Author: Harut Sassounian

Two Faces of Turkey: Veneer of Gentility Masking Ruthlessness

When Turkey’s Foreign Minister met secretly with a group of Armenians in Washington last month, he wooed them with his sly smile and sugar-coated words. This was the fake facade of traditional Turkish diplomacy.

Last week, Turkey’s UN Ambassador in New York revealed the nasty and aggressive face of his government. Upon learning that a symposium on the Armenian Genocide was going to be held at the UN on April 12, Turkey’s Permanent Representative filed a protest with the Secretary General’s office, trying to disrupt the event.

Organized by the Association for Trauma Outreach & Prevention (ATOP), the event was titled: “Toward Preventing Genocide, Nations Acknowledging their Dark History: Psychosocial, Economic and Cultural Perspectives.” Following screening of Dr. J. Michael Hagopian’s documentary, “The River Ran Red,” the attendees heard addresses from filmmaker Carla Garapedian, Dr. Dennis Papazian, Prof. Ervin Staub, and Garen Nazarian, Armenia’s UN Ambassador.

Encouraged by Turkey’s 2007 success in obstructing a reference to the Armenian Genocide in a UN exhibit on Rwanda, the Turkish Ambassador tried to force the UN to cancel last week’s Armenian Genocide symposium. Fortunately, Armenia’s UN Mission, official sponsor of the event, stood its ground and the symposium took place as planned, albeit with some minor disturbances.

At the start of the event, two Turkish diplomats entered the meeting room without an invitation, and repeatedly attempted to disrupt the proceedings. They kept on shouting, accusing the speakers of defaming Turkey, and refused to comply with the organizer’s request to submit all comments and questions in writing. As the commotion continued, UN security officers were called in, and the two undiplomatic Turkish diplomats left the hall, inanely shouting: “we are the security, we own the security, and we pay for the security!”

In his introductory remarks, Amb. Nazarian observed that “97 years ago, a state-devised plan unleashed a crime whose magnitude and consequences were unparalleled not only in the history of the Armenian nation but also in the history of the world. The plan of extermination of the Armenians was implemented by the Ottoman Empire’s state machine through all its structures and carried out with exact instructions.”

Prof. Papazian’s remarks were titled: “Sovereignty, Nationalism, Racism vs. Humanism and Intellectual Freedom: The Causes and Cures of Genocide.” He expressed his discontent “that the Armenian Genocide is not recognized by the present day Turkish government as a crime committed by its predecessor government under the dictatorship of the Committee for Union and Progress”; “that the people of Turkey are denied free access to accurate sources because of Article 301 of the Turkish Criminal Code which makes it a crime to insult Turkishness”; and “that such [Ottoman] collections as the confiscated properties archives and the military archives are not open to inspection by objective scholars.”

Prof. Staub spoke about “Overcoming Evil: Preventing Genocide and Creating Peaceful Societies.” He stated that “acknowledgement by perpetrators, bystanders, and the world in general of a group’s suffering has great value for both healing and reconciliation.” However, “perpetrators rarely, and only with great difficulty, acknowledge their acts and show regret,” because of “their profound devaluation of the victims, their ideology, and their unacknowledged shame.”

Carla Garapedian explored the “Economic Consequences of Acknowledging the Genocide.” She related that J. Michael Hagopian had recorded the testimonies of genocide survivors so that their voices would be heard someday at an international tribunal deciding what restitution Turkey would have to pay to heirs of the victims.

Not counting the value of the properties, lands and other assets confiscated from Armenian victims of the genocide perpetrated by the Turkish government, Garapedian assessed as $15 billion the restitution value of the 1.5 million Armenians who had perished. Her estimate is based on Germany’s $60 billion restitution payment for the six million Jewish victims of the Holocaust since 1952. Garapedian concluded by suggesting that no state should profit from violating the law and unjustly enrich itself, asserting that a criminal state should not be allowed to keep the fruits of its crime.

This week, Dr. Ani Kalayjian, President of ATOP, sent a letter to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon complaining about the “disruptive, unprofessional, and arrogant behavior” of the two Turkish diplomats. She wondered how the UN could bring peace to the world, when it cannot establish order at an event held at its own headquarters!

April 18, 2012
Turkey’s Foreign Minister In Search of ‘Soft’ Armenians
Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, Turkey’s ‘man on the run,’ has added to his extremely busy schedule the new task of travelling around the globe trying to recruit ‘sensible’ Armenians.

Davutoglu has embarked on such a desperate initiative after the failure of all Turkish attempts to divide and conquer the Armenians and weaken their resolve to pursue their just cause. The Turkish Foreign Minister openly acknowledged that his urgent efforts are prompted by the looming 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide that hangs like a Damoclean Sword over his country.

After the collapse of the Turkish Armenian Reconciliation Commission (TARC) and Turkey’s futile attempts to seek ‘friendly’ Armenians around the world, Ankara gave up on the Diaspora altogether and turned its attention to a ‘softer target’ — the Government of Armenia.

Initially, Turkey registered some success when the Armenia-Turkey Protocols were signed by both countries, under the guise of opening their mutual border. However, this latest attempt to drive a wedge between ‘soft’ Armenian officials and ‘hard-line’ Diasporans also failed, when the much-touted Protocols were not ratified.

Realizing that Turkey had to deal with the Diaspora, not just Armenia to resolve genocide related issues, Davutoglu once again turned his attention to Armenian communities worldwide. During a March 24, 2010 CNN-Turk interview, he announced that Turkish authorities would initiate a dialog with ‘sensible’ Diaspora Armenians.

To pursue this stratagem, in April 2010 Davutoglu met in Washington with Turkey’s ambassadors to the United States and Canada, and Consul Generals in Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, and Toronto. He instructed them to contact Armenians who are open to dialog, and to avoid ‘hard-line groups,’ according to the Turkish ‘Today’s Zaman’ newspaper.

A few weeks later, ‘Hurriyet’ reported that the Foreign Ministry issued a 10-point action plan, instructing Turkish diplomats worldwide to:
1. Invite and involve local Armenians in Turkish events;
2. Participate in Armenian community activities;
3. Contact Armenians who are materially benefiting from making genocide claims as well as recent immigrants from Turkey; and invite to Turkey those who harbor anti-Turkish sentiments;
4. Establish good relations with Armenian diplomats and attend their official events;
5. Accept speaking opportunities at local community and university events to explain Turkey’s position on Armenian genocide claims;
6. Establish contacts with local academics to explain to them Turkey’s position;
7. Develop contacts with diplomats of countries neighboring Turkey and familiarize them with Turkey’s position on Armenian genocide claims;
8. Advocate the creation of ‘a joint commission of historians’;
9. Promote normalization of Armenian-Turkish relations;
10. Emphasize that the peaceful resolution of the Karabagh conflict would benefit Armenian-Turkish relations.
In December 2011, Turkey announced a revised concept of ‘Diaspora’ to include all descendants of ‘Anatolia,’ regardless of their religion or sect. Davutoglu instructed all Turkish diplomats to hold ‘face-to-face’ meetings with such individuals in order to discuss their ‘joint history’ and “the suffering of all Ottoman people during the incidents of the World War I era.”

Dissatisfied with the efforts of his diplomats, Davutoglu decided to take matters into his own hands. Last month, he spent several hours in Washington meeting privately with several Armenians and non-Armenians from the Los Angeles area to discuss ‘Armenian-Turkish reconciliation.’ The Turkish Foreign Minister also invited the attendees to come to Ankara and bring along other ‘prominent’ Armenians. Since then, Davutoglu has held similar meetings elsewhere.

Meanwhile, another Turkish-initiated group on ‘Armenian-Turkish reconciliation’ will be launched on April 12 in Washington. The host group ‘HasNa’ is set to meet at the offices of Arnold & Porter, a lobbying firm hired by the Turkish government. The attendees will include some Armenians and Turks, U.S. government officials, members of the media, non-governmental organizations, academics, and others.

Armenians who choose to get involved in Turkish recruitment schemes could well be seeking fame or fortune, or are well-intentioned, but naive do-gooders. However, regardless of the reasons for their involvement in such questionable practices, they should be mindful of the consequences of their actions:
1. Dialog for the sake of dialog could do more damage than good to the Armenian Cause. The Turkish government would exploit such efforts to create the false impression that Armenians and Turks are in the process of reconciling, thereby derailing the recognition of the Armenian Genocide by other countries.
2. Unless a specific positive outcome is agreed upon in advance, there is a good chance that the Armenian participants would end up holding an empty bag.
3. Only Armenian officials and credible leaders with diplomatic expertise should be negotiating with shrewd and skilled Turkish diplomats. Otherwise, Turkish officials will cleverly cut a deal with those who are bound to be less demanding and more accommodating.
April 10, 2012
Turks and Azeris Alarmed that Tuvalu May Recognize Republic of Artsakh

March 16, 2012 was like any other day at the United Nations, when the representatives of Armenia and Tuvalu signed a joint declaration establishing diplomatic relations. Tuvalu is a tiny state in the South Pacific, much smaller than Manhattan, with a population barely over 10,000! Who would have thought that such a routine announcement would alarm Turkey and Azerbaijan?

This news item would have been ignored by the world media were it not for the “acute” eyes of Ugur Ergan, the “astute” reporter of the Turkish Hurriyet newspaper. He brought Tuvalu out of its obscurity for a short while, making it the most talked about country in Turkish and Azerbaijani circles. Ergan quoted unnamed Ankara officials as stating that Armenia had established diplomatic relations and offered tons of money to Tuvalu, so that it would be the first country to recognize Artsakh (Nagorno Karabagh) as an independent state!

Ergan further disclosed that Ankara is “disturbed” by Tuvalu’s possible recognition of Artsakh, suspecting that Armenia would do what Turkish officials have done for decades — buying political favors in return for lucrative gifts. They attribute to others what they routinely practice themselves. As the Holy Bible states, they see the splinter in someone else’s eye, but fail to notice the beam in their own eye!

Even more alarmed were Azerbaijan’s officials who assumed that Tuvalu would shortly recognize Artsakh. Aydin Mirzazade, a Parliamentarian from the ruling New Azerbaijan Party, in an interview with reporter I. Isabalayeva, ridiculed Tuvalu’s readiness “to recognize any state, even a non-existent country, for a small amount of money.” Mirzazade understands well the practice of buying favors. It has been widely reported that Azerbaijan’s Foreign Minister put his country’s immense petrodollars to “good use” last year by providing generous financial inducements to poor nations in exchange for their votes for a UN Security Council seat.

Azerbaijan was following its elder brother’s, Turkey’s, footsteps at vote buying at the UN. Gareth Jenkins reported in the Eurasian Daily Monitor that the Turkish government had enticed to Istanbul the leaders of Tuvalu, Tonga, Nauru, Vanuatu, Solomon Islands, Marshall Islands, Cook Islands, Papua New Guinea, Palau, Fiji, Micronesia, and Samoa to secure their votes for Turkey’s membership in the UN Security Council. Those who have never heard of these Pacific islands should not feel embarrassed. Turkey’s former Deputy Prime Minister Abdullatif Shener had the honesty to confess: “I had never heard of the names of some of them before, but they all have a vote at the UN.” Turkey’s scheme succeeded. It gained a seat on the UN Security Council in 2008 by offering tens of millions of dollars to dozens of little-known countries in far-flung corners of the world.

Yilmaz Ozdil, a more forthright commentator for Hurriyet, boldly countered Ergan’s report, confirming that Turkey was the first to offer “bribes” to Tuvalu and many others. Ozdil disclosed that, to obtain a seat on the UN Security Council, Turkey provided as kickbacks:

— medicines to Angola, Ethiopia, Gambia, Sudan, and the Comoros;

— trade center to Zimbabwe;

— stables to Mauritania;

— drinking water network to Niger;

— water wells to Ethiopia;

— school kits to Ghana;

— field hospital to Sudan;

— cattle-breeding technology to Mozambique and Mauritania;

— electric grid to Benin;

— smelting house to Gambia;

— training schools to Eritrea, Togo, Lesotho, and Uganda;

— police training to Guinea;

— vaccines to Mali;

— humanitarian assistance to Tanzania and Chad;

— school to Congo;

— sewer system to Liberia and Sierra Leone;

— VIP minibus to Palau;

— computers to Antigua;

— wined and dined visiting Prime Minister of St. Vincent and the Grenadines, stuffed his pocket with gifts, and placed a private jet at his disposal to fly to Izmir;

— donated soccer balls and pumps to Tuvalu.

Another Turkish commentator, Deniz Zeyrek, wrote a hilarious column in the newspaper Radikal, headlined: “Tuvalu: give our soccer balls back.” To buy votes at the UN, Zeyrek reported that Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu asked the visiting Tuvalu Prime Minister if his country needed anything. Tuvalu officials made a surprising request — that their children liked to play soccer, but had no balls. Turkey immediately dispatched to Tuvalu hundreds of soccer balls along with pumps. Tuvalu then complied with Turkey’s demand, supporting its bid to join the UN Security Council.

Zeyrek concluded his article with the following sarcastic question: “Will Turkey now ask for its balls back, if Tuvalu recognizes Karabagh’s independence?”

April 3, 2012
Why Does Pres. Obama Torture Himself And Armenians Every April 24?

For some unknown reason, the President of the most powerful nation on earth feels compelled to put himself through a strange and unnecessary ritual every April 24. Weeks in advance of that date, Pres. Barack Obama orders his White House staff to scour the dictionary to come up with series of words other than genocide to describe the Armenian Genocide.

For the fourth year in a row, the President’s resourceful aides have not disappointed him. For this year’s “Armenian Remembrance Day,” they have come up with a dozen words that describe the Armenian Genocide without using that specific term. When they ran out of substitute English words for genocide, the President’s hardworking wordsmiths turned to an Armenian term, “Meds Yeghern,” without providing its English translation (Great Calamity), so no one other than Armenians would understand what Pres. Obama is speaking about!

Here are some of the words that the President’s men offered this year: ‘Atrocities,’ ‘brutally massacred,’ ‘marched to their deaths,’ ‘unspeakable suffering,’ ‘perished,’ ‘dark chapters of history,’ ‘what occurred in 1915,’ ‘facts of the past,’ ‘lives that were taken,’ ‘senselessly suffered and died,’ and finally, ‘the darkness of the Meds Yeghern.’ Anything but genocide!

Engaging in verbal gymnastics on genocide is unacceptable and unbecoming of the office of the President of the United States. Could such deplorable efforts be explained as a feeble attempt by Obama to minimize his broken promises? As Presidential candidate, he repeatedly and solemnly pledged that he would recognize the Armenian Genocide. But when he became President, he hid behind insulting statements issued in his name year after year!

In his last four annual statements, Pres. Obama avoided carrying out his campaign promises by claiming: “I have consistently stated my own view of what occurred in 1915. My view of that history has not changed.” But, he never bothered to tell the American public what exactly were his views in the past, what his views are today, and what happened in 1915! He cleverly downplays the significance of the Armenian Genocide by calling it “my own view of what happened in 1915.” Yet, on January 19, 2008, then presidential candidate Obama, seeking the Armenian community’s campaign contributions and votes, had no qualms to call these events by their proper name. Back then, he confidently stated that “the Armenian Genocide is not an allegation, a personal opinion, or a point of view,” and promised that “as President,” he would “recognize the Armenian Genocide.”

Sadly, Pres. Obama is not the only member of his administration who has not kept his campaign pledge on this issue. Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, two of the highest officials of the country, had made similar promises to recognize the Armenian Genocide when they were Senators and presidential candidates. While Vice President Biden has remained eerily silent, Mrs. Clinton has gone from being a proponent of the recognition of the Armenian Genocide to its leading opponent. After becoming Secretary of State, she actively lobbied to defeat a proposed congressional resolution on the Armenian Genocide!

After four years of this senseless charade by the White House, the Armenian American community has two good reasons for asking Pres. Obama not to make any more statements on the Armenian Genocide.

First, by breaking his word for four years in a row and playing verbal games with genocide, Obama has lost the moral standing to speak on this highly emotional and painful topic! How can the President of the United States lecture anyone around the world about human rights, democracy, and justice, when he himself has so crudely violated the trust of his own people and lost all credibility? He should stop torturing himself, his staff, and Armenians worldwide by not issuing insulting “Remembrance Day” statements. It makes no sense for Pres. Obama to issue an annual statement that Armenians don’t want, don’t like, and are offended by it!

Second, another U.S. President, Ronald Reagan, has already acknowledged the Armenian Genocide in a Presidential Proclamation in 1981. The Armenian Genocide was also recognized by the House of Representative in 1975 and 1984, by the Justice Department in an official filing with the World Court in 1951, and by 42 U.S. states. Therefore, the Armenian community has no need to beg Pres. Obama or any other political candidate to recognize that which is already and repeatedly recognized.

Genocide is too sacred to be a subject of crass political trading. Those who acknowledge the undeniable fact of the Armenian Genocide do so, not as a favor to the victims, but to restore their own credibility and moral integrity!

April 1, 2012
Clinton Should Resign for Making Offensive Remarks on Armenian Genocide

How many times can Secretary of State Hillary Clinton break her pledge and make insulting remarks on the Armenian Genocide before she is called a liar and forced to resign?

Armenian-Americans are fed up with Mrs. Clinton and her boss Barack Obama who also has not kept his promises on the Armenian Genocide. And the problem transcends their views on the Armenian Genocide. The Obama Administration has failed the Armenian-American community on many issues, including cutting foreign aid to Armenia, not backing Artsakh’s right to self determination, and pressuring Armenia to sign a treaty with Turkey that runs counter to its national interests.

In this column, we shall focus on Secretary Clinton, and address our displeasure with Pres. Obama policies later, in the context of the upcoming presidential elections.

As U.S. Senator, Mrs. Clinton co-sponsored a resolution calling for recognition of the Armenian Genocide. In 2006 and 2008, joining then Sen. Obama, she sent letters to Pres. George W. Bush, describing the Armenian Genocide as a “systematic and deliberate campaign of genocide perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire in 1915…. The victims of the Genocide deserve our remembrance and their rightful place in history.”

On January 24, 2008, as a Presidential candidate, Mrs. Clinton declared in a written statement that the “horrible events perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire against Armenians constituted a clear case of genocide. …Our common morality and our nation’s credibility as a voice for human rights challenge us to ensure that the Armenian Genocide be recognized and remembered by the Congress and the President of the United States.”

After becoming Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton must have suffered a bout of total amnesia. During a January 26, 2012 Town Hall meeting at the State Department, she reversed her earlier characterization of “clear case of genocide,” to “a matter of historical debate.” While the historical facts of the Armenian Genocide remain unchanged, what must have changed is Secretary Clinton’s moral fortitude to tell the truth!

Clinton’s distorted moral compass outraged the Armenian-American community. The Armenian Assembly of America sent a letter to Pres. Obama complaining about Mrs. Clinton’s “untenable” statement, and the Armenian National Committee of America asked the Secretary to retract her deeply offensive position, parroting Turkey’s revisionist view of the Armenian Genocide.

On February 28, over 60 House members from both parties sent a joint letter to Mrs. Clinton, expressing their “deeply held concerns” regarding her January 26 statement “mischaracterizing the Armenian Genocide.” They urged the Secretary to disavow her “ill-considered statement” and reaffirm her previous commitment to recognize the Armenian Genocide.

On February 29, Cong. Adam Schiff confronted the Secretary of State during her testimony before the House Appropriations Subcommittee. Recalling her earlier truthful statements on the Armenian Genocide, the Congressman bluntly asked: “Is there any question that you have that the facts of that tragic period between 1915 and 1923 constitute genocide? Do you have any different view on the subject now than you did as a U.S. Senator?” When Secretary Clinton responded with evasive and euphemistic answers, Cong. Schiff chided her: “This is, tragically, very much the line of the Turkish government!”

In her March 1 response to the letters from the Armenian Assembly and ANCA, the Secretary once again used euphemisms to avoid the term Armenian Genocide, and urged “Armenia and Turkey to work together to address their shared history.” This is as morally repugnant as avoiding the term Holocaust and urging Jews to work out their differences with neo-Nazis!

Mrs. Clinton’s March 1 letter also describes her 2010 visit to “the memorial at Tsitsernakaberd” in Armenia “as a sign of respect for those who lost their lives during this tragedy.” There are two misrepresentations in this single sentence: she refers to the Genocide as “tragedy,” and avoids calling the “Armenian Genocide Monument” by its proper name. Furthermore, the Secretary did not invite the international media to cover her “low profile” visit to the Armenian Genocide Monument, not to upset the “delicate feelings” of Turkish denialists; and to completely downplay the significance of the visit, the U.S. Embassy in Yerevan issued an imprudent press release, describing her brief stop at the “memorial” as “a private,” not official visit.

If Secretary Clinton had made similarly offensive comments on the Holocaust, she would have been dismissed from her job on the same day. Armenian-Americans should demand no less. Fortunately, Mrs. Clinton has announced that she will be retiring at the end of this year. We say, goodbye and good riddance!

March 13, 2012
Constitutional Council’s Scandalous Rejection of French Genocide Bill

Armenians in France and throughout the world reacted with utter indignation against the Constitutional Council’s scandalous decision rejecting the Genocide denial bill.

The National Assembly and Senate recently adopted a bill that would set a penalty of a year in jail and $60,000 fine for anyone denying the genocides recognized by the French government. France officially recognizes the Jewish Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide.

Even though the bill did not specifically mention the Armenian Genocide, the Turkish government did everything short of declaring war against France to undermine its adoption, thereby identifying itself as the perpetrator of one of the two genocides. After failing to block the adoption of the bill by the two chambers of the French legislature, Turkey and Azerbaijan, its junior partner in the crime of genocide denial, left no stone unturned to have the law declared unconstitutional.

Turkey applied all kinds of pressure on French legislators to collect the necessary 60 or more signatures needed to appeal the adopted bill to the Constitutional Council. Ironically, while the Turkish government was announcing a boycott of French companies, a Turkish group was hiring a high-powered French lobbying firm to assist in the hunt for signatures. Azerbaijan joined in this sinister lobbying effort by inviting six French Senators to Baku to collect their rewards for having signed the appeal! By hook or crook, the Turkish authorities and their French surrogates succeeded in enticing 142 of over 900 members of the French legislature to file an appeal with the Constitutional Council on January 31, 2012.

Clearly, this was an unacceptable intrusion into France’s domestic affairs. Rather than allowing the Turkish Ambassador to pressure members of the legislature to sign the appeal to the Constitutional Council, France should have expelled him for violating his diplomatic mandate! Turkey should not be permitted to dictate French laws!

The Constitutional Council is a hodge-podge of 11 retired individuals of various backgrounds. It includes two French Presidents, two judges, three legislators, and four government officials. A major controversy erupted when a French newspaper revealed that several members of the Council, including its Chairman, had serious conflict of interest problems in reaching a fair decision. Some had made prejudicial statements on this issue while serving in the legislature, others have business ties with Turkey, and most shockingly, one of them, Hubert Haenel, is a member of the Bosphorus Institute — a French-Turkish “think tank” that lobbied against the genocide denial bill!

Under such scandalous conditions, most Council members should have disqualified themselves from sitting in judgement on this issue. After these embarrassing disclosures, two Council members withdrew from deliberating on the genocide bill, and former Pres. Jacques Chirac was reportedly too ill to attend the session.

The Constitutional Council’s eight remaining members ruled on February 28, 2012 that the bill penalizing genocide denial approved by the Parliament and Senate was unconstitutional because it violated French laws on freedom of speech!

This was a shocking decision for two reasons: 1) Several members of the Constitutional Council violated the law themselves by sitting in judgment on an issue in which they had a clear bias or conflict of interest; and 2) They ruled the genocide denial bill to be unconstitutional supposedly because it restricted free speech, while leaving intact another law that penalized denial of the Holocaust. The Council members failed to explain why penalizing denial of the Armenian Genocide was a restriction on freedom of expression while penalizing denial of the Jewish Holocaust was not! All genocide victims merit equal protection under the law. There should be no double standards!

Unlike the United States, France has several laws that restrict freedom of expression. Why is that when it comes to punishing deniers of the Armenian Genocide, the Council members all of a sudden become staunch defenders of free speech?

French Armenians should take up all legal and political measures to reverse the Council’s unfair and illegal decision. They could file a lawsuit with the European Court of Human Rights against the Constitutional Council as well as introduce a new bill in the French legislature.

Since the two leading French Presidential candidates have pledged to bring up this bill again after the upcoming elections, this issue will not go away until a law is adopted penalizing Armenian Genocide denial. Turkey must not be allowed to export its denialist policies to European shores!

March 6, 2012