Conferences

A conference headed by William hale, who is a senior lecturer at the School of Oriental and African Studies, London University, was held on Turkey — Southern Caucasian relations on 11 October 2001 in London, the United Kingdom. About 90 experts, academicians, diplomats and journalists participated at the conference. Prof. Duygu Sezer, Ambassador Ünal Çeviköz, Prof. ilber Ortayl?, Prof. Salahi Sonyel, Ambassador Gündüz Aktan, researcher David Barchard and Dr. Anna Zelkina presented their papers on the subject.

First Korkmaz Haktan?r, Turkey’s Ambassador to London, gave a welcoming speech. In his introductory speech, Haktan?r summarized the aim of the conference, and expressed his opinions on the relations between Turkey and the South Caucasian countries:

‘Our aim in such meetings is to exchange ideas and information on current issues which affect Turkey and its neighbors and which may not always be in public eye. The Caucasus is an area of great potential opportunity and of great potential risk. We all know something of the oil and gas of the Caspian and pipeline projects. But there are broader issues which lie in the background, many of which are serious and even painful.’

Ambassador Haktan?r further claimed that the importance of the region after September the 11th assault on the United States has dramatically increased.

After the Ambassador’s brief speech Prof. Duygu Sezer gave a talk focusing on the recent changes in the Southern Caucasia. For Sezer, Russia has aimed to maintain its influence on and control of the region since the end of the Cold War era while Turkey’s main target has been to integrate the regional states into the world political and economic system. Sezer also concentrated on Azerbaijan and other regional countries enormous efforts to join the global political system. Prof. Sezer, furthermore, gave information about the NATO’s most recent activities in the Caucasus.

Ambassador Ünal Çeviköz, second, gave a speech titled ‘Relations between Turkey and the States in the Southern Caucasus after 1991; Current Issues and Opportunities’. Çeviköz’s paper focused on Turkey’s policies vis-à-vis Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia. Ünal Çeviköz moreover detailed Turkish foreign policy towards the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Çeviköz, attached great importance to the region’s integration with the world. In this framework, the speaker argued that Turkey has been alone in its efforts to stabilize and integrate the Caucasus into the international system. Çeviköz, reminding the new opportunities and risks having emerged in the recent years, defended that Turkey made all possible efforts to establish a constructive ground among the neighboring nations in the region. According to Çeviköz the Armenia-Turkey relations have been an exception since there is no diplomatic relations between these two neighboring countries. Çeviköz also noted that Armenia had occupied significant parts of a sovereign and independent country, namely Azerbaijan, and refused to use international legal means in order to solve its problems but had chosen the use of force.

Historian Prof. Dr. ?lber Ortayl?’s speech titled ‘Anatolia a New Homeland for Refugees in the 19th and 20th Centuries and Its Impact on Turkish Policy’ focused on the refugees from the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the other Balkan states who had been forced to immigrate to Anatolia. Ortayl? said that these people, who lost their lands and property, had dramatically affected the Turkish policy. Ortayl? further claimed that being a homeland for refugees was not new to the Anatolian territory because before the 19th century many ethnic and religious groups had immigrated to these territories. Ortayl? gave the Jewish case as an example and said the Jews who had escaped from Spain had settled in Anatolia where they lived in peace for ages.

Another well-known historian Prof. Dr. Salahi Sonyel’s speech was on the ‘Armenian issue’, which has closely affected Turkish-Armenian relations since the 19th century. The title of Sonyel’s speech was ‘The Genesis, Causes and Effects of the “Armenian Issue” in the Ottoman State’. Sonyel said that the Armenian lived in the Ottoman Empire with no serious problem until the 19th century and never claimed an independent separate state. However, he continued, that the European imperial powers encouraged the Ottoman Armenians for an armed riot against the Ottomans in order to undermine the Ottomans. Thus, Sonyel argued the Armenian issue emerged. Salahi Sonyel who has been working on the British documents related with the Ottoman period and the Armenian question said he did not see any document, which imply a ‘genocide’ or a ‘holocaust-like’ event in the Ottoman history. To the professor, there is no single document, which supports the Armenian ‘pre-holocaust’ claims. On the other hand, he further continued in saying ‘The Armenian terror in the Ottoman State was much more mortal and damaging than the IRA terror in the northern Ireland. Historian Sonyel also reminded that about 5.5 million Muslims were slaughtered in the late Ottoman period by the Armenian, Greek and Serbian subjects, referring to the American historian Prof. Dr. Justin McCarthy. Having said about many Armenians, as a result of the war, inter communal clashes and the bad circumstances, lost their life during the First World War and its immediate aftermath, Sonyel asked why the Turkish and Muslim loss has been always ignored by the Western researchers.

Ambassador Gündüz Aktan’s speech was also on the Armenian issue, yet he focused on the legal dimension of the problem. His paper’s title was ‘The Legal Approach of Turkey to the Armenian Issue and the Armenian Allegations in the Light of International Law’, which is mainly based on Aktan’s article published in the book named The Armenians in the Late Ottoman Period (ed. By Türkkaya Ataöv, Ankara, TTK, 2001). According to Aktan, none of the Armenian studies claiming so-called ‘genocide’ touched the legal aspect of the problem and almost all Armenian books used the legal terms without regarding their real meanings. Aktan pointed out that all legal concepts about genocide were described by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 9 October 1948, and anyone who claims a genocide has to refer to this convention. Ambassador Gündüz Aktan convincingly proved in his speech that the Convention clearly shows that the Armenian ‘genocide’ claims have no legal base. Aktan also argued that between 1914-18 about 60 million people died in the world and a. quarter of them died because of the epidemic diseases and the war circumstances of WWI. Against this background,, the Armenian lost can adequately be assessed. Aktan, having clearly described the war circumstances during the First World War and its impacts on the civilians, moved to the Armenian Ottomans’ situation. Aktan argued that some of the Armenian people were forced to re¬location when the radical Armenian armed groups gave support to the Russian military forces against the Ottoman army, and in this re-location process many Armenians lost their life. For the author, the re-location was a security measure and cannot be considered as a discriminative action aiming the total termination of the Armenians, because not all of the Armenians were forced to immigrate but only those close to the war theatre were re-located to the more secure areas of the Empire, unfortunately the armed bands and the epidemic diseases with the war’s catastrophic circumstances stroke the Armenian immigrants. Aktan, in this context, said that the radical Armenians unjustly accused the Turks for these losses after the First World War and tried to convince the other Armenians and the international public opinion. ‘However’ said Aktan, ‘the Muslim and Turkish loss in the Balkans and the First World War have been ignored while the Armenian sufferings were used against the Turkish people, although these claims have no legal base according to international law’. Aktan furthermore reminded that the United Kingdom at that time did not recognize the Armenian ‘genocide’ claims and clearly declared that the Armenian loss during the First World War cannot be considered as ‘genocide’ or ‘holocaust’ according to the 1948 UN. Genocide Convention

The British researcher David Barchard moved to the modern days with his ‘The Forgotten Tragedy: The Refugees in Azerbaijan’ speech. As a well-known fact the Armenian forces occupied nearly 20 percent of the Azerbaijani territory and over a million Azerbaijani Turks became refugees. David Barchard, who recently visited Azerbaijan and made observations on the Azerbaijani refugees, also showed the photos and a 10-minute video demonstration which obviously proves the bad circumstances the refugees lived in and the Armenian armed groups’ barbarity against the civilian people during the Karabakh clashes. Barchard, said that, although the refugee movement after the clashes was one of the biggest refugee tragedies in the world history the United States made no humanitarian aid as a result of the Armenian lobby’s political pressures. The only country who sent humanitarian aid to the civilian Azerbaijanis was Turkey while the other European states just watched the tragedy a million people faced. Barchard claimed the reason was same as seen in the United States, namely the Armenian lobbies in the European countries. David Barchard likened this case to the partial European policies seen in the 1898 Crete and the 1963-1974 Cyprus cases. In these crisises the Turkish people were expelled from their homeland, Crete and Cyprus, and many of the civilians were murdered by the Greek terror groups in the name of nationalism and the European states did not prevent the ‘nationalists’ and in practice some helped the murders. Barchard also paid attention to the Armenian aggressive and irredentist policy to expand the Armenian territory over the Azerbaijani, Georgian and Turkish territories. For Barchard, thanks to the Western states’ indifference, if not partial, policies the Armenians succeeded to expand their sovereignty to the territories where they do not form a majority.

Finally Dr. Anna Zelkina from the School of Oriental and African Studies, London University devoted her speech to the role of the Russians and the Caucasus. She said that there has been a great difference between the north and the south Caucasian regions. For Zelkina, Russia dominated the region after demolishing Azerbaijan’s power. After the Cold War, she argued, Russia faced serious problems in controlling northern Caucasia, which inevitably had echoes in the southern Caucasian region.

After the speeches the audience found opportunity to discuss the papers presented with the speakers. In the morning session for instance Von Ploetz, Germany’s Ambassador to London, said he dose not share Ünal Çeviköz view of that the other Europen countries left Turkey alone in helping the former Soviet Union republics of Caucasia and the Central Asia. Ploetz claimed the EU states also made aid to these countries. Çeviköz in his reply did not accept Ploetz argument and gave the aid figures and said that the European aid to the region until the second half of 1990 was not sufficient, and Turkey was the only country who attached great importance to the region, although its economic power was not enough to fully integrate the region with the world political and economic systems.

Prof. Sonyel also, in the debate session, complained of the Armenian researchers attitude of not coming together with their Turkish colleagues to discuss the issues between the Turkish and the Armenians. Sonyel gave the ‘Blue Book’ example to prove his claim and pointed out that the Armenians are so reluctant to discuss their claims in the academic platform.

Dr. Zelkin, as a response to Funda Peperel’s question, who is a PhD candidate at the Southampton University, expressed that Russia follows two differing policies regarding the Chechen problem and the Armenian occupation. According to Dr. Zelkin; Russia claims that the Chechen uprising is a local matter and the other states cannot involve this issue while it supports the Armenian occupation of Azerbaijan.

When Ertan Hürer, a Turkish Cypriot asked whether the Greek massacres against the Turkish Cypriots in the 1960s could be considered as genocide according to the UN Genocide Convention, Ambassador Aktan argued these massacres could be regarded as a conspiracy to genocide within the meaning of the Convention.

8TH DAVO (GERMAN MIDDLE EAST STUDIES ASSOCIATION FOR CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH AND DOCUMENTATION) CONGRESS, 6-8 SEPTEMBER 2001, GÖTTINGEN, GERMANY

The German Middle East Studies Association for Contemporary Research and Documentation (DAVO) was established in 1993. Since then more than 600 scholars and other people interested in the Middle East have become members of DAVO. The main aim of DAVO is to improve the exchange of information on Middle East studies between its members and various national and international institutions. DAVO organized annual Congresses in which scholars from various countries came together to discuss the issues concerning world politics.

The 8th Congress of DAVO was held with a large participation on the campus of University of Göttingen on 6-8 September 2001. Three researchers (Assist. Prof. Dr. Kamer KASIM, Assist. Prof. Dr. ?brahim KAYA and Dr. Sedat LAÇ?NER) from ASAM Institute for Armenian Research presented their papers on the DAVO Congress.

Assist. Prof. Dr. Kamer KASIM, gave a speech titled ‘The Nagorno-Karbakh Conflict and Its Effects on Regional Stability’. He argued that other than the conflicting parties, Azerbaijan and Armenia, the conflict had multi-dimensional effects regarding the competition among regional powers, Turkey, Russia and Iran for influence on the regional states and to gain control over Caspian oil, he stated that the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict affected Azerbaijan’s and Armenia’s domestic stability and made them vulnerable to the Russian influence and the conflict prevented Armenia and Azerbaijan’s economic recovery. Kamer Kas?m emphasized the fact that Azerbaijan lost nearly 20 % of its territory to the Armenians and about one million refugees from the occupied territories caused economic destruction, On the other hand, the Armenian side has realized that military victory in the war does not provide stability and does not lead to the international recognition of the occupation and Armenian policy isolated Armenia in the region.

Assist. Prof. Dr. Kamer Kas?m argued that Petrosyan’s relatively moderate policy replaced with hawkish policy after Kocharian became the President of Armenia. Despite this, after a year he took office, Kocharian agreed on bilateral talks with the President of Azerbaijan. Kas?m claimed that Russia is the only regional state, which can influence Armenia and Russia’s pressure on the Armenian side for the settlement of the conflict will force Armenia to make concession. However, in return, Russia may demand to get military bases on Azerbaijan’s territory. Kamer Kas?m argued that the success of the peace process is important for regional stability and economic and political stability of Armenia and Azerbaijan. He warned that if the peace process fails, Armenia and Azerbaijan may seek a military solution to the dispute.

Assist. Prof. Dr. ?brahim Kaya’s paper titled “The Christian Minorities of the Middle East During the Disintegration of the Ottoman Empire: A Legal Analysis” was also presented at the Congress. After giving a brief introduction on the legal status of the Christians in the classical period of the Ottoman Empire, he focused mainly on the period of decline until the end of the World War I. As a legal analysis his work uses heavily international legal instruments as well as the Ottoman ones. Kaya summarized the main features of the millet system first. The Ottoman society, being a multi ethnic and religious entity, was divided into various communities along religious lines. Each group or individual belonged to one or the other millet according to religious affiliation. Each millet established and maintained its own laws and institutions to regulate conduct and conflict under its own leaders. Many Christian nations of the Ottoman Empire gained their independence in the following years of the Great French Revolution, as a result of the nationalist philosophies inspired from the Revolution. Among them there were the Greeks, Bulgarians and Serbs. ?brahim Kaya noted that the Western Powers helped these nations to gain their independence, however, the Armenians, who lived in the various parts of the Empire, did not form a majority in any place. Kaya continued his analysis by concentrating on the Armenians, because they formed the biggest Christian minority group in the period of disintegration of the Empire. ?brahim Kaya claimed that the Great powers perceived themselves as the protectors of the non-Muslims living on the Ottoman territory. Therefore, the Great Powers had a free hand to intervene the domestic matters of the Empire. According to Dr. Kaya, Russia became the protectorate of the Armenians by an international treaty, the Treaty of St. Stefanos of 1878. Other Great Powers also gained the same status with respect to the Armenians by the Treaty of Berlin in 1878. With these treaties the Ottomans had to accept the international dimension of the Armenian issue officially. Kaya noted that the Ottomans promised some reforms for the Armenians by the Tanzimat and Islahat edicts in 1839 and 1856 respectively and an Armenian National Constitution was approved by the Ottoman National Assembly in 1860. However, The revolutionary elements within the Armenian society were not satisfied. They wanted a full independent Armenian state. Kaya underlined that with the start of World War I some Armenians fought together with the Russians against the Ottoman Empire. In 1915, the Ottoman Empire passed a law for the resettlement of the Armenians who posed security threat to the Ottoman Army. Climatic conditions, hunger, epidemics and lack of medical supplies as well as the fighting between the various Muslim and Armenian groups claimed a considerable number of the Armenian lives during the process of resettlement. Kaya finished by noting that a new Turkish republic emerged from the ashes of the Ottoman Empire.

Dr. Sedat Laçiner’s paper was on Turkish foreign policy and the Kurdish and Armenian issues’ impact on it. Laçiner in the first part of his speech focused on the PKK terrorism and the Greek, Armenian and the Syrian support for the separatist terrorist movements in Turkey. For Laçiner each of these states has different problems with Turkey and they believe they need terror organizations to reach their aims in their foreign policy towards Turkey. he gave Syria as an example first: ‘Damascus perceived unlimited Turkish use of waters of the Euphrates as an important threat against the Syrian national security. Though Turkey pledged to give a satisfactory volume of water to Syria, the Syrians did not believe in th€ Turk’s sincerity. Turkey’s co-operation with Israel in the 1990s in particular alarmed the Syrians. In this environment, the Syrian government saw the PKK as a tool to counter balance Turkey in the region. After the Gulf War, in particular, Syria heavily used the ‘Kurdish card’ against Turkey.’ Laçiner further examined Greece’s role in the PKK terrorism, which claimed 30.000 lives and has been one of the most import security problems for Turkey: ‘Greece, who has perceived Turkey as its historical enemy, also used PKK to make pressure on Turkey. The recent Western press news and documents clearly document the connection. Greece provided military basis, training and financial support for the PKK militants. The Greek diplomats issued passports for the leader of the PKK terrorist organization.’

Laçiner also said Greece and Syria supported almost all anti-Turkish campaigns, including the Armenian claims, even made co operation with the radical Armenian groups in Armenia and the diaspora. It is clear that the reason for this support was political.

In the second part of his speech Dr. Sedat Laçiner moved to Armenia and the Armenian question. Laçiner argued that Armenia in 10 years after its independence joined the ‘anti-Turkish grouping’ in the region. According to Laçiner the reason for this was Armenia’s aggressive foreign policy: Armenia first occupied a large part of he Azerbaijani territory, then threatened Georgia by supporting the separatist groups in this country, after that Armenia opened its territories to the Russian military forces and signed agreements with Iran and Syria, both are considered as ‘rogue states’ by the NATO. All of these were against the Turkish national interests in the region. As a result, though Turkey was one of the first states recognizing Armenia’s independence, Turkey had to cut its diplomatic relations until Armenia become more peaceful and constructive in its regional policies. Laçiner argued that Armenia unfortunately chose the worse option and gave support to the PKK terror organization by providing a training camp near to Erivan, capital of Armenia. Armenia, furthermore, supported the radical Armenian groups against Turkey, and concentrated on the so-called ‘genocide’ campaign. Dr. Sedat Laçiner concluded his speech as follow: ‘If Armenia seeks stability and good relations with its neighbors it needs to improve its relations with Turkey. To reach this end, on the other hand, Armenia has to give up its irredentist policies and should focus on today instead of fabricating hatred between the Turkish people and the Armenians on the past’s political problems. In the PKK issue, Greece’s, Syria’s and Armenia’s support to the PKK organization deteriorated Turkey’s relations with these countries. Turkey perceived that all these countries were trying to gain advantage by using the PKK and the Armenian issue.’

After his speech, the audience found opportunity to discuss with the speakers. With regard to the Armenian issue some participants said ‘listening to the Armenian issue’ from a Turkish academician was impressive and very interesting’. Ali Granmayeh, from the London University asked why the Armenian claims are so important for Turkey, and why Turkey does not seek good relations with the Armenians. Dr. Laçiner replied the question: ‘Why the Bosnian tragedy was so important for the United States’ Balkan policy? Because if the US led the Serbians continue their massacres, nobody could predict the result. Turkey’s position can be likened to that of the US in the Balkans. Now Armenia occupies more than 20 per cent of an independent state in the Caucasus, and supports irredentist movements in the region. As a result of the Armenian occupation more than a million people are now refugees and have to live under terrible circumstances. Furthermore, the radical Armenian militants use the historical disagreements to prevent good relations and the present Armenian government, contrary to the previous Ter Petrosyan administration, tolerate these groups and imply irredentist aims. Turkey cannot ignore such threats, and cannot allow any occupation and killing in its region.’

Gabriel Goltz from Germany asked Assist. Prof. Dr. Kamer Kas?m about Russia’s policy regarding the Nagorno Karabakh: ‘What makes you think that the Russian policy will be different if the Nagorno Karabakh conflict resumes?’. Kas?m replied ‘The Turkish Russian relations have developed since 1994 and Russia became an important market for Turkish export and Turkey became an important customer for Russian natural gas industry. Both manage to reach certain understanding regarding their positions in the Caucasus. For this reason, Russia will have to take into account its relations with Turkey when supporting any side in any ethnic conflict in the region.’

TURKEY’S SECURITY AND THE ARMENIAN QUESTION SYMPOSIUM 17 - 19 OCTOBER 2001, FIRAT UNIVERSITY, ELAZI? TURKEY

‘Turkey’s Security, the Internal and the External Threats in the Past and Present’ Symposium, which was organized by the F?rat University, Elaz??, Turkey, was held with a large participation on 17-19 October 2001 on the university’s campus. Two ASAM Institute for the Armenian Research researchers (Dr. Sedat Laçiner and Assist. Prof. Dr. Kamer Kas?m) and Dr. Ya?ar Kalafat of the ASAM Caucasian Desk presented their papers mainly focusing on the Armenian-Turkish relations in past and present.

‘Turkey Has to Demonstrate to the World the Fact that Armenia is the Most Aggressive State in the Caucasus’

On the first day, Dr. Sedat Laçiner, who is a lecturer at Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University and a researcher at the ASAM Institute for Armenian Research, gave a speech titled as ‘The Impacts of the Armenian Issue on Turkish Foreign Policy’. First, Dr Laçiner argued that the Armenian anti-Turkish campaign has damaged Turkey’s relations with its most important allies, namely the United States and France. Having assumed the radical Armenians have been successful in their campaign, Laçiner questioned how a tiny ethnic group can damage one of the most important NATO states’ position in international relations. For Laçiner, the extremist Armenians have abused the historical facts and the tragedy of the Turks and the Armenians, yet Turkey could not reveal the realities behind the propaganda. Laçiner argued that Turkey has to change its strategy in this question. Secondly Sedat Laçiner focused on the Armenian terrorism and aggression in the Caucasian area. Accepting Armenian terrorism, which cost many Turkish diplomats’ life during the 1970s and 1980s, cannot be justified, Laçiner defended that Turkey must show the reasons of the Armenian terrorism and help both the Armenians and the Western powers in demolishing extremism among the Armenians. Third, Laçiner pointed out that Armenia has followed an extreme aggressive foreign policy since the end of the Cold War: ‘The Armenian armed forces first occupied the Nagorno Karabakh region of Azerbaijan, then invaded about 20 per cent of this country and did not withdrawn by now. As a result of this occupation more than a million people now have to live under very bad conditions as refugees in Azerbaijan. Armenia not only threatens Azerbaijan but also Georgia. The Armenian state has given a clear support to the Armenian separatists in Georgia. Finally the radical Armenian nationalists still see the Eastern part of Turkey as “Western Armenia” implying their irredentist understanding. As a well known fact Armenia had also allowed the PKK terrorists to set up a base for its attacks against Turkey for a long time.’

Dr. Sedat Laçiner further argued that the Armenian foreign policy shows a clear aggression and this trend unfortunately continues: ‘Armenia now searches an alliance with Iran and Syria, both are rogue states for the United States. The Armenian Republic has already signed agreements for cooperation with Syria and Iran. It also allowed the Russians to have military bases in Armenia in order to help the Russian hegemony in the region. Armenia continues to support the Russian policies against the American and Western policies in general in the Caucasus, while Georgia, Azerbaijan and Turkey prefer the Western policies.’ In this framework, Dr. Sedat Laçiner advocated that Turkey has to change its strategy and focus on Armenian terrorism and aggression instead of keeping its defensive position.

‘Russia’s Nagorno Karabakh Policy is in Conflict with Its Chechen Policy’

Another paper, which was presented on the symposium, was Assist. Prof. Dr. Kamer Kas?m’s ‘The Russia-Armenia Relations and Its Impact on Stability in the Caucasus’. Kamer Kas?m, who works on Russia, Armenia and the Caucasus at the Institute for Armenian Research and a lecturer at Abant Izzet Baysal University, Bolu, concentrated on Russian Armenian relations in his presentation. For Kas?m, after the Russian Eurasianists increased its influence over the Russian foreign policy in the 1 990s, Russia’s interest in the region dramatically rose. Russia, in the view of Kamer Kas?m, seeks to maintain its control on the regional states and it uses Armenia in this strategy. To Kas?m, Russia’s policies regarding Nagorno Karabakh is in conflict with its policy in Chechnya. In Chechnya, Russia advocates the territorial integrity of its country and argues that none of the states have the right to intervene the Russian-Chechen conflict since it is a domestic matter. However, in the Karabakh case, although it is Azerbaijan’s territory, the Russians do not actively oppose the Armenian occupation, even support the Armenian occupiers in practice. Assist Prof. Dr. Kamer Kas?m maintained that Russia has to give support to Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity, if it is sincere in its Chechnya policy.

Mr. Kas?m argued that Russia is the only state, which can put pressure on Armenia for the settlement of the Nagorno Karabakh problem. Kas?m further continued that the Russian policy to keep its influence in the region through its military presence, made Armenia an important ally of Russia since Armenia is the only country where Russia keeps its military bases without having a problem.

Apart from the ASAM staff, the historians who focused on the Armenian issue and their papers are: Assist. Davut K?l?ç (‘The Charist Russia’s Role in the Founding of Armenia’, F?rat University, Elaz??), H. Musa Ta?delen, (‘From the Re-location to the Genocide Myth: The Armenian Question as a Nation Building Process’, Sakarya University), Ahmet Eyicil, (The French and Armenian Atrocities in the Marash Independence Struggle’, Sütçü ?mam University, ?anl?urfa), Durmu? Y?lmaz, (‘The Armenians’ Role in The French Efforts in Colonising Anatolia’, Selçuk University, Konya), Yusuf Ziya Bildirici (The French, the Armenians and the Adana Genocide, 1919-1921’, Pamukkale University, Denizli), Halil Ersin Avc? (The Similarities Between the Armenian Question and the Southeastern Anatolia Issue. Their Impact on Turkey’s Future and the Alternative Solutions’, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University).