Turkish Forum

Author: Harut Sassounian

  • Armenians Must Counter UN Security Council Bids by Turkey and Azerbaijan

    Armenians Must Counter UN Security Council Bids by Turkey and Azerbaijan

     

    SASSUN 2
    Diasporan political organizations and influential Armenians, in cooperation with the Armenian Foreign Ministry, should launch an international lobbying campaign to block Turkey and Azerbaijan from gaining coveted seats on the United Nations Security Council.
    Three years ago, I made a similar plea when Turkey was seeking a seat on the Security Council for the first time since 1961. I urged Armenians worldwide to contact government leaders of their respective countries, requesting that their UN representatives oppose Turkey’s Security Council bid. Regrettably, no such efforts were made and Turkey easily gained a seat on the powerful Security Council for a two-year term (2009 & 2010).
    One advantage Armenians have in being scattered throughout the world is their unique opportunity to lobby the governments of dozens of countries on upcoming issues at the UN. Such a strategy would considerably strengthen the Armenian Foreign Ministry’s UN activities. Diaspora’s political clout and contacts would counter the considerable financial resources Turkey and Azerbaijan provide to many countries to obtain their UN votes. As reported by the Eurasia Daily Monitor, Turkey bribed dozens of third world countries in its successful bid for a Security Council seat in 2009. The Turkish government went as far as contributing $20 million to a number of small nations to pay off their UN membership dues, so they won’t lose their voting rights!
    Encouraged by the results of its previous campaign, Turkey just announced its candidacy for yet another term on the Security Council in 2015-2016, competing with Spain and New Zealand for two open regional seats. Both of these countries are far more qualified than Turkey in terms of fulfilling Security Council’s objectives of contributing to international peace and security. Having just served for two years on the Security Council after the absence of a half-century, Turkey’s hegemonic appetite is now whetted to return to the Council in 5 years, much earlier than its turn!
    For those familiar with Turkey’s long record of human rights violations, repeated massacres of Kurds, denial of the Armenian Genocide, and occupation of the northern part of Cyprus, it is shocking to read the excuses of the Turkish Foreign Ministry for its new Security Council bid: “Turkey is determined to increase its contributions to international peace, security and prosperity, as well as to further its efforts towards strengthening fundamental principles and values such as human rights, democracy and rule of law.”
    Having a seat on the UN Security Council, however, may not always be advantageous for Turkey. Its hypocritical behavior of pretending to be everyone’s best friend risks being exposed, as was the case in 2009-2010 when Turkey was forced to take sides and vote on such thorny issues as the Arab-Israeli conflict and the controversial Iranian nuclear program, antagonizing many of its traditional allies.
    While Armenians have a five-year advance notice to effectively plan their lobbying activities against Turkey’s membership bid, they have only three months to obstruct Azerbaijan’s Security Council candidacy in elections to be held this October. According to knowledgeable sources, Azerbaijan’s Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov is globe-trotting to provide financial inducements to dozens of needy countries in return for votes. Mammadyarov urged the Foreign Ministers gathered at the Organization of Islamic Cooperation conference to support Azerbaijan’s first-ever bid for a seat on the Security Council, claiming that his country has a “strong commitment to goals and principles of the UN Charter.”
    Given Azerbaijan’s authoritarian regime as documented by the State Department and other human rights organizations, in particular its lack of democracy, flagrant violations of human rights, and constant threats to use force against the neighboring Republics of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabagh (Artsakh), it is hard to imagine a country less qualified to serve on the UN Security Council.
    Since Azerbaijan will be competing with Slovenia and Hungary for a Security Council seat, one would think that Baku’s chances are close to zero. However, given Azerbaijan’s lavish vote-buying spree funded by abundant petrodollars, Armenians and their supporters need to work hard in the next three months to channel the UN members’ votes towards either Slovenia or Hungary, and away from Azerbaijan.
    In countering Turkish and Azerbaijani efforts in international organizations, Armenians must be encouraged by the major political setback suffered by Turkey last week, when Armenia and Cyprus blocked the appointment of a Turkish diplomat to the prestigious position of Secretary General of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). The top contenders for that job were Austria’s former Foreign Minister, Ursula Plassnik and Turkey’s Ambassador to Brazil, Ersin Ercin. By blocking Austria’s candidate, Turkey caused a serious diplomatic rift between the two countries. At the end, Ambassador Lamberto Zannier of Italy was unanimously chosen as OSCE’s new Secretary General.
    Armenia and Cyprus must be congratulated for not caving in to Turkish pressures and standing up in defense of their national interests.

  • Sassounian’s column of July 14, 2011

    Sassounian’s column of July 14, 2011

    Prof. Akcam Reveals Turkish Plan to Pay
    Scholars to Deny the Armenian Genocide
    sassounian31
    Prof. Taner Akcam dropped a bombshell during a lecture at the Glendale Public Library last month, when he revealed that a confidential source in Istanbul had informed him about the Turkish government’s scheme to bribe American scholars to deny the Armenian Genocide.
    Dr. Akcam, holder of the Kaloosdian/Mugar Chair in Armenian Genocide Studies at Clark University in Worcester, Mass., stated that “the Turkish government is following a very systematic and aggressive policy in the US,” by attempting to cast doubt on the veracity of the Armenian Genocide. Ankara’s grand scheme is to make Turkish denialist claims as widely acceptable as the belief that the events of 1915 constituted genocide. Moreover, through a series of lawsuits in US courts, Turkey and its proxies are trying to present any criticism of denialist scholars and exclusion of revisionist materials from university programs as suppression of “academic freedom.”
    Prof. Akcam, one of the first Turkish scholars to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide, related to his audience that during his visit to Istanbul last December, he had a private conversation with a person who had “inside information” regarding the Turkish Foreign Ministry’s activities in the United States on subject of the Armenian Genocide. Dr. Akcam’s confidential source told him that sometime in 2004-2005, an American university professor had met with “authorities connected with the Turkish Foreign Ministry.” At that meeting, the professor told his Turkish hosts that “Turkey didn’t have a systematic program on the academic level with which to counter the claims of an Armenian Genocide,” and that “the genocide claim is well established at this point,” telling them that “there’s very little” they can do “by trying to confront it head on.”
    Dr. Akcam was privately informed that the American professor made the following recommendation to Turkish officials: “The thing you need to do is to dig a ditch in front of all the genocide claims; you need to create doubt by writing scholarly works which will awaken that doubt.” Dr. Akcam interpreted these words to mean that “by producing and encouraging new academic works,” American scholars could “normalize the idea that 1915 was not genocide, just as the belief that it was genocide has become accepted.”
    While it is commonly assumed that the Turkish government provides financial incentives to scholars worldwide to publish articles and books denying the Armenian Genocide, this is the first time that a knowledgeable Turkish insider has confirmed these assumptions. The confidential source told Dr. Akcam that the Turkish Foreign Ministry accepted the American scholar’s proposal and “transferred large sums of money to the US.” The informant revealed to Dr. Akcam the names of American academics who received funds to write books denying the Armenian Genocide, and disclosed that “there are documents signed by their own hand and that these receipts are now in the files of the Foreign Ministry’s records.”
    In his lecture, Dr. Akcam stated that he did not want “to put any academic under a cloud of suspicion.” However, when he connected the information received from his Istanbul source to some recent publications, “a disturbing picture emerges as far as Armenian Genocide research is concerned.”
    Dr. Akcam then referred to Michael Gunter’s recent book, “Armenian History and the Question of Genocide,” as a possible “example of this approach.” The website of the book’s publisher, Palgrave Macmillan, stated: “Although as many as 600,000 of them [Armenians] died during World War I, it was neither a premeditated policy perpetrated by the Ottoman Turkish government nor an event unilaterally implemented without cause. Of course, in no way does this excuse the horrible excesses that were committed.”
    Prof. Akcam further observed that the four academics — Hakan Yavuz of University of Utah, Guenter Lewy of University of Massachusetts, Jeremy Salt of Bilkent University, Ankara, and Edward J. Ericson of Marine Corps Command & Staff College, Virginia — who praised Gunter’s book, “are well known for their denialist position and works regarding the genocide of 1915.” Although Prof. Akcam did not wish to make “an accusation against the book’s writer,” he stated: “the strange similarities between what I was told in confidence in Istanbul and what appears on the jacket cover of that book gave me pause, that’s all.”
    While no one should accuse academics of receiving funds from the Turkish government or its proxies without solid evidence, it would be enlightening if any of them would voluntarily come forward and disclose whether they have been funded by Turkish sources!
  • Armenians Must Counter UN Security Council Bids by Turkey and Azerbaijan

    Armenians Must Counter UN Security Council Bids by Turkey and Azerbaijan

    sassounian3
    Diasporan political organizations and influential Armenians, in cooperation with the Armenian Foreign Ministry, should launch an international lobbying campaign to block Turkey and Azerbaijan from gaining coveted seats on the United Nations Security Council.
    Three years ago, I made a similar plea when Turkey was seeking a seat on the Security Council for the first time since 1961. I urged Armenians worldwide to contact government leaders of their respective countries, requesting that their UN representatives oppose Turkey’s Security Council bid. Regrettably, no such efforts were made and Turkey easily gained a seat on the powerful Security Council for a two-year term (2009 & 2010).
    One advantage Armenians have in being scattered throughout the world is their unique opportunity to lobby the governments of dozens of countries on upcoming issues at the UN. Such a strategy would considerably strengthen the Armenian Foreign Ministry’s UN activities. Diaspora’s political clout and contacts would counter the considerable financial resources Turkey and Azerbaijan provide to many countries to obtain their UN votes. As reported by the Eurasia Daily Monitor, Turkey bribed dozens of third world countries in its successful bid for a Security Council seat in 2009. The Turkish government went as far as contributing $20 million to a number of small nations to pay off their UN membership dues, so they won’t lose their voting rights!
    Encouraged by the results of its previous campaign, Turkey just announced its candidacy for yet another term on the Security Council in 2015-2016, competing with Spain and New Zealand for two open regional seats. Both of these countries are far more qualified than Turkey in terms of fulfilling Security Council’s objectives of contributing to international peace and security. Having just served for two years on the Security Council after the absence of a half-century, Turkey’s hegemonic appetite is now whetted to return to the Council in 5 years, much earlier than its turn!
    For those familiar with Turkey’s long record of human rights violations, repeated massacres of Kurds, denial of the Armenian Genocide, and occupation of the northern part of Cyprus, it is shocking to read the excuses of the Turkish Foreign Ministry for its new Security Council bid: “Turkey is determined to increase its contributions to international peace, security and prosperity, as well as to further its efforts towards strengthening fundamental principles and values such as human rights, democracy and rule of law.”
    Having a seat on the UN Security Council, however, may not always be advantageous for Turkey. Its hypocritical behavior of pretending to be everyone’s best friend risks being exposed, as was the case in 2009-2010 when Turkey was forced to take sides and vote on such thorny issues as the Arab-Israeli conflict and the controversial Iranian nuclear program, antagonizing many of its traditional allies.
    While Armenians have a five-year advance notice to effectively plan their lobbying activities against Turkey’s membership bid, they have only three months to obstruct Azerbaijan’s Security Council candidacy in elections to be held this October. According to knowledgeable sources, Azerbaijan’s Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov is globe-trotting to provide financial inducements to dozens of needy countries in return for votes. Mammadyarov urged the Foreign Ministers gathered at the Organization of Islamic Cooperation conference to support Azerbaijan’s first-ever bid for a seat on the Security Council, claiming that his country has a “strong commitment to goals and principles of the UN Charter.”
    Given Azerbaijan’s authoritarian regime as documented by the State Department and other human rights organizations, in particular its lack of democracy, flagrant violations of human rights, and constant threats to use force against the neighboring Republics of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabagh (Artsakh), it is hard to imagine a country less qualified to serve on the UN Security Council.
    Since Azerbaijan will be competing with Slovenia and Hungary for a Security Council seat, one would think that Baku’s chances are close to zero. However, given Azerbaijan’s lavish vote-buying spree funded by abundant petrodollars, Armenians and their supporters need to work hard in the next three months to channel the UN members’ votes towards either Slovenia or Hungary, and away from Azerbaijan.
    In countering Turkish and Azerbaijani efforts in international organizations, Armenians must be encouraged by the major political setback suffered by Turkey last week, when Armenia and Cyprus blocked the appointment of a Turkish diplomat to the prestigious position of Secretary General of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). The top contenders for that job were Austria’s former Foreign Minister, Ursula Plassnik and Turkey’s Ambassador to Brazil, Ersin Ercin. By blocking Austria’s candidate, Turkey caused a serious diplomatic rift between the two countries. At the end, Ambassador Lamberto Zannier of Italy was unanimously chosen as OSCE’s new Secretary General.
    Armenia and Cyprus must be congratulated for not caving in to Turkish pressures and standing up in defense of their national interests.

     
  • Hanging Armenia’s Dirty Laundry in Public

    Hanging Armenia’s Dirty Laundry in Public

     

     

    By Harut Sassounian

    sassounian35

    President Serzh Sargsyan made an important appearance at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) in Strasbourg last week. In a whirlwind 30-minute speech, he covered Armenia’s internal and foreign affairs, presenting his country in the best possible light before a distinguished foreign audience.

     

    On the domestic front, Pres. Sargsyan spoke about fighting corruption, holding “fair and transparent elections,” and overcoming “the consequences of the tragic events of March 2008.”

     

    The President then reminded the European Parliamentarians about Armenia’s “shared historical and cultural legacy” with Europe and discussed the ongoing negotiations to resolve the Artsakh (Karabagh) conflict. He condemned “the extreme level of Armenophobia and racism” in Azerbaijan, and spoke of the difficulty of making “a concession to the side that is looking for a convenient excuse to shoot at us.”

     

    Pres. Sargsyan went on to accuse the Turkish government of undermining the “normalizaton” of Armenia-Turkey relations “by setting preconditions and failing to honor its commitments, which rendered the ratification of the signed Protocols impossible.” He called on Turkey and Azerbaijan to end the “unlawful blockade imposed on Armenia” and accused Turkey of “not only failing to recognize, but also engaging in a policy of blunt denial of the Genocide of Armenians committed in the Ottoman Empire in 1915.” He pledged that Armenians and all those concerned with crimes against humanity “will henceforth remain focused on the international recognition of the Armenian Genocide.”

     

    After his speech, Pres. Sargsyan spent another 30 minutes answering questions from PACE delegates representing Lithuania, France, Switzerland, Russia, Moldova, Holland, Armenia, and Ireland. Five Azerbaijanis had placed their names on the list of Parliamentarians to ask questions, but none of them did so. The delegates from Turkey had also made a unanimous decision not to question the Armenian President, as reported by Hurriyet Turkish newspaper.

     

    The question that attracted most attention was the one asked by Parliamentarian Zaruhi Postanjyan from Armenia, a member of the opposition Heritage Party. She told Pres. Sargsyan: “Since an authoritarian regime has been established in Armenia and all elections from 1995 on have been rigged,” wouldn’t it be preferable if he organized special and fair elections and then “resigned”?

     

    As the Turkish President of PACE, Mevlut Cavusoglu snickered at the question, Pres. Sargsyan calmly responded that he was well aware of Ms. Postanjyan’s views which she had freely expressed in the Armenian Parliament, on the street and in the media. He added that he was not prepared to hold special elections because it is neither necessary nor constitutionally feasible to organize such elections. He urged Ms. Postanjyan to participate in the next regularly-scheduled parliamentary elections.

     

    Not surprisingly, Pres. Sargsyan’s PACE speech was welcomed by his supporters and criticized by his opponents at home. The most important issue for all concerned should have been whether the President’s impressive words would translate into action in the near future. However, the immediate controversy revolved around the appropriateness of Ms. Postanjyan’s criticism of the President, while on foreign soil.

     

    Some Armenian politicians were of the opinion that it was improper for Ms. Postanjyan “to attack” Pres. Sargsyan in the chambers of the European Council. Others felt that her “harsh words” inadvertently made the President look good, because in a truly “authoritarian regime,” she would have been excluded from Armenia’s delegation, stripped of her parliamentary immunity and prosecuted. In fact, some European Parliamentarians wondered whether Turkish or Azeri delegates would dare to criticize their President at PACE?

     

    American politicians use the expression “politics stops at the water’s edge” to indicate their willingness to set aside internal disputes for the sake of presenting a united front to outsiders. Applying that adage to Armenia, one could question the wisdom of making such disparaging comments before the Council of Europe, regardless of whether one agrees with the President or his policies. Since Armenia is routinely attacked by Turkish and Azerbaijani delegates in international forums, it is unwise to add one’s voice to those tarnishing Armenia’s reputation.

     

    This issue also comes up when some Armenians try to pressure their authorities by taking their internal disputes to foreign governments and international courts. While their frustration is understandable, dragging a foreign entity into an internal dispute detracts from Armenia’s image overseas. In such cases, however, the blame must be shared by the Armenian government for failing to ensure the integrity of domestic courts, thereby forcing citizens to turn elsewhere for justice.

     

    Before making critical comments about Armenia’s leadership outside the country, especially by Parliament members who have ample opportunity to express their views at home, one must weigh the benefits of pressuring the authorities to respect the people’s rights with the damage caused to the country’s international reputation.

     

  • From Genocide Recognition To Reclaiming Church Properties

    From Genocide Recognition To Reclaiming Church Properties

     

     

    sassounian34

    The Armenian-American community took a major step last week to reverse the consequences of the Armenian Genocide and end the Turkish government’s long-standing policy of erasing all traces of Armenian civilization from present-day Turkey.

     

    Going beyond mere acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide, some members of Congress have introduced a new resolution that urges “the Republic of Turkey to safeguard its Christian heritage and to return confiscated church properties.”

     

    The sweeping House Resolution 306 calls on the Government of Turkey to:

    “1) end all forms of religious discrimination;

    2) allow the rightful church and lay owners of Christian church properties, without hindrance or restriction, to organize and administer prayer services, religious education, clerical training, appointments, and succession, religious community gatherings, social services, including ministry to the needs of the poor and infirm, and other religious activities;

    3) return to their rightful owners all Christian churches and other places of worship, monasteries, schools, hospitals, monuments, relics, holy sites, and other religious properties, including movable properties, such as artwork, manuscripts, vestments, vessels, and other artifacts; and

    4) allow the rightful Christian church and lay owners of Christian church properties, without hindrance or restriction, to preserve, reconstruct, and repair, as they see fit, all Christian churches and other places of worship, monasteries, schools, hospitals, monuments, relics, holy sites, and other religious properties within Turkey.”

     

    This bipartisan resolution, sponsored by Cong. Ed Royce (R-CA) and Cong. Howard Berman (D-CA), was immediately endorsed by 30 of their House colleagues, 10 of them Republicans. This is a good start, as Republicans constitute the majority in the House and their support is crucial for the successful passage of the resolution. Significantly, Cong. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and a long-time opponent of the Armenian Genocide resolution, was one of the first supporters of the resolution regarding the return of church properties.

     

    It is not surprising that this resolution has such broad support, as it is hard to imagine that any member of Congress, the State Department or the Obama administration would oppose returning a religious building back to its proper owners. By contemporary societal standards, no one would accept the conversion of a church into a mosque or vice versa. Turkey’s devout leaders, as good Muslims, would be the first to acknowledge and uphold the sanctity of houses of worship.

     

    Beyond building a strong bipartisan coalition in Congress, practically all religious denominations in America, be they Evangelical, Catholic, Orthodox, Jewish or Muslim, would support such a resolution. All ethnic groups, such as Latinos, Greek-Americans, Irish-Americans, Jewish-American, Arab-Americans, Afro-Americans, Asian-Americans, and Assyrian-Americans would also lend their support to this resolution.

     

    The Armenian National Committee of America noted that the resolution intends “to highlight, confront, and eventually reverse decades of official Turkish policy of destroying Christian church properties, desecrating holy sites, discriminating against Christian communities, and denying of the right of Armenians, Greeks, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Pontians, Arameans (Syriacs), and others to practice their faith in freedom.”

     

    The right to religious freedom is not simply an internal Turkish issue. This right is protected by many international agreements, including the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne to which Turkey is a signatory. Turkey continues to violate Articles 41 and 42 of the Lausanne Treaty which obligate it to provide funding and facilities to non-Muslim minorities for educational, religious, and charitable purposes, and to protect their religious establishments. Regrettably, the House resolution makes no mention of these violations and Turkey’s obligations under the Lausanne Treaty.

     

    The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, which issues an annual report documenting violations of religious rights around the world, has placed Turkey on its “Watch List,” for the third year in a row. The Commission has found that “the Turkish government continues to impose serious limitations on freedom of religion or belief, thereby threatening the continued vitality and survival of minority religious communities in Turkey.” The Turkish government also “continues to intervene in the internal governance and education of religious communities and to confiscate places of worship.”

     

    In recent years, the House and Senate passed several resolutions calling on Turkish-occupied Northern Cyprus, Lithuania, Romania, and Vietnam to protect houses of worship and return wrongfully confiscated properties belonging to religious minorities. In line with these resolutions, the House of Representatives should adopt Resolution 306, calling on the Turkish government to respect the right of worship for all Christian minorities and return to them their expropriated churches and other religious properties.

  • Sassounian’s column of June 16, 2011

    Sassounian’s column of June 16, 2011

     

     

    sassounian33

    Why Pass an Armenian Genocide 

    Resolution for the Third Time?

     

    By Harut Sassounian

    Publisher, The California Courier

     

    A new Armenian Genocide resolution is being introduced in the House of Representatives this week.

     

    The first question is why Congress is being asked to pass a genocide resolution for the third time? As is well known, the House of Representatives twice adopted resolutions acknowledging the Armenian Genocide, in 1975 and 1984. What would Armenians gain by adopting the resolution for the third time? And if it passes this year, would another attempt be made to pass it again for the fourth time next year?

     

    Some may be under the mistaken impression that such resolutions would help Armenians obtain restitution from Turkey for their confiscated lands and stolen possessions. This is simply not true. Commemorative resolutions express “the sense” of Congress and do not have the force of law. Furthermore, if these resolutions had any real benefits, Armenians would have taken advantage of them during the decades since their adoption!

     

    On the positive side, the passage of these resolutions have ethical, psychological, and political dimensions. Morality dictates that the mass murder of an entire nation not be forgotten or ignored. Yet, it is the Turkish government’s continued denial of the Armenian Genocide that compels Armenians to present such resolutions to Congress year after year. Regrettably, successive U.S. administrations also share the blame in this sordid affair by aiding and abetting the Turkish denialists, and playing unethical word games with the extermination of 1.5 million innocent men, women and children.

     

    The psychological advantage of passing such a resolution is the satisfaction received by descendants of genocide victims when their loss and pain are acknowledged by the legislature of the world’s greatest democracy.

     

    The political raucous, whenever an Armenian Genocide resolution is introduced in Congress, is due to the Turkish government’s scandalous behavior. Dozens of commemorative resolutions on a variety of issues are adopted by the U.S. Congress each year, yet not a single one makes the news. Because Turkish leaders create such mayhem by making threats against the United States, dispatching high-level delegations to Washington, hiring powerful lobbying firms, and spending valuable political capital, they end up making millions of people aware of the facts of the Armenian Genocide. While the Turkish intent is to cover up the mass murder of Armenians almost a century ago, their berserk reaction inadvertently succeeds in publicizing to the whole world the dastardly crimes committed by their forefathers.

     

    Hopefully, the Turkish government would once again resort to its normal bullying tactics, thereby attracting the attention of the international community to the Armenian Genocide issue. The newly introduced resolution can only benefit from such Turkish-generated publicity, since the Republican-dominated House is not likely to act on it anytime soon, not that the more sympathetic Democrats had a greater degree of enthusiasm to bring it to a vote late last year, when they were in power!

     

    Certainly, Turkish officials could be even more helpful should they create unexpected crises with the United States, thus forcing the hand of both the Democratic administration and Republican House leadership to support the genocide resolution. Meanwhile, the Armenian-American community would keep the issue alive and ready to be triggered at the opportune moment, causing the Turkish side to spend millions of dollars in on-going lobbying efforts!

     

    Such an opportunity may come later this month with a possible bloody confrontation between the second Turkish “humanitarian” flotilla and Israel’s Navy, which could trigger the ire of U.S. and Israeli leaders, compelling them to put the pending Genocide resolutions to a vote in their respective legislatures. While Armenians would resent seeing the genocide issue used as a political football, they may not have much of a choice, since they have been just as offended when the resolution was not being adopted for all the wrong reasons!

     

    Going beyond the genocide issue, Armenian-Americans may introduce several other resolutions in Congress this year involving Armenian-Turkish relations:

    — Urging Turkey to return the expropriated Armenian churches to the Armenian Patriarchate of Istanbul, allowing them to function as churches, not museums, mosques, or touristic sites;

    — Honoring the distinguished jurist Raphael Lemkin who coined the term genocide, influenced by the mass murder of Armenians in 1915;

    — Advocating the lifting of the blockade of Armenia imposed by Turkey and Azerbaijan; and

    — Supporting the protection of human rights of all minorities in Turkey (Alevis, Armenians, Assyrians, Greeks, Jews, and Kurds).

     

    With the upcoming congressional and presidential elections, and unexpected developments in the Eastern Mediterranean, we may be facing a hectic and chaotic political season. It is critical for Armenian-Americans and their supporters to remain well informed, active, and committed to the pursuit of Armenian interests.