|
Morgenthau’s Great Granddaughter doesn’t
By Harut Sassounian Publisher, The California Courier
Hundreds of Armenians turned out at UCLA last Thursday night to hear with great apprehension Hasan Cemal, the grandson of Cemal Pasha — one of the top three Turkish butchers of the Armenian nation. This unique and controversial event, titled “From Der Zor to Dzidzernagapert: A Conversation with Hasan Cemal,” was organized by AGBU Asbeds.
Understandably, there was great tension in the air. The large hall was filled to capacity and many were turned away due to lack of room. The presence of armed policemen and security guards inside the hall was both reassuring and disturbing. Cemal confirmed that he was cautioned against coming to Los Angeles, but fortunately everything proceeded calmly. The most shocking thing that evening was not what Cemal said, but what another speaker, Dr. Pamela Steiner, the great granddaughter of Amb. Henry Morgenthau, did not say!
Kurken Berksanlar, Chairman of ABGU Asbeds, welcomed everyone to “an open-minded conversation.” While admitting that some Armenians view with great suspicion Turks who acknowledge the Genocide, he believed that “progressive” Turks, who are speaking openly about the evens of 1915…, appear to be above and beyond the reach and control of today’s Turkish government.” Berksanlar then introduced the keynote speaker Hasan Cemal and the two discussants, Dr. Pamela Steiner, and Prof. Richard Hovannisian.
A columnist at Milliyet newspaper, Cemal immediately won over his skeptical audience by greeting them in Armenian — “parev harkeli paregamner” — and telling them: “I came here to open my heart and open my mind to you…. I know your pain, your grief of Genocide, your grief of Meds Yeghern.” Ignoring Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code which bans the use of the term Armenian Genocide, he courageously repeated those words several more times during his talk. He also condemned the Turkish government’s denial of the Armenian Genocide, calling it “colluding in the crime!”
Cemal described his deeply moving 2008 visit to the Armenian Genocide Monument in Yerevan, where he laid three carnations in memory of his close friend, Hrant Dink, the Armenian journalist who was assassinated in Istanbul by Turkish extremists. While visiting Yerevan, he had a startling encounter with Armen Gevorkyan, grandson of the man who in 1922 assassinated his grandfather, Cemal Pasha.
Cemal described the progress made in Turkey during the past three decades on the recognition of the Armenian Genocide, going from total denialism to an apology campaign, restoration of Armenian churches, and holding academic conferences on this topic. He asked Armenians to come to Turkey to participate in the “recovery of memory.” He urged them never to forget the past, without becoming its captives.
While Cemal’s candid remarks left a good impression on the audience, Dr. Steiner turned off the attendees with her adamant and intentional refusal to use the word genocide. Instead, she used such typical Turkish denialist terminology as “tragedy,” “suffering,” and “events of 1915.” As director of the Inter-Communal Trust-Building Project, she spoke about “possible steps towards building trust between Armenians and Turks.” She stunned the audience by asking Armenians to acknowledge that “the Turkish people [who] suffered horrendously during World War I … need and deserve acknowledgment for that!” As if that request was not outrageous enough, she went on to urge Armenians to “consider acknowledging Turkish suffering before they receive an acknowledgment for theirs!”
During the question and answer period, when I pointed out the irony of Cemal Pasha’s grandson freely using the term Armenian Genocide, while the great granddaughter of Amb. Morgenthau would not, Dr. Steiner’s response was inadequate. Her justification was that she was playing the role of a “facilitator,” seeking “conciliation” between Armenians and Turks.
The final discussant, Prof. Hovannisian, in a stern voice, gave a polite, yet powerful response to the previous speakers. He told Hasan Cemal that the large Armenian audience had come not to listen to him as a Turkish journalist, but as the grandson of Cemal Pasha. He explained that understanding the Turkish perpetrators’ mindset cannot in any way justify their actions. He cautioned everyone not to equate Armenian suffering resulting from intentional destruction with the suffering of Turks as a result of war. He emphasized that Armenians were seeking not only recognition, but, more importantly, restitution of their confiscated properties. He urged the Turkish government to return the hundreds of Armenian churches in Turkey to the Armenian Patriarchate of Istanbul. Finally, in a direct allusion to Dr. Steiner, Prof. Hovannisian emphasized that “conciliation” required “acts of contrition.” His remarks were greeted with a standing ovation.
I found Cemal to be both candid and brave. He could have easily avoided the use of the term Armenian Genocide, maintaining that doing so could land him in jail. However, he made no excuses and used the genocide term several times. Considering his grandfather responsible for “the Great Catastrophe,” he described today’s Turkey as “a manic-depressive country!”
Although it is not easy to forget that Hasan Cemal is the grandson of one of the three masterminds of the Armenian Genocide, it would be wrong to hold children responsible for the sins of their parents. His position has dramatically evolved since his Boston appearance two years ago, when he avoided the term Armenian Genocide. I asked him privately at the end of his UCLA talk if he was not concerned that he could be taken to court for using the word genocide. Even though he said he did not think so, he found it important enough to mention my concern in a column he wrote in Milliyet upon his return to Istanbul.
The only sour note in Cemal’s words that evening was his rejection of demands for the return of Armenian territories from Turkey. Nevertheless, it is not surprising to hear a Turk, no matter how tolerant, defend his country’s territorial integrity. He did state, however, that the Turkish government should apologize to Armenians and pay compensation to them.
On the other hand, Dr. Steiner, as a Jewish-American and direct descendant of Amb. Morgenthau, cannot be excused for her persistent refusal to use the term genocide, despite her self-avowed good intentions. Anyone who does not acknowledge the truth of the Armenian Genocide loses the moral authority to play a constructive role in Armenian-Turkish relations. One cannot remain neutral between a victim and victimizer. She should heed the wise words of Holocaust survivor and Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel who stated: “Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim!”
As facilitator between the two communities, Dr. Steiner probably believes that she should not take sides. But telling the truth is not taking sides between Armenians and Turks, anymore than acknowledging the Holocaust is siding with Jews. Furthermore, it is not clear what exactly her role is as facilitator. Genocide is not a dispute that requires the services of a mediator. How can she reconcile two nations without the victimizer first making amends for what her own great grandfather called “The Murder of a Nation!”
Two days after her talk at UCLA, Dr. Steiner sent me a lengthy e-mail explaining further her role as facilitator and insisting that Amb. Morgenthau would have supported her work. I cannot pretend to know her great grandfather better than her, but being familiar with the Ambassador’s humanitarian efforts during and after the Genocide, I have no doubt that he would have done everything possible to bring justice to Armenians, rather than remaining neutral between the perpetrators and their victims. |
Category: Harut Sassounian
Harut Sassounian is the Publisher of The California Courier, founded in 1958. His weekly editorials, translated into several languages, are reprinted in scores of U.S. and overseas publications and posted on countless websites.<p>
He is the author of “The Armenian Genocide: The World Speaks Out, 1915-2005, Documents and Declarations.”
As President of the Armenia Artsakh Fund, he has administered the procurement and delivery of $970 million of humanitarian assistance to Armenia and Artsakh during the past 34 years. As Senior Vice President of Kirk Kerkorian’s Lincy Foundation, he oversaw $240 million of infrastructure projects in Armenia.
From 1978 to 1982, Mr. Sassounian worked as an international marketing executive for Procter & Gamble in Geneva, Switzerland. He was a human rights delegate at the United Nations for 10 years. He played a leading role in the recognition of the Armenian Genocide by the U.N. Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities in 1985.
Mr. Sassounian has a Master’s Degree in International Affairs from Columbia University, and a Master’s in Business Administration from Pepperdine University.
-
Cemal Pasha’s Grandson Says Genocide,
-
Armenian Attorneys Respond To Court Appeal of German Companies
By Harut Sassounian
Publisher, The California Courier
Attorneys for Armenian heirs of life insurance policyholders filed a powerful response last month to the petition of German companies seeking a rehearing by a federal appeals court. The majority of a three-member panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled in favor of the Armenians’ right to pursue their demand for unpaid claims, reversing an earlier ruling by the majority of the same panel of judges.
The response of the Armenian lawyers dealt a devastating blow not only to the German insurance companies, but also to the Republic of Turkey which had shamelessly filed a “friend of the court” petition in support of the German defendants. It is ironic that instead of Germany, the Turkish government is the one objecting to the lawsuit against the German firms!
The Armenian claimants asked the Court of Appeals to deny the German petition for a rehearing. The German defendants had based their appeal on the contention that the California State statute extending the deadline for filing claims against insurance companies was unconstitutional because the law’s endorsement of the Armenian Genocide contradicts the federal government’s foreign policy.
The Armenian attorneys contested the German defendants’ claim by asserting that “there have been no negative foreign policy repercussions from statutes and/or enactments promulgated” by more than 40 U.S. states on the Armenian Genocide. The attorneys further stated that while several U.S. Presidents have objected to congressional resolutions on the Armenian Genocide, there have been many other statements by the federal executive and legislative branches in favor of such recognition. The attorneys specifically mentioned the two congressional resolutions on the Armenian Genocide adopted by the U.S. House of Representatives in 1975 and 1984, as well as Pres. Reagan’s reference to the Armenian Genocide in his Presidential Proclamation of 1981.
The attorneys asserted that previous U.S. Administrations maintained a “deafening silence” while more than 40 U.S. states recognized the Armenian Genocide, without constituting any threat to U.S. foreign policy. Furthermore, even if past Administrations were opposed to congressional resolutions on the Genocide issue, there would be no reason to object to local and state resolutions, as they would have no impact on U.S. foreign policy.
The Armenian attorneys cited previous court decisions asserting that State statutes could be challenged on the basis of the foreign affairs doctrine only if they conflicted with “an expressed unmistakable executive treaty, Congressional enactment or executive policy.” The attorneys reasoned that the courts had ruled a similar California statute on the Holocaust to be invalid because the federal government had created a Presidential Advisory Commission on Holocaust Assets in the United States, obviating the need for separate Holocaust-related lawsuits. No federal commission has been established to regulate lawsuits related to the Armenian Genocide. Another key difference in the two cases is that the Armenian plaintiffs are not seeking restitution, but only the recovery of insurance benefits owed to them.
The Armenian attorneys also made the convincing argument that even if previous Administrations have had contradictory stands on the Armenian Genocide, “there is no evidence of an express federal policy banning the term ‘Armenian Genocide’ in legislative enactments by the States.”
The Armenian lawyers proceeded to slam the “friend of the court” petition filed by the Republic of Turkey, which claimed that the California statute conflicted with federal foreign policy on the Armenian Genocide. The Armenian attorneys asserted that “Turkey does not create or dictate United States foreign policy; only the United States government can do that.” Turkey’s allegation that “the current Administration opposes recognition of the Armenian Genocide are flatly contradicted by President Barack Obama’s own statements. As Senator and presidential candidate, he spoke forcefully on the Armenian Genocide. As President, he reasserted: “I have consistently stated my own view of what occurred in 1915, and my view of that history has not changed.”
Finally, the Armenian legal team pointed out that this case also safeguards the right of the State of California to regulate insurance companies operating within its borders. Thus, overturning the California statute on Armenian insurance policyholders would “impair California’s interest in providing individuals with access to its courts to resolve disputes concerning insurance policies held by them and issued by companies doing business in the State.”
Based on these powerful arguments — and the “friend of the court” briefs filed by several major law firms and organizations to be discussed in a future column — it is hoped that the federal Court of Appeals will rule against the German insurance companies’ petition for a rehearing. Should the German firms lose the appeal, they have the final recourse of petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court.
It is critical for Armenians to win these appeals in order to protect not only the interests of the heirs of insurance policyholders, but also to prevent Turkish denialists from exploiting this lawsuit to invalidate decades of efforts in support of Genocide recognition in the United States.
-
Sassounian’s column of March 17, 2011
Lawsuit Against U.S. Federal Reserve
Seeks Armenian Gold Looted by Turkey
Publisher, The California Courier
The Glendale-based nonprofit Center for Armenian Remembrance (CAR) sued the U.S. Federal Reserve on March 4, seeking information on its acquisition of a large amount of Armenian gold looted by the Ottoman government in 1915.
CAR filed the lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act. The gold, originally valued at five million Turkish Gold Liras ($22 million dollars), is now estimated to be worth hundreds of millions of dollars. The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York recently claimed that they have no records of any Armenian gold in their possession.
It was not easy to trace the circumstances under which the Armenian-owned gold was transferred from Istanbul to the United States almost a century ago. The results of our research on the convoluted series of transactions are summarized below:
The Ottoman government had seized the gold and other valuables belonging to Armenians deported and killed in the 1915 genocide, expropriating their bank accounts and safe deposit boxes. The Ottoman Liquidation Commission used a complex set of bank transfers to hide the trail of this “blood money.” The Turkish Treasury placed the looted Armenian gold initially in the German Deutschebank in Istanbul. In 1916, the gold was transferred to the Bleichroeder Bank in Vienna, and from there moved to the Reichsbank (German Central Bank) in Berlin, and deposited in the account of Ottoman Public Debt.
At the end of World War I, when the Allied Powers demanded reparations from Germany and its Ottoman Turkish ally, German officials had no choice but to comply with that request, agreeing to turn over to the Allies the Armenian gold held by the Reichsbank. Accordingly, the expropriated Armenian gold was transferred to France and Great Britain in 1921.
A subsequent British document confirms the true ownership of this gold. On September 26 1924, leaders of the two main opposition parties in Great Britain, Liberal Party leader and former Prime Minister H.H. Asquith and Conservative Party leader and future Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin sent a memorandum to Prime Minister Ramsey MacDonald pleading for British assistance to Armenians in view of their support for the Allied cause and the great suffering they endured during World War I. The two British leaders argued that “the sum of 5 million pounds (Turkish gold) deposited by the Turkish Government in Berlin in 1916, and taken over by the Allies after the Armistice, was in large part (perhaps wholly) Armenian money. After the enforced deportation of the Armenians in 1915, their bank accounts, both current and deposit, were transferred by order to the State Treasury at Constantinople. This fact enabled the Turks to send five million sterling to the Reichsbank, Berlin, in exchange for a new issue of notes.”
Subsequently, instead of returning the Armenian gold to its original owners, Britain and France sold it to the United States Government through J.P. Morgan Bank in Paris, by exchanging it for U.S. Treasury Certificates.
On January 29, 1925, Senator William H. King submitted resolution 319 to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee demanding that the looted gold be “set aside in trust” for Armenians. The resolution stated: “The Turkish Government had arbitrarily seized and transferred to the Turkish treasury all bank accounts, both current and deposit, belonging to Armenians, by which Armenian gold in the sum of 5 million Turkish pounds, amounting to $22,450,000, was transferred to the Turkish treasury, which gold was afterwards deposited by the Turkish Government in the Reichsbank at Berlin…. Said deposit of Armenian gold in the Reichsbank at Berlin was by article 259 of the Treaty of Versailles transferred and surrendered to the principal allied and associated powers, including the United States…. Said deposit in equity and right belongs to the Armenians from whom the same was seized, or to their legal representatives…. Said deposit should be set aside in trust to be hereafter paid over to the persons from whom said gold was seized, or to their lawful representatives….”
This gold is just a small portion of the billions of dollars of Armenian assets stolen by Turkey and various other countries during and after the Armenian Genocide. The restitution of all looted Armenian assets, wherever they may be, should be one of the highest priorities for those pursuing justice for the horrendous crimes committed against the Armenian nation.
-
Sassounian’s column of March 10, 2011
Who Rules Turkey: Erdogan or Aliyev? Publisher, The California Courier
Turkish leaders often brag about their success in transforming Turkey from a country with a failing economy and serious domestic problems, to a robust regional power that projects its influence far and wide.
Indeed, Turkey has the second largest army in NATO after the United States, and the 15th largest economy in the world in terms of GDP. As a self-appointed mediator and powerbroker, Turkey often meddles in regional and international hot spots. Such hegemonic behavior has earned Prime Minister Recep Erdogan the nickname of “Sultan” who is hell-bent on restoring the long-defunct Ottoman Empire.
The founding principle of Turkey’s expansionist foreign policy is the often repeated mantra — “zero problems with neighboring states” — which has not been always successfully implemented. While Turkey has managed to improve its relations with Syria and Iran, its disingenuous reconciliation efforts with Armenia have been a total failure. Its bungled attempt to create the false impression of better relations with Armenia has not fooled anyone, least of all Diaspora Armenians who are painfully familiar with such deceptive Turkish tactics.
Apparently, the one leader who was tricked by Turkey’s fake gestures of reconciliation with Armenia was Pres. Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan. Ironically, Turkey’s policy of “zero problems with neighbors” had the unexpected and counter effect of creating problems with Azerbaijan where none existed before.
Azerbaijan’s President became furious upon learning that Ankara was about to sign the Armenia-Turkey Protocols which called for opening the border between the two countries and establishing diplomatic relations. Turkish assurances that the Protocols were simply an attempt to extort concessions from Armenia did not mollify Azerbaijan. Pres. Aliyev demanded the immediate termination of the negotiated agreement, because he did not want Armenia’s blockade lifted until Artsakh (Karabagh) was returned to Azerbaijan.
Even though the Protocols were clearly in the national interest of Turkey, Prime Minister Erdogan buckled under Azeri pressure and abandoned their ratification. Why would he obey Baku’s orders and not conclude an agreement that is clearly in his country’s best interest? Here are some likely explanations: First, Turkey receives some of its energy supplies from Azerbaijan. Second, Azeris living in Turkey strongly oppose the Protocols. Third, Erdogan is sensitive to accusations that he is flirting with his Armenian adversaries, at the expense of “brotherly” Azerbaijan!
Of course, a truly strong leader would be able to defend his country’s national interests and withstand both external and internal pressures. Despite all of his boisterous talk during his global travels, the fact remains that Erdogan’s rule is neither secure nor stable. While he presents himself to his foreign counterparts as the leader of an all-powerful country, he has plenty of enemies at home who are constantly plotting his demise!
Last week, fresh evidence surfaced about Prime Minister Erdogan’s tenuous hold on power and Pres. Aliyev’s ability to exploit his weakness. The former Mayor of Kars revealed that Azerbaijan’s President had urged Erdogan to have the partially completed Armenia-Turkey Friendship Monument demolished. The Turkish leader dutifully obliged after a short visit to Kars. Using the pretext that the statue was grotesque and ugly, he demanded its demolition. The former Mayor told students at Marmara University that the statue was torn down at the explicit request of Aliyev. The Kars city council subsequently voted to destroy the massive monument. By promptly following Aliyev’s orders, Erdogan tarnished his own reputation around the world. Some likened his unsavory action to the Taliban who had destroyed the sacred Buddha statues in Afghanistan!
It is a bizarre situation when the leader of a small state is able to impose his will repeatedly on his more powerful neighbor. When Aliyev demanded that Ankara not ratify the Armenia-Turkey Protocols, “Big Brother” obliged and carried out the request of Aliyev Junior. The spoiled “Junior Brother” then demanded that a Turkish statue be demolished. That order was also carried out with no questions asked.
If Erdogan thinks that by appeasing Aliyev he will be able to secure Turkey’s energy supplies, he is sadly mistaken. Appeasement is a slippery slope that paves the way for more concessions. Having learned that his wishes are unquestionably carried out by Turkey’s leaders, Aliyev will now escalate his demands. What would he ask Erdogan to do next? How far is the all-powerful “Sultan” willing to go to accommodate the demands of the junior bully next door? Who calls the shots in Ankara: Erdogan or Aliyev?
Armenians, however, have no reason to be dissatisfied that Aliyev is bullying Erdogan. By demanding that Turkey not ratify the Protocols, Aliyev inadvertently saved Armenia from an ill-advised agreement; and by urging Erdogan to have the statue in Kars torn down, he made the Turkish leader the laughing stock of the civilized world!
-
Istanbul Armenians Document Violations of Minority Rights in Turkey
By Harut Sassounian
Publisher, The California Courier
Two recent documents from Istanbul shed new light on violations of minority rights in Turkey. The authors of these reports make cautious, yet accurate assessments of the problems facing the Armenian, Greek and Jewish communities.
The first document, dated February 2011, is titled: “Report on non-Muslim Minorities.” It is written by three well-known Istanbul Armenians: Krikor Doshemeciyan, Yervant Ozuzun, and Murat Bebiroglu.
The authors’ stated aim is to seek solutions to the problems of minority populations in Turkey, at a time when the government is planning to revise the constitution to bolster its chances of joining the European Union. Even though the writers do not indicate as to whether their report has been submitted to Turkish officials, the authorities undoubtedly are aware of its contents. It has been posted in Turkish on the Istanbul-based hyetert.com website. The main points of the report are presented below in translation:
The authors trace the difficulties facing the non-Muslim minorities to the establishment of the Republic of Turkey in 1923 as a monolithic, homogeneous state based on a single culture and religion. This policy had serious consequences for the minorities, forcing them to flee or be assimilated.
The non-Muslim minorities were viewed either as foreigners or internal enemies of
the state . One cannot find a single policeman or officer who is a member of a minority group. The 1934 displacement of the Jews of Thrace, the exorbitant 1942 Wealth Tax on minorities, and the large-scale attacks on Greeks in Istanbul on Sept. 6-7, 1955, resulted in the impoverishment of these communities and the devastation of their culture. Such discriminatory policies and brutal attacks led to a significant decrease in Turkey’s minority population from 350,000 in 1927 to 80,000 today, while the number of Turks increased six-fold.The writers point out that the Turkish government has recently returned a few of the properties belonging to minority institutions that were confiscated starting in 1974. Due to contradictions and shortcomings in the new law on minority foundations, the returned properties can not be put to good use, because none of the communities are allowed to repair them.
The government has further violated Articles 41 and 42 of the 1923 Lausanne Treaty which obligated Turkey to provide funding and facilities to non-Muslim minorities for educational, religious, and charitable purposes, and to protect their religious establishments. Beyond the Lausanne Treaty, several provisions of UN conventions and the European Convention on Human Rights are continuously violated by the Turkish government.
One of the most serious problems facing these minorities is the Turkish government’s non-recognition of the Armenian Patriarchate and the Jewish Rabbinate as legal entities. The Greek Patriarchate was finally recognized as a legal entity last year.
Another problem is the government’s appointment of Turkish Vice Principals to oversee minority schools which causes deep mistrust. The preparation of new teachers and clergymen has also become impossible due to the closing down of religious seminaries by the Turkish state. The writers of the report request that clergymen be allowed to teach religion in minority schools, as they had done previously.
In conclusion, the authors urge the Turkish authorities to take into account all of the foregoing legal issues when drafting a “democratic and modern” constitution.
The second document is an interview conducted by Agounk Center’s Meline Anoumyan with Archbishop Aram Ateshian, Vicar General of the Armenian Patriarchate of Istanbul, as the Patriarchate is preparing to celebrate its 550th anniversary. According to Abp. Ateshian, 67,000 Armenians live in Istanbul, while another 3,000 reside in the country’s interior — 500 in Ankara, 300 in Iskenderoun, 70 in Sepastia, 50 in Malatia, and 20 families in Kharpert. In addition, the Vicar General revealed that there are 100,000 Armenians in Turkey who fear disclosing their true identity. This figure does not include the undocumented workers from Armenia who are not allowed to get married and whose children cannot be baptized by the Patriarchate due to their illegal status.
Abp. Ateshian is pleased that a few of the confiscated properties have been returned to Armenian foundations in recent years. He disclosed that there are 44 functioning Armenian Apostolic churches in Turkey — 37 in Istanbul, 3 in Iskenderoun, 2 in Dickranagerd, 1 in Mardin, and 1 in Gessaria. In addition, there are 12 Armenian schools associated with the Patriarchate, and Armenian Catholics have 3 schools and 10 churches. A total of 3,000 Armenian Catholics and 1,000 Armenian Protestants live in Turkey.
It is encouraging that after nine decades Armenian religious and lay leaders in Istanbul have mustered enough courage to raise their voices in defense of their violated civil rights!
-
Sassounian’s column of Feb. 24, 2011
Three Questions Turkey’s Ambassador
Would not Answer…
By Harut Sassounian
Publisher, The California Courier
Turkey’s Ambassador to the United States, Namik Tan, spoke at the University of Southern California’s Center on Public Diplomacy on February 16. His topic was: “Public Diplomacy: The Turkish Experience.”
The Turkish Ambassador assumed his post in Washington last February, but shortly after his arrival was recalled to Ankara when the House Foreign Affairs Committee adopted a resolution acknowledging the Armenian Genocide.
Amb. Tan is no stranger to Washington, where he served as the Embassy’s Counselor from 1991 to 1995 and First Counselor from 1997 to 2001. During his long diplomatic career, he also was Ambassador to Israel, Second Secretary at the Turkish Embassy in Russia, and Deputy Undersecretary at the Foreign Ministry in Ankara.
During his first visit to Los Angeles this month, the smooth-talking Ambassador managed to meet with Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, spoke to the World Affairs Council, and held meetings with the American Jewish Committee, Turkish community leaders, and the Editorial Board of the Los Angeles Times.
Prior to his arrival, the Association of Turkish-Americans of Southern California had posted a note on its website, urging local Turks to attend the Ambassador’s public appearances and “show visible support… especially in the face of usual anticipated detractors.”
Running the risk of being labeled “a detractor,” I decided to attend the Ambassador’s talk which ironically was held at USC’s Ronald Tutor Campus Center — named after its Armenian benefactor, the son of Al Tutor (Varjabedian), a genocide survivor. I made my way through scores of U.S. Secret Service agents, campus security, and Turkish bodyguards who almost outnumbered the guests at the event. Even more surprising was the fact that there were only a handful of Armenians and Turks among the attendees, consisting mostly of USC students and professors.
Amb. Tan, who spoke in fluent English for half an hour, presented his country in the best possible light. Since he had not addressed Armenian issues, I decided to pose the following interrelated questions:The Turkish government recently renovated a couple of Armenian churches. There were thousands of Armenian churches and monasteries throughout Turkey before the genocide, most of which were converted into mosques, warehouses and stables, and many were destroyed. Isn’t it time for the Turkish government to turn over these Armenian churches to the Armenian Patriarchate of Istanbul? Also, after Armenians were deported and killed, they left behind their houses, lands and belongings. Isn’t time for the Turkish government to return these properties to the heirs of their original Armenian owners? Finally, regarding the Armenian Genocide issue, Pres. Obama declared in his statement of last April 24: “95 years ago, 1.5 million Armenians were massacred or marched to death in the final days of the Ottoman Empire.” If you say that is not true, wouldn’t you be calling the President of the United States a liar?
Here is Amb. Tan’s response:
“This hate should end. We should put it behind as early as possible. That’s why we are trying to reach out to our Armenian friends and we have signed the [Armenia-Turkey] Protocols. In these Protocols, one of the suggestions that we put is that we want an independent historical inquiry commission which will include representatives from every country — from US, France, and whichever country you like. They will study those claims and we will see the decision all together. But history cannot be legislated. This is not the way that history could be judged. So, I think this has created a lot of ill feelings in our societies. Armenians have given a lot of contribution to our social life historically. Therefore we need to continue such kind of engagements, but this hate should be stopped.”
I politely reminded Amb. Tan that he had not answered my questions. He responded by saying: “That is my answer.” He probably was not prepared to face such politically sensitive questions. By sidestepping my queries, he left a negative impression on his audience, despite his highly-skilled diplomatic credentials.
At the program’s conclusion, Amb. Tan walked over, shook my hand, and thanked me for my questions. I told him that his assessment was inaccurate, as the Armenian issue had nothing to do with “hatred.” I explained that a great crime was committed by Turkey against the Armenian nation, and that Armenians are not blinded by “hatred,” but simply demanding “justice.” The Ambassador turned around and walked away with a mysterious smile on his face!
Even though Amb. Tan avoided answering my questions, our public exchange had the beneficial effect of exposing the university audience, the Ambassador and his entourage to the just demands of the Armenian people for the crimes committed by Turkey. Indeed, it is also imperative to challenge Turkish officials at every opportunity, so that neither they nor their audience would be able to ignore the Armenian grievances.
