against anti-personnel land mines. All the reasons why they supported the Ottawa treaty in the first place still exist. The message must be clear: NO TO LANDMINES!
Editor's choice
News
Pashinyan says that he wants peace treaty with Azerbaijan by 2031

Pashinyan says that he wants peace treaty with Azerbaijan by 2031

Armenia should sign and ratify a peace treaty with Azerbaijan before 2031, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan said. He described the objective as the top priority for his administration. Earlier, the Armenian prime minister also spoke about a possible land-swap with Azerbaijan Armenia and Azerbaijan should agree to establish a clear, conventional border without enclaves or exclaves, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan said. Armenia controls three Azeri enclaves inside its borders while Baku controls one Armenian enclave – those could be subject to a land swap, Pashinyan announced.

Popular

Editor's choice
Interview
Thursday Interview: Murad Muradov

Thursday Interview: Murad Muradov

Today, commonspace.eu starts a new regular weekly series. THURSDAY INTERVIEW, conducted by Lauri Nikulainen, will host  persons who are thinkers, opinion shapers, and implementors in their countries and spheres. We start the series with an interview with Murad Muradov, a leading person in Azerbaijan's think tank community. He is also the first co-chair of the Action Committee for a new Armenian-Azerbaijani Dialogue. Last September he made history by being the first Azerbaijani civil society activist to visit Armenia after the 44 day war, and the start of the peace process. Speaking about this visit Murad Muradov said: "My experience was largely positive. My negative expectations luckily didn’t play out. The discussions were respectful, the panel format bringing together experts from Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey was particularly valuable during the NATO Rose-Roth Seminar in Yerevan, and media coverage, while varied in tone, remained largely constructive. Some media outlets though attempted to represent me as more of a government mouthpiece than an independent expert, which was totally misleading.  Overall, I see these initiatives as important steps in rebuilding trust and normalising professional engagement. The fact that soon a larger Azerbaijani civil society visits to Armenia followed, reinforces the sense that this process is moving in the right direction." (click the image to read the interview in full)