Author: Aylin D. Miller

BAYOT condemns the management of ZfT

PRESS RELEASE – For immediate release

BAYOT (West European Organization for Higher Eduacated Turks) condemns the management of Stiftung Zentrum fur Turkeistudien (Foundation of Centrum for Turkish Studies) for firing Dr. Faruk Sen for expressing his democratic views.

Dr Faruk Sen, the founder of the foundation located at Essen, Germany has been sacked on June 27, 2008 for expressing his opinions about the situation of the Turkish minority in Western Europe and comparing it to the exclusion and sufferings of the Jews in an article published in a Turkish newspaper ‘Referans’.

In the article later also published by Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung under the title ‘Europe’s New Jews’, Sen reported “although our people, who have been living in Central and Western Europe for 47 years now, have generated 125,000 businesses that bring in a total revenue of 45 billion Euro, they suffer discrimination and exclusion just as the Jews did — though to a different degree and with different outward appearances” .

The article had been addressed to a Turkish businessman of Jewish backgound, Ishak Alaton who was verbally attacked and complained about anti-Semitism. Sen wrote: “Don’t be sorry about the anti-Semitic tendencies of some groups in Turkey. We, the Turkish people and new Jews of Europe, support you.”

Faruk Sen who was the head of the Center for Turkish Studies in Essen, Germanyfor 23 years, said he would fight the dismissal in court.

BAYOT Duisburg condems this undemocratic action of the management which brings back the sad memories of intolerance and the attacks of free expression in academia in recent history of Germany. BAYOT Duisburg sees this action as a sad sign of management efforts to use the Centrum to control the Turkish community in Germany, rather than to help improve the German Turkish dialogue.

June 28, 2008
Talk, Talk, Talk, Talk To Iran

June 25, 2008
by Faiz Shakir,

IRAN

Despite growing international pressure, including three Chapter 7 U.N. Security Council resolutions — the last of which was adopted in April of this year — Iran continues to move forward with its nuclear program. Iranian government officials have repeatedly said that they will not agree to suspend uranium enrichment, which they insist is their right. Though Tehran “maintains the program is exclusively for electricity-producing purposes,” the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported in May that Iran was “still withholding critical information that could determine whether it is trying to make nuclear weapons.” The U.S. National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran last December concluded that Iran had “halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003,” but the United States and its international partners continue to “accuse Iran of using its nuclear program as a cover for weapons development.”

THE DIPLOMACY: The latest package of incentives was presented to Iran during a recent visit to Tehran by EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana and “gives Tehran the opportunity to develop alternate light water reactors, trade and other incentives, in return for dropping the enrichment.” However, the countries represented “alongside Mr Solana were Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China. Nobody from the US.” There are also disincentives to match the incentives for Iran. On Monday, EU states agreed to impose new sanctions prohibiting Iran’s largest bank from operating in Europe” and adding to the list of banned individuals and organizations. With the Iranian economy in tatters, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is politically weakened, and defiance on the nuclear issue represents a way for Ahmadinejad to maintain his political relevancy. Former diplomat Peter Galbraith wrote that, “from the inception of Iran’s nuclear program, prestige and the desire for recognition have been motivating factors,” and he “has made uranium enrichment the centerpiece of his administration and the embodiment of Iranian nationalism.” Ahmadinejad has thus far “successfully used the threat of war to suppress dissent and divert attention from domestic woes.”

UNHELPFUL RHETORIC: The release of the NIE on Iran last December effectively removed the short-term prospect of military action against Iran. But the last few months have seen a renewed effort on the part of pro-war conservative extremists to lay the groundwork for what they see as an inevitable armed conflict. Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol recently suggested that President Bush might consider bombing Iran, depending on the outcome of the U.S. presidential election. Former U.S ambassador to the U .N. John Bolton also said a U.S. military strike against Iran “is really the most prudent thing to do.” IAEA Director General Mohamed El-Baradei warned in an interview last week, “I don’t believe that what I see in Iran today is a current, grave and urgent danger. If a military strike is carried out against Iran…it would make me unable to continue my work.” In a recent panel discussion, former ambassador James Dobbins suggested that threats force against Iran were unproductive and that the United States should “get busy with the job of diplomacy.”

RECOGNIZING NEED FOR DIRECT DIPLOMACY: In May, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated, “We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage…and then sit down and talk with them [Iran].” Recently retired CentCom chief, Admiral William Fallon, took “public positions favoring diplomacy over force in Iran,” suggesting “a navy-to-navy relationship with Iran as a way to begin a sustained dialogue with the country.” A new report from the United States Institute of Peace asserted that “Iran’s goals appear to be largely defensive: to achieve strategic depth and safeguard its system against foreign intervention, to have a major say in regional decisions, and to prevent or minimize actions that might run counter to Iranian interests.” The report also concluded that “it is hard to envision” any kind of lasting peace in the region “without a reduction in tensions between the United States and Iran.” Citing recent polling evidence, National Security Network policy director Ilan Goldenberg wrote that “diplomatic engagement with Iran…is the consensus position” among Americans. In what could represent a significant policy shift that accords with this consensus, yesterday the Associated Press reported that the Bush administration is considering “opening a U.S. interests section in Tehran,” the first U.S. diplomatic outpost in Iran in nearly thirty years.

June 28, 2008
Turkey’s ‘Legitimization’ of Sexual Violence Sparks Anger

bianet.org

Women React To The Religious Directives On “Sexual Life”

The Director of Religious Affairs puts some directives about sexual life on its internet site. The women find them discriminating. They say people take them seriously and therefore they need to be careful in what they say about women.

Bia news servıce
28-05-2008

Nilüfer ZENGIN

Kızbeş Aydın, the head of Çiğle Evka2 Women’s Culture House Association (ÇEKEV), Zozan Özgökçe from Van Women’s Association and Ayşegül Kanat, a feminist from Adana, are upset at the information about sexual life located at the internet site of the Director of the Religious Affairs. The religious directives found on the internet site say the following:

“The women communicating with strange men should speak in a manner that will not arouse suspicion in one’s heart and in such seriousness and dignity that they will not let the opposite party misunderstand them, that they should not show their ornaments and figure and that they should cover in a fine manner; and that these are the orders. His highness the Prophet Mohammed did not think kindly of women who put on perfumes outside their homes and go strolling and saw this as immoral behavior.”

“Male violence is legitimized”
We asked women about the speech of the Director of the Religious Affairs regarding the woman, sexuality and “morality”…

Kızbeş Aydın, the head of Çiğle Evka2 Women’s Culture House Association:

“The Director of the Religious Affairs is not an institution authorized to give opinions on matters involving religious affairs. Therefore, I do not find these explanations appropriate. These explanations work directly towards deepening the sexual inequality and they become part of the discrimination directed at women.”

“These explanations provide the groundwork for the violence against women, they legitimize it, and they justify the implementation of violence with excuses such as “she has perfume” or “she dressed up provocatively” .

“Both men and women take into consideration”
Zozan Özgökçe from Van Women’s Association:

“These kinds of explanations are obstacles, preventing things from changing. Both men and women take into consideration what the Director of the Religious Affairs say. Yesterday 81 müftis, religious officials knowledgeable in Muslim law, met in Van in eastern Turkey. Their words are taken very seriously. Therefore, they need to be about universal stuff.

Unfortunately, the men are one of the factors that we are backward. In Van a woman had gotten a divorce, but his husband was not divorcing her through religious procedure. We went to a mufti and he said how he could interfere in someone else’s chastity, that is, sexual morality [and one’s honor in most cases]. Some people see muftis as solution providers.”

“You know men give their seats to women in the buses. In Van, the women do not sit on these seats right a way, waiting for man’s warmth on the seat to go away. This is certainly scary. This has nothing to do with humanity, nor religion. In Van, we come across comments like ‘let us go ask Müfti’ a lot.”

“Neighborhood pressure is increasing”
Ayşegül Kanat, a feminist from Adana:

“There should be such an institution as the Director of the Religious Affairs, but if Turkey is defined as a mosaic [of different cultures] then all the religions must be represented in this institution; the atheist as well.”

“These explanations are very dangerous. People start seeing them as scientifically proven information and they create pressure on us [the women]. The Religious Affairs is at a very influential position. Their comments are accepted without discussions and this increases the neighborhood pressure.”(NZ/ GG/TB)

June 28, 2008
IRAQI TURKMEN MESSAGE TO THE EUROPEAN UNION by Dr. Ayoub Bazzaz

From: Haluk Demirbag, BSc [mailto:technocrator@yahoo.com]

      IRAQI TURKMEN MESSAGE TO THE EUROPEAN UNION

      By Ayoub Bazzaz (BSc, MSc, PhD, DPSI) The Chairman of Iraqi Turkmen Rights Advocating Committee (ITRAC)-UK, and UN-NGO.

      The halls of the European Parliament in Brussels witnessed on June 23rd 2008 a remarkable conference over the Kerkuk crisis regarding the invalidity of article 140 of the Iraqi referendum and the possibilities of finding fair alternatives. The one day conference has been organised by the Unrepresentative Nations and People Organization (UNPO) via a personal effort of Dr. Sheith Jerjis, the chairman of SOITM (Iraqi Turkmen Human Rights Research Foundation) based in the Netherlands. The total number of delegates, Turkmen activists and attendees were over one hundred gathered from Iraq and the European countries representing various Turkmen National and human rights organisations and personnel. The conference started at 1.00 pm by a speech being delivered by the deputy of Mr. Marino Busdachin, the general secretary of the UNPO addressed to highlight the objectives of the conference and raised the concerns to the necessities of solving the Kerkuk’s problem in a peaceful way and to raise awareness within the European communities. The speech also implied suggestion to protect the Turkmen human rights from breach due to the unlawful Kurdish occupation of Turkmen lands within the Iraqi territories and to prevent any violence which may erupt should the situation further worsens.

      Dr. Jerjis highlighted the demographic history of Kerkuk and its Turkmen people human rights which have been dissimilated by the two main Kurdish parties the PUK and KDP, their militia and the Kurdish occupants since April 2003. He referred to many previous published sources in different languages i.e. Arabic, Iraqi and Western publications to confirm the Turkmen nature of Kerkuk and its surroundings and its original people to be of Turkmen majority with very few tribes of both Arabs and Kurdish resided mainly in a small town to the North East of Kerkuk i.e. Chamjamal (Forest of Jamal, in Turkmen language). The interest of Kurdish leaderships in Kerkuk, the oil rich city, the best oil qualities with natural gas and sulphur and the vast fertile lands had attracted a huge wave of thousands of Kurdish population on politically oriented objectives by the Kurdish leadership of KDP and PUK. His speech also referred to Mosul province so as to Erbil, Diyal and Salahaddin cities to be of majority of Turkmen. Since the occupation in 2003, the demography of particularly the city of Kerkuk has reversely been changed via regular kurdification procedure (importing over half million of Kurds to the Turkmen lands (Turkmeneli), forcefully displacing them from their properties and replacing them with Kurdish immigrants who have never seen or been in Kerkuk before. Followed by the deportation of thousands of local Turkmen families and importing over half a million Kurdish families from the neighbour countries i.e. Turkey, Syria and Iran apart from Northern Kurdish villages. The latest two elections of Kerkuk were forcefully and dramatically forged too by the irregularities conducted by the Kurdish occupants. The Kurdish media also played a dirty role in misleading the Westerns and Americans by publishing untrue information about the history of the region geography and the Kurdish sufferings in order to attract their sympathy to the Kurds i.e. the victims of Halabja has been magnified to 5000 while the actual number did not exceed 50 only. In addition, the racist mentality and the unwise policy adopted by Kurdish occupants and their armed forces (Peshmerga) would amplify the extremism leading to further complications of Kerkuk problem if it is not fairly sorted.

      Dr. Musaffer Arsalan, the chancellor of the Iraqi President for Turkmen affairs, focused on the injustice policy of Kurdish occupation against other ethnicities in the north to establish an ever lasting crisis. He demanded the European Union, European Governments, European Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) to pressurise the Kurdish leadership, the present Iraqi Government as well as the American administration to replace the mentality of the force with justice, fairness and equality. He also referred to the possible ethnic conflict should the following are not adopted:

      1). To stop claiming Kerkuk, Salahaddin, Diyala and other Turkmen lands as part of Kurdistan;

      2). To remove all armed Kurdish militia (Peshmerga) as well as the Kurdish administration from the Non-Kurdish areas and replace them with local forces;

      3). To allow the Turkmen and Keldoassyrian of the north to establish their own self-governing territories;

      4). Establish a Federation of Northern Iraq as independent from the above ethnicities to be a part of federal Iraq.

      Dr. Arsalan also focused on the fact that application of unfavourable decisions by the Kurds upon others will lead to intimidation, vengeance, hate and an endless conflict to the Northern Iraq. The option of establishing a Turkmen government of a secular, peaceful and democratic one based on human rights would be even more advantageous as an alternative.

      It was followed by a speech delivered by Miss Anne M. Gomes (Portuguese) from the European Parliament who had visited the Northern Iraq and confirmed the Turkmen nature of Kerkuk and its surroundings also tackled the woes and crisis of Kerkuk should a peaceful solution is not put in place.

      Mr Yakob Jaiio, representative of the Iraqi Keldo-Assyrians emphasized on the ancient Iraqi history and the role of Keldo-Assyrian in referring to many towns and cities i.e. Dehuk, Sinjar, Mosul surroundings etc being occupied by the Kurdish occupants. He also invited the UN to interfere and play a stronger role in adopting a fair policy in solving their issue in Iraq.

      Delegates from Iraq i.e. Mr. Ali Medi Sadiq tackled the whole demographical changes by the Kurdish occupants since April 2003 in a way that Saddam’s Government failed to achieve within 35 years. His speech was confirmed and backed up by Mr. Muhammed Khaneef, the Arabic member of Local Kerkuk Council who also referred to the comprehensive domination of the Kurdish authorities on every single aspect of Kerkuk administration.

      Mr. Akram Al-Ubaidi the UK representative of Kerkuk Arab group referred to the unfair and uneven allocation of posts and the domination of Kurdish member of staffs over Kerkuk’s local government which does cause further irritation and chaos between Turkmen and Arabs. Dr. Hassan Aydinly (ITC representative of Belgium) showed the attendees pictures and a list of names for Turkmen activist being assassinated in the day light by the Kurdish militia since April 2003. He also emphasized on several thousands of hectares of lands being confiscated by the Kurdish administration to Kerkuk.

      Mr. Ameen’s speech delivered by Muhammad Koja (in Arabic) focused on the various irregularities and the unfair treatments so far since 2003 being carried out by Kurds. Unfair disposition of Turkmen families and occupations of their lands in Kerkuk province i.e. occupation of houses, military units factories, plants football stadium, Khalid camp houses of previous army officers and many are still continued by equal supervision of the two Kurdish leading parties PUK and KDP.

      Dr. Ayoub Bazzaz the chairman of Iraqi Turkmen Rights Advocating Committee (ITRAC)-UK intervened by highlighting the fact that the original crisis of oil and mineral rich Kerkuk city began in late fifties upon Kurdish intention to establish a Kurdish State in the future. It is a creative crisis in order to claim possession and then to corporate it to their state as without its wealth such a state cannot be established. Kerkuk has not been a multicultural city but rather a majority Turkmen city. The multi-cultural (or multi ethnicity) nature; again, is creative idiom being abused to achieve political interests by the Kurdish and previously by Arabs. The present so called “federalism” is established to be a first step to divide Iraq into parts and prior to declare the Kurdistan as an independent state in a few years time. If the so called referendum over Kerkuk is held will no doubt be for the favour of Kurds as the ethnic demography of Kerkuk has completely been changed upside down towards the favour of the Kurds. The previous elections have also been forged by the Kurds for their favour so as the article 140 which was dictated by Kurdish member of the Iraqi Parliament to guarantee Kerkuk as a part of Kurdistan. We also condemn the unfair and the comprehensive and the unlimited support of the USA administrative towards the Kurds which clearly is against the will of other Iraqis particularly the Turkmen. There also is no role of Turkey in the present Kerkuk crisis except that Turkey does always call for the unity of all Iraqi ethnics to establish a peace and prosperity to the region. However, we look forward that Turkey plays more direct diplomatic and positive role in solving Turkmen crisis. We strongly dispute the call of Najerfan Barzani for Power sharing statement as it is absolutely a trick to compromise the situation.

      An in-advanced paid gang of Kurdish scum infiltrated to the conference in order to raise suspicions over the creditability of the speeches being delivered by the delegates and to create a chaos. However, their allegations were disputed, and was challenged who therefore vanished from the seen.

      The role of UNPO will be appreciated in raising awareness to the very injustice occupation of Turkmen lands by the Kurdish militia who are lead by the two Kurdish parties; the PUK and KDP. While the article 140 has failed to achieve its goal within the time scale being fixed and therefore is no longer valid, the referendum over Kerkuk destiny should be absolutely unacceptable. The fair solution would therefore be by withdrawal of all Kurdish militia from the Kerkuk and other Turkmen lands and let Kerkuk be governed by its majority Turkmen people shared by the minority Kurds and Arabs. Otherwise, there might be a strong call for establishing a Turkmen Regional State (Turkmenistan) to be a part of Iraq and entirely independent of Kurdish region.

      We also urge all the Human Rights Organization Groups to consider the attention to the long lasting and the continuous sufferings of the Iraqi Turkmen who have always been victims of successive Iraqi Governments as well as the occupant Kurds. The Turkmen crisis has recently further escalated by the Kurdish occupants by claiming their lands and does alert the world to clear breach of human rights.

June 28, 2008
U.S. RECOGNIZED ARMENIAN GENOCIDE IN 1951, WORLD COURT DOCUMENT REVEALS

Armenian Genocide

U.S. RECOGNIZED ARMENIAN GENOCIDE IN 1951, WORLD COURT DOCUMENT REVEALS

While President Bush and several of his predecessors have avoided characterizing the organized mass killings of Armenians in 1915 as genocide, it has recently come to light that 57 years ago the United States government officially recognized the Armenian Genocide in a document submitted to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), also known as the World Court.

This half a century old reference to the Armenian Genocide was discovered by Prof. William A. Schabas who posted it on the website “PhD Studies in Human Rights,” on June 4, 2008. Prof. Schabas, a world renown expert on genocide and international law, is director of The Irish Center for Human Rights at the National University of Ireland, Galway.

This document, filed by the Government of the United States with ICJ, is included in the May 28, 1951 ICJ Report titled: “Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.”

The specific reference to the Armenian Genocide appears on page 25 of the ICJ Report: “The Genocide Convention resulted from the inhuman and barbarous practices which prevailed in certain countries prior to and during World War II, when entire religious, racial and national minority groups were threatened with and subjected to deliberate extermination. The practice of genocide has occurred throughout human history. The Roman persecution of the Christians, the Turkish massacres of Armenians, the extermination of millions of Jews and Poles by the Nazis are outstanding examples of the crime of genocide.”

This is a very significant statement as it was made by the American government of that time with the sole intent of telling the truth, without taking into account any political or other considerations. Neither Armenians nor Turks had lobbied for or against the U.S. statement. In other words, it was simply made on the basis of historical facts.

How different is the situation today when the White House readily caves in to threats and pressures from the Turkish government to prevent the House of Representatives from passing a commemorative resolution on the Armenian Genocide!

Now that this critical filing by the United States government before the International Court of Justice has been discovered, it is no longer necessary to exert excessive efforts to try and reaffirm the facts of the Armenian Genocide by the U.S. Congress, particularly since the House of Representatives adopted Resolutions 247 and 148 in 1975 and 1984 respectively, to commemorate the Armenian Genocide.

Furthermore, there is no particular reason to insist that the next President of the United States acknowledge the Armenian Genocide since President Ronald Reagan, back on April 22, 1981, issued Presidential Proclamation Number 4838 which stated: “Like the genocide of the Armenians before it, and the genocide of the Cambodians which followed it – and like too many other such persecutions of too many other peoples – the lessons of the Holocaust must never be forgotten.”

Of course, should an elected official issue a statement reaffirming the facts of the Armenian Genocide, such an acknowledgment would be most welcome by Armenians worldwide. On the other hand, should a public official either deny or refuse to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide, Armenian-Americans would have good reason not to support his or her election.

Regardless of whether one agrees with Pres. Reagan’s politics, most people acknowledge that he was a man of principle. His successors – Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush – failed to display such moral leadership. During their presidential campaigns, they misled voters by pledging to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide, and broke their promises after the election. These three recent U.S. presidents went far beyond not keeping their word; they did everything in their power to prevent the adoption of congressional resolutions on the Armenian Genocide. The names of these infamous denialists should be etched in perpetuity on a special “Wall of Shame,” so future generations will not forget their reprehensible behavior.

On the basis of the official statement submitted by the Government of the United States to the World Court in 1951, combined with the two House resolutions adopted in 1975 and 1984, Pres. Reagan’s 1981 Proclamation, and resolutions adopted by more than forty U.S. states and hundreds of U.S. cities, Armenians should now classify the United States among the more than 20 countries that have officially recognized the Armenian Genocide.

All those who claim that the United States has not recognized the Armenian Genocide are misrepresenting the U.S. government’s clear record on this issue.

,

YUKARIDAKI GORUSE KARSI OLAYLAR: LUTFEN INCELEYIN .. TF

Issues to consider:

Is the statement quoted from the document the Armenians found inconsistent with the reservation the United States filed to the convention? I think it is.

Timing and sequence is important to put this document in context, when did the U.S. ratify/accede to the Convention and when did the U.S. file its reservations? If it was done after this document was filed with the ICJ, it could be that the U.S. came into possession of additional documents that resulted in a change of policy. Besides, we still have this document from the British archives about the position of the U.S. with respect to evidence re war crimes–

……………………………………………………………………..
British Archives: PRO—F.O. 371/6500/ E.6311
Foreign Office to Geddes
Telegram no 775, dated June 16, 1921

The British Foreign Office forwarded to Washington a list of the names and brief particulars of 45 Turkish deportees “who are being detained in Malta with a view of trial in connection with the alleged outrages perpetrated on Armenians and other native Christians.” And requested again Sir A. Geddes “to ascertain as early as possible whether the United States Government can furnish evidence against any of these persons.”

……………………………………………………………..

British Archives: PRO—F. 0. 371/6504/E.8515
R.C. Craigie, British Charge d’Affairs at Washington, to Lord Curzon,
Telegram No 722 of July 13, 1921
On July 13, 1921, the British Embassy in Washington replied as follows:

“I have the honor to inform your Lordship that a member of my staff visited the State Department yesterday in regard to the Turks who are at the present being detained in Malta with a view to trial. He was permitted to see a selection of reports from the United States consuls on the subject of the atrocities committed on the Armenians during the recent war. These reports, judged by the State Department to be the most useful for the purpose of His Majesty’s government, being chosen from among several hundreds.

I regret to inform your Lordship that there was nothing therein which could be used as evidence against the Turks who are being detained for trial in Malta. The reports seen made mention of only two names of the Turkish officials in question—those of Sabit bey and Suleyman Faik Pasha — and even in these cases the accounts given were confined to the personal opinions of the writers; no concrete facts being given which could constitute satisfactory incriminating evidence.

Department of State expressed the wish that no information supplied by them in this connection should be employed in a court of law. Having regard to this stipulation, and the fact that the reports in the possession of the Department of State do not appear in any case to contain evidence against these Turks which would be useful even for the purpose of corroborating information already in possession of H. Majesty’s government.

I believe nothing is to be hoped from addressing any further inquiries to the Department of State in this matter.”

United States of America

Reservations:

“(1) That with reference to article IX of the Convention, before any dispute to which the United States is a party may be submitted to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice under this article, the specific consent of the United States is required in each case.

(2) That nothing in the Convention requires or authorizes legislation or other action by the United States of America prohibited by the Constitution of the United States as interpreted by the United States.”

Understandings:

“(1) That the term `intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group as such’ appearing in article II means the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in substantial part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such by the acts specified in article II.

(2) That the term `mental harm’ in article II (b) means permanent impairment of mental faculties through drugs, torture or similar techniques.

(3) That the pledge to grant extradition in accordance with a state’s laws and treaties in force found in article VII extends only to acts which are criminal under the laws of both the requesting and the requested state and nothing in article VI affects the right of any state to bring to trial before its own tribunals any of its nationals for acts committed outside a state.

(4) That acts in the course of armed conflicts committed without the specific intent required by article II are not sufficient to constitute genocide as defined by this Convention.

(5) That with regard to the reference to an international penal tribunal in article VI of the Convention, the United States declares that it reserves the right to effect its participation in any such tribunal only by a treaty entered into specifically for that purpose with the advice and consent of the Senate.”

      AZG Armenian Daily #112, 13/06/2008

            Armenia-Azerbaijan
            ANOTHER AZERBAIJANI PROVOCATION

            Azerbaijan’s statements that the four young citizens of Armenia, detained in Azerbaijan two months ago, were members of a intelligence saboteur group, are nonsense, says Defense Minister Seyran Ohanian. He assured that Armenia, following Azerbaijan’s example, might have declared saboteurs all the Az …

            Genocide
            ARMENIAN GENOCIDE ISSUE IN THE SWEDISH PARLIAMENT.

            On June 11 the parliament of Sweden is to consider the question of recognizing the fact of the Armenian Genocide committed by Ottoman Turkey in 1915. The question was submitted to the parliamentary agenda by a group of Swedish historians. The message of the scientists says that Assyrians and Pontic …

            Armenian Genocide
            U.S. RECOGNIZED ARMENIAN GENOCIDE IN 1951, WORLD COURT DOCUMENT REVEALS

            While President Bush and several of his predecessors have avoided characterizing the organized mass killings of Armenians in 1915 as genocide, it has recently come to light that 57 years ago the United States government officially recognized the Armenian Genocide in a document submitted to the Inter …

            SWEDISH PARLIAMENT REFUSES TO RECOGNIZE THE 1915 GENOCIDE

            On June 12, 2008, the Swedish Parliament, with the votes 245 to 37 (1abstain, 66 absent), rejected a call for recognition of the 1915 genocide in the Ottoman Empire. On June 11, a long debate took place in the Swedish Parliament in regard to the Foreign Committee report on Human Rights, including fi …

            SWEDEN TURNS DOWN ARMENIAN GENOCIDE BILL

            On June 12only 37 of 245 members of the Parliament of Sweden voted for the recognition of the Armenian Genocide. According to Vahagn Avetian, head of Armenica.org, the Parliaments of Sweden held very long debates on the issue the day before.

            Opposition
            TER-PETROSIAN IN PARIS

            Ex-candidate for the office of the President of the Republic of Armenia Levon Ter-Petrosian has left for a 5-day visit to France, Ter-Petrosian’s spokesman told Radio Liberty. The purposes of the visit are unknown.

            Local
            THE MUNICIPALITY REFUSED THE MASS DEMONSTRATION

            Yerevan Municipality refused the application submitted by Levon Ter-Petrosian’s partisans for holding a four-hour mass demonstration on June 20.

            Sport
            “CHESS GIANTS; YEREVAN 2008” RENAMED KAREN ASRIAN MEMORIAL TOURNAMENT

            Chess Federation of Armenia took a decision on June 11 to rename the “Chess Giants; Yerevan 2008” international tournament into Karen Asrian Memorial Tournament taking into consideration outstanding chess player, triple champion of Armenia, Olympic Champion Karen Asrian’s exceptional achievements an …

            Local
            HUNGER STRIKE IN “YEREVAN-CENTER” CRIMINAL EXECUTIVE ESTABLISHMENT

            Gurgen Eghiazarian that is under pre-trial detention in “Yerevan-Center” Criminal Executive Establishment submitted an application to the head of the establishment for starting an indefinite hunger-strike, RA Justice Ministry Press Office reported.

June 24, 2008
Letter to Obama

June 23, 2008

Senator Barak Obama
713 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Improving our relations with our allies and trying to engage in talks with our enemies is good but endorsing the so called Armenian Genocide has already created an enemy of the entire population of a strategic ally in that of Turkey, Azerbaijan and other allied Nations.

The genocide claim is biased and inaccurate. A diligent and impartial person would look at the correct evidence and find that the events do not describe genocide. We need to have the truth be told. The following would show only some of the reasons for the claim to be false.

1. Ruling on Serbia is one indication what genocide means.

On February 26, 2007 the International Court of Justice determined that Serbia is NOT guilty of genocide in Bosnia in spite of the trials and conviction for war crimes of a number of Bosnians and Serbs who were financed and equipped by Serbia and findings of clear links between Serbia and the Bosnian Serb military who committed the genocide in Srebrenica. The Court ruled that the crime of genocide required showing convincingly there was a specific plan or the specific intention to destroy the group or part of it.

2. Trials conducted by Allies after the War acquitted the Turks.

At the end of WWI the allies occupied the Ottoman Empire. At the insistence of the occupying Allies a number of the ruling Party members were tried between 1919 and 1920 by the Ottomans and convicted of crimes. Please read Not finding these trials legitimate or satisfactory the Allies imprisoned more than 100 Ottoman officials and sent them to Malta for trial. The Allied High Court then convened, similar to the Nuremberg tribunal, and had all the archives and government documents searched by experts for evidence that showed crimes proving genocide. After 2 years and 4 months they were unable to find any evidence even after requesting evidence from the United States and others who could also not find any. All the Turkish officials in Malta prisons were released. There was and is NOT any evidence that will hold up in a court of law that will point to an Armenian genocide. If truly interested anyone could read the documents in the British archives. These documents are listed in:

3. No new trials have ever been set by the UN Criminal court.

Consider these two facts stated above and consider the standing of the persons proposing this legislation as presuming guilt before trial or without trial. If there would have been any serious evidence of genocide the Armenians would have long ago gone to the Criminal Courts.

4. Seven US Secretaries of State announced their views.

Seven US Secretaries of State signed a declaration that passing a resolution in the House regarding the alleged Armenian Genocide would be a mistake and counter productive. These are highly regarded experienced statesmen and diplomats. Foreign policy cannot be conducted by antagonizing our allies. Respected historians will agree that genocide does not describe the events. William Langer, Guenter Lewy, Heath Lowry, Justin McCarthy, Edward Erickson, Andrew Mango et al have written extensively on this subject. Another source would be the report of the first Armenian Prime Minister Hovannes Katchaznouni to the Dashnak Party in 1923. This Armenian Prime Minister writes that Turkey acted in defense of its existence in ordering the relocation.

5. Falsification of genocide numbers shows dishonesty.

Another fallacy is the number of Armenians killed in that period. A dozen or more sources put the population of the Armenians in Anatolia at around 1,100,000 of which 300,000 fled with the Russians after the War, 150,000 joined the French Army and attacked Turkish cities in the south and then with many others migrated to other Countries. The falsifiers have 1,500,000 killed out of less than half a million Armenians accounted for. The Armenian population never exceeded about 15% of the population in the eastern provinces.

6. The order to relocate the Armenians in 1915 had the same purpose as the relocation of the Japanese in the US during WWII.

The forced relocation of the 120,000 Japanese-Americans in WWII to barbed wire camps was found to be legal by the U.S. Appeals Court on 18 April 1942 in the case of Korematsu vs US citing a lengthy reasoning. This in effect closed all matters relating to compensation, return of property and claims of hardship. Yet Reagan signed a presidential apology in 1988. What he saw was that the relocation started four months after Pearl Harbor at which time there was no eminent danger that the Japanese were going to invade mainland US, the Japanese-Americans were not arming themselves and ready to fight with the Japanese and they were not starting a round of sabotage and terror. They were innocent citizens of the US.

Let us compare this with the Armenians in Turkey. The year is 1915. Russians have entered Turkish territory from the East. English, French and Anzac’s landed in Galipoli aiming to advance to Istanbul. Allenby crossed the Suez and was advancing to the North with the assistance of the Arabs. Since 1890 the Armenian Hinchak and Dashnak organizations were actively engaged in armed revolt. Three prominent Armenians who were members of parliament defected and founded guerilla groups inside Turkey and started the ethnic cleansing of Turks with the help of Hinchak and Dashnak in regions where Turkish Army presence was minimal. The resulting destruction by the Armenians from 1890 to 1920 was the burning down of 22 villages, the killing of more than 400,000 Turkish civilians and the sabotaging of the Ottoman Armies where in one instant in Sarikamis resulted in the freezing to death of 80,000 troops while fighting the Russians.

On 11 April 1915 the minority Armenians of Van revolted and killed almost all of the Turkish population. A few weeks later they handed the city over to the Russians. In spite of a previous agreement between Armenians in Turkey and the Ottoman government that guaranteed that the Armenians would not fight against the Ottomans. As soon as the Russians further advanced into Turkey the Armenian guerillas revolted in Bitlis and Mus. At this time Enver Pasha decided to relocate the Armenians only in the war zones to the southern parts of the Empire. When finally the legislation was approved on 30 May 1915 it required protection of lives and property, resting during journey, distribution of food, designation of land for resettlement, the building of housing for those in need, the payment of assessed value of the property they vacated and for other items with a budget assigned for this purpose. Documents to this effect are available. They prove that the Armenian Genocide claim is false and a lie,

In his book “The Armenians”, Published by G. Toulmin, UK 1916, C.F. Dixon-Johnson wrote:

“Give a lie twenty-four hours’ start and it will take a hundred years to overtake it.”

7. We are hoping that you will be impartial and read the documentation before you start making enemies around the world..

We are praying for a peaceful world that is not filled with hatred and revenge.

Sincerely,

Demirtas Bayar
44 Alex Drive
White Plains, NY 10605

June 24, 2008