Vahakn N. DADRIAN
( 1926 - 2019 )

The celebration of a given anniversary, generally speaking, implies the recognition of a felicitous occasion, and presupposes the existence of a reasonable consensus on this point by those willing to participate in it. The present compilation is evidence of the fact that no such consensus exists among a very large group of historians and other observers, including a significant number of Turks themselves, many of whom are quite prominent in their fields. To the contrary, there appears to be a wide-ranging consensus in the opposite direction attesting to the non-felicitous essence of the occasion.
Unlike in the case of many other contemporary empires, the career of the Ottoman Empire is depicted in this constellation of views, comments and judgements as one afflicted with such voices as sustained corruption, oppression and steady decay. What is even more disconcerting, the Ottoman Empire in its last stages of decay became increasingly prone to becoming a vast slaughterhouse, a caldron of an unending series of genocidal massacres against subject nationalities that eventually culminated in the World War I Armenian genocide.
It was in recognition of this indisputable, historical fact that the Association of Genocide Scholars unanimously approved the following Resolution:
That this assembly of the Association of Genocide Scholars in its international conference held in Montreal, June 11-13, 1997, reaffirms that the mass murder of Armenians in Turkey in 1915 is a case of genocide which conforms to the statutes of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. It further condemns the denial of the Armenian Genocide by the Turkish government and its official and unofficial agents and supporters.
Two particular features of Ottoman behavior merit special attention.
1. Ottoman oppression and atrocious repressions were not limited at all to the non-Muslim nationalities in the Balkan peninsula and in Asiatic Turkey. Such Muslim nations and nationalities as the Albanians in the Balkans, and a host of Arab nations such as the Lebanese, Syrians, Yemenis, Egyptians, Saudis and Jordanians of that period suffered terribly also. In fact, the most devastating and repeated-rebellions launched against the Young Turk Ottoman regime were mounted by the Muslim Albanians and the Yemenis.
2. The Turkish authorities, whether Ottoman or contemporary republican, persist in denying the historical realities of their sanguinary past, especially the 19th and early 20th century massacres and the World War I Armenian genocide. This unrepentant and truculent attitude is, as pointed out in the European Parliament's 18 July 1987 Resolution, is a major obstacle for all of us to embrace and celebrate Turkey in terms of its past.
Scholars identified with Turkish interests are inclined to express unwarranted doubts or criticism of bias regarding the works of a number of eminent specialists of the Armenian genocide and other Ottomanists. In order to obviate this problem, any and all references to the scholarly contributions of such authors as Johannes Lepsius, Vahakn Dadrian, Richard Hovannisian, Christopher Walker, Yves Ternon, Speros Vryonis and others have been excluded from this extensive review of the works on the troubled legacy of the Ottoman Empire.
We hold UNESCO in high esteem and are confident that in this matter it will not bow to any and all anticipated political pressures by resolutely resisting them. In this sense we express the hope that true to its cultural and civilizational mission UNESCO once more will not betray the principles of its raison d'etre and redeem itself as an institution dedicated to the sublime precepts of humanity and morality.
ROGER W. SMITH
President
Association of Genocide Scholars
Williamsburg, VA, September 16, 1997