Category: Harut Sassounian

 

 

The Turkish government has recently embarked on an aggressive campaign, pressuring a large number of European and American museums to return antiquities that were taken out of the country during Ottoman times.

 

While it is understandable that nations would want to recover ancient relics that were part of their patrimony, in the Turkish case there are certain anomalies that merit closer scrutiny.

 

If these valuable relics were taken out of Turkey in recent times without proper authorization, one could argue that the Turkish government is perhaps entitled to them, even though they emanate from ancient civilizations that predate the conquest of that part of the world by Ottoman Turks.

 

It is ironic that the country claiming these antiquities is one of the history’s biggest looters and pilferers of other nations’ cultural heritage such as churches, monasteries, monuments, and schools belonging to Armenians, Assyrians, and Greeks. One must have clean hands before having the audacity of accusing others of theft.

 

Most shocking of all, the Turkish government is preparing a lawsuit against the British Museum in the European Court of Human Rights based on Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights which states: “Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.”

 

According to an article by Ceylan Yeginsu in the International Business Times (IBT), using human rights laws to recover antiquities is a novel concept never before used by any country. It is incredible that one of the biggest violators of human rights in the world is getting ready to sue the British Museum ostensibly for violating the rights of Turkish citizens.

 

Turkey is planning to file this lawsuit on January 30 to reclaim the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus, “one of the Seven Wonders of the ancient world.” The British Museum, however, argues that it had not misappropriated this ancient relic. Olivia Rickman, press and PR manager of the Museum, told IBT that the sculptures from the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus in the Museum’s collection were acquired in 1846, 1857 and 1859. Rickman further states that “these pieces were acquired during the course of two British initiatives, both with firmans [legal permits issued by the Ottoman authorities] that granted permission for the excavation of the site and removal of the material from the site (1857 and 1859) and Bodrum Castle (1846) to the British Museum.”

 

IBT quoted Charlotte Woodhead, an expert in cultural heritage law at the University of Warwick in England, stating that she was not aware of human rights legislation ever being used before to reclaim such objects. “If a claim is brought before the European Court of Human Rights, it will be interesting to see on what basis it is argued and also to see what the outcome is,” Woodhead stated.

 

Turkey has also used an Ottoman law banning the export of artifacts in order to claim ownership of ancient artifacts from major museums around the globe, such as the Louvre in Paris, the Getty in Los Angeles, New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Cleveland Museum of Art, and Harvard’s Dumbarton Oaks. If Turkey can claim Ottoman-era assets, then it must be held responsible for Ottoman-era liabilities such as plunder, territorial conquest, and genocide!

 

By filing such questionable lawsuits, Turkey’s real intent is to intimidate foreign museums into returning the claimed artifacts. If the museums do not cave in to Turkish pressure and refuse to turn over these items, it would be interesting to see if the Turkish government would still go ahead with its threatened lawsuits. The big risk for Turkey is that if the courts reject its claims, no museum would ever agree to return any of the demanded antiquities.

 

However, should a foreign museum wish to return an ancient relic to Turkey, it should make it conditional on the Turkish government officially identifying the true origin of the object, such as Hittite, Roman, Greek, Armenian or Assyrian. This is necessitated by the fact that Turkey has omitted all references to the origin of ancient Armenian churches and monuments from inscriptions presently affixed to the entrance of these sites.

 

Turkish efforts to reclaim antiquities from the world’s great museums provide a unique opportunity for Armenians to publicize the Turkey’s misuse and outright destruction of thousands of Armenian churches, monasteries, schools, cemeteries and castles.

 

Armenians should petition the European Court of Human Rights, objecting to the return of any artifacts to Turkey, unless its government makes a legally binding pledge to preserve and identify all remaining Armenian monuments on its territory. The next step would be to demand that Turkey return the more than 2,000 churches to the Armenian Patriarchate of Istanbul.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Most political observers predict a contentious hearing in the Armed Services Committee and later in the full Senate on the confirmation of former Sen. Chuck Hagel, Pres. Obama’s nominee as the next Secretary of Defense.

 

During his 12 years in the Senate, Hagel, a Republican, managed to offend a slew of constituencies, including conservative Senators of his own political party, as well as Jewish Americans, Armenian-Americans, Cuban-Americans, and gays.

In order to appease his critics and secure Senate’s confirmation, Sen. Hagel has been busy in recent days issuing retractions and apologies to various groups.

 

Upon learning of Hagel’s nomination, Jewish-American organizations harshly criticized him for being soft on Iran and hard on Israel, and for stating that “the Jewish lobby” in the United States “intimidates a lot of people.”

 

Sen. Hagel responded by telling The Lincoln Journal Star on January 7 that his record demonstrates “unequivocal, total support for Israel” and endorsement of tough economic sanctions against Iran. There is “not one shred of evidence that I’m anti-Israeli, not one [Senate] vote that matters hurt Israel,” Hagel told the newspaper.

 

The nominee also backed down from his opposition to ambassadorial nominee James Hormel in 1998 whom he had called “openly, aggressively gay.” He issued an apology last week to gay rights groups, stating that his earlier comments were “insensitive.”

 

However, the nominee for Defense Secretary remains unapologetic regarding his highly insensitive remarks on the Armenian Genocide.

 

During a press conference in Yerevan on June 2, 2005, Sen. Hagel expressed his opposition to a pending congressional resolution on the Armenian Genocide: “Historians and others should deal with it. But, I don’t think that the United States Government should become involved in the issue based on a resolution or any other way. What happened in 1915, happened in 1915. As one United States Senator, I think the better way to deal with this is to leave it open to historians and others to decide what happened and why.” This happens to be the exact position of the denialist Turkish regime on the Armenian Genocide.

Sen. Hagel went on to tell Armenian journalists: “The fact is that this region needs to move forward. We need to find a lasting peace between Turkey and Armenia and the other nations of this region. I am not sure that by going back and dealing with that in some way that causes one side or the other to be put in difficult spot, helps move the peace process forward.” These comments were simply intended to cover-up the Turkish crime of genocide.

 

Sen. Hagel’s pronouncements against the recognition of the Armenian Genocide are highlighted by his expressions of admiration for Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of the Turkish Republic, who continued the genocide initiated by the predecessor regime. It is not surprising that the Ataturk Society of America presented Sen. Hagel, the Ataturk Society’s Leadership Award on May 19, 2005, two weeks before going to Armenia and endorsing the Turkish government’s views on the Armenian Genocide.

 

Hurriyet newspaper quoted Sen. Hagel as making the following highly laudatory statement about the Father of modern Turkey in a 2008 speech: “Ataturk is one of the most valuable leaders of the 21^st century. Children in the United States know nothing about this great leader. They should teach about him in schools and write about him in history books. Ataturk played a leading role in shaping today’s world.”

 

Armenian-Americans and human rights activists, who are deeply concerned about Hagel’s nomination, were quoted in an article by Adam Kredo in Washington Free Beacon titled, “Chuck Hagel has an Armenian Problem.” Here are some of their statements:

 

— “We remain troubled by former Senator Hagel’s acceptance of Ankara’s gag-rule on American honesty about the Armenian Genocide,” ANCA Executive Director Aram Hamparian stated.

— “We expect a rigorous confirmation process which will also serve as an opportunity for Senator Hagel to forthrightly acknowledge the U.S. record on the Armenian Genocide,” stated Bryan Ardouny, Executive Director of the Armenian Assembly of America.

— “On the eve of the Holocaust, Hitler mockingly asked, ‘Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?’ Not Chuck Hagel, apparently,” stated Rafael Medoff, Director of the David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies.

— “What Chuck Hagel said in his press conference in Armenia in 2005 regarding the genocide of Armenians by Turks is shameful,” said Walter Reich, former director of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. “In his forthcoming confirmation hearings, senators should confront him with what he said and should expect him to address it.”

— Hagel’s opposition to U.S. recognition of the Armenian genocide “betrays a shocking lack of moral leadership,” stated Thane Rosenbaum, Fordham University Law Professor.

 

Unless Sen. Hagel apologizes for his “insensitive” remarks on the Armenian Genocide, Armenian-Americans should urge the Senate to block his confirmation.

 

 

 

 

 

While political leaders often exaggerate their achievements and brag about the superiority of their nation, such claims become absurd if they are far removed from reality and border on chauvinism and narcissism.

 

When leaders harbor an exaggerated sense of self-importance, they could be easily manipulated by others who exploit their insatiable appetite for flattery. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is one of several high-ranking Turkish officials who may be suffering from such a character flaw.

 

The Turkish media provided extensive coverage to a Los Angeles Times article reporting that “Pres. Obama has logged more phone calls to Erdogan than to any world leader except British Prime Minister David Cameron.” When the two met at the United Nations in New York, Pres. Obama gave Erdogan “more face time than any other world leader,” lasting almost two hours. The US President reportedly praised the Turkish Prime Minister for showing “great leadership.” The L.A. Times specifically noted that Obama even “resorted to flattery” by subsequently phoning Erdogan “to rave about a Turkish basketball tournament.”

 

The Turkish newspaper, Today’s Zaman, published a follow up article further highlighting the close relationship between the two leaders: “Erdogan and Obama’s phone chats reveal Turkey’s ascent.” The article included a photo where the American and Turkish leaders are shaking hands while brimming with wide smiles.

 

Although Prime Minister Erdogan does not look kindly upon anyone who writes unflattering words about him and frequently sues journalists daring to criticize his policies, prominent Turkish commentator Semih Idiz risked imprisonment by writing an article last week in Al-Monitor, titled: “Is Erdogan Aiming to Be a Latter-Day Sultan?” Idiz underlines the Prime Minister’s “authoritarian tendencies and lack of tolerance to any criticism, especially from a free press.”

 

The Turkish journalist writes in great detail about Erdogan’s plans to run for President in August 2014, but not before drafting a new constitution that would transform the current head of state’s ceremonial post into “an executive presidency” that would not be “encumbered by a system of checks and balances.” If elected President, Erdogan would have “the power to dissolve the Parliament, rule by decree and appoint government ministers, senior bureaucrats and jurists without parliamentary approval.”

 

It is not a mere accident that Erdogan recently told Turkish journalists that the American presidential system, with checks and balances that limit the power of the president, is not suitable for Turkey: “The US president cannot appoint an ambassador, he cannot even solely decide on the sale of a helicopter…. That’s why we should create a Turkish-style presidential system.”

 

Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, who used be a serious scholar, appears to be emulating his conceited Prime Minister. Last week, in his opening remarks at the annual conference of Turkish Ambassadors held in Ankara, Davutoglu made a highly arrogant statement claiming that Turkey plays a critical role in world affairs: “Because the global powers know that now history flows through Ankara, parties that ignore Ankara cannot understand history. The one that risks relations with Ankara will take risks in all regional policies…. Those who want to understand history must be present in Ankara, Istanbul and every other place in Turkey, because from now on we will be more actively present in shaping the flow of history.”

 

These preposterous words are uttered by a Foreign Minister who had assumed his current post by pompously declaring that his country pursued a policy of “zero problems with neighbors.” The harsh reality is that Turkey now has almost no neighbors without problems! Indeed, Ankara has serious conflicts with neighboring Armenia, Cyprus, Greece, Iran, Iraq, and Syria!

 

Not to be outdone by his senior colleagues, Turkey’s controversial European Union Affairs Minister, Egemen Bagis, greeted the New Year with a fresh list of outlandish statements: “Today there is no government in Europe which is more reformist than our government. While EU countries are struggling in crisis, our country is experiencing the most democratic, prosperous, modern and transparent period in its history. The ‘sick man’ of yesterday has gotten up and summoned the strength to prescribe medication for today’s Europe…and to share the EU’s burden rather than being a burden to it.”

 

Pres. Obama has discovered that he can get more out of Turkish leaders by honey than vinegar, capitalizing on their overwhelming desire for praise and flattery. The problem is that such lavish praise has turned Turkey into ‘a spoiled brat’ who has become a serious menace to the entire neighborhood!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In keeping with the holiday spirit, my last column of the year is devoted to a light-hearted topic!

 

In a story titled: “Imported Cattle no Bovine Boon for Azerbaijan,” Seadet Akifqizi of the Azerbaijani Service of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) reported that the government of Azerbaijan spent $23 million to import “4,500 pedigree cows from Germany and Austria in an effort to improve livestock quality and boost milk production.” Each European cow was expected to produce 40 liters (10.5 gallons) of milk a day compared to the domestic Azeri cow that yielded only 9 liters (2.4 gallons), Akifqizi wrote.

 

Unfortunately, the project was a failure and the invested funds were wasted. Many of the high-class European cows could not survive the miserable living conditions in Azerbaijan!

 

Baku officials blame farmers for “not caring properly for the imported cows, which apparently require a certain degree of pampering.” Azeri agricultural analyst Vahid Maharramov explains that the cattle brought from overseas “require high-quality feed and special hygiene.”

 

Farmers, on the other hand, complain that they cannot afford to extend such lavish care and attention to the foreign cows, because “it is not cost effective and would lead to a steep increase in the price of milk.”

 

Farmer Tarbiya Yusifova is unhappy that her major investment in imported cows did not pay off: “The price of the milk we produce is expensive for most customers because the hay we buy for the cattle is very expensive.”

 

This is how the government’s ‘lease a cow’ program works: Farmers pay half the price of the cows when leasing them from the state-controlled firm Agrolizinq. The balance is to be paid in three years. Farmers must “have their own sowing area and adhere to strict guidelines for their barns,” Akifqizi explained. “The humidity and lighting needs to be just right, and their diets and hygienic conditions should remind the European cattle of home.”

 

However, conditions in Azerbaijan are far from ideal for the imported cows. When the RFE/RL reporter visited Firudin Hasanov’s farm in the Qushchu village, she learned that the farmer had to send most of his 30 pedigree cows to relatives in the Baku area because he was unable to provide the proper living conditions for them.

 

Akifqizi describes Hasanov’s farm as “a squalid barn that looks like it hasn’t been cleaned for months. It is littered with manure, spiders climb the walls, and flies buzz around the feed containers.” Hasanov explained that he “couldn’t afford to upgrade his barns because in the countryside he can’t sell his milk” at a price that would cover his costs.

 

To make matters worse, farmers have to pay Agrolizinq the full amount of the lease, even if the cows die prematurely. RFE/RL reports that “at least 260 of the imported cows have died since 2009, equal to around $1.3 million in losses.” It is not known how many of these cows committed suicide because they could not stand living in such unbearable conditions!

 

The story takes a more serious turn when the RFE/RL reporter raises serious questions about the price of the European cows and the identity of the companies that imported them.

 

Agricultural analyst Maharramov notes that “the prices Azerbaijani farmers are being asked to pay for the pedigree cows is significantly higher than in other countries.” RFE/RL revealed that “pedigree cattle imported from Austria cost $5,000 per head, as opposed to around $3,000 in Turkey.”

 

According to Agrolizinq, three little-known companies had won the tenders to import European cows to Azerbaijan: Rista Alliance, Ninox Alliance, and Swisspoint Merchants Limited, which was registered in New Zealand from 2009 until 2011. “The website of the New Zealand commercial registry says the firm was directed by a Latvian citizen named Inta Bilder,” RFE/RL discovered. A search of the registry identified “Bilder as the director or shareholder of hundreds of companies. Earlier this year, the Ukrainian newspaper ‘Dzerkalo Tyzhnia’ reported that one of those companies, Falcona Systems, was linked to an alleged fraud worth more than $150 million involving state-owned companies.”

 

Maharramov is suspicious. He told RFE/RL: “Considering that the government directs budget resources [to buy cattle from abroad] hastily and without any preparation, you can suspect that there were some other intentions in this.”

 

Maharramov should be very cautious when talking about imported animals. In 2009, Azeri blogger Emin Milli was jailed for reporting that the government of Azerbaijan had paid exorbitant prices for imported donkeys!

 

 

On the eve of the 90th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide in 2005, Mehmet Ali Birand, a prominent Turkish commentator, wrote an article in Hurriyet urging the Turkish public to be prepared for the upcoming “Armenian tsunami.”

 

Earlier this month, the Turkish newspaper Gazete Kars published a similar editorial titled, “The Armenian preparations for 2015,” alerting Turks of the approaching 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide in 2015, and advising them to take effective counter-measures.

 

The editorial reflects how closely Turks are following Armenian preparations for the Genocide centennial and how anxiously they are weighing the impact of the forthcoming Armenian activities on Turkey.

 

The lengthy column reports that Armenia and the Diaspora are expanding their joint campaign against Turkey on the eve of the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. The article warns that “Armenians through their lies will raise the entire world to its feet” and suggests that “the Republic of Turkey immediately put into action all its resources and take preemptive measures to bring to naught this deception.”

 

Gazete Kars complains that Armenians are “tarnishing Turkey’s reputation by launching powerful attacks on forty fronts. To counter these attacks Turkey must take far greater defensive and offensive measures. There is not a single minute to waste. The world is swallowing their lies.”

 

The editorial proceeds to outline the activities of notable individuals and organizations in preparation for the Armenian Genocide centennial. The newspaper specifically mentions Prof. Taner Akcam, filmmaker Steven Spielberg, the French and Armenian governments, Berlin University, and Hayk Demoyan, Director of the Genocide Museum in Armenia, who is quoted stating: “the struggle for Genocide recognition must be combined with an understanding for restitution…. We must pursue legal avenues to assign responsibility for this crime.”

 

Gazete Kars also lists the Armenian National Committee of America, Armenian National Institute, Zoryan Institute, and Gomidas Institute as organizations that have succeeded in bringing the Armenian Genocide to the attention of scholarly and media circles worldwide. Prominent Turkish novelists Orhan Pamuk and Elif Shafak, who have bravely condemned Turkey’s distortions of the Armenian Genocide, are accused of enjoying the backing of “Diaspora Armenian lobbying organizations.”

 

The Turkish newspaper reports the formation of a central coordinating committee in Yerevan on April 23, 2011 to prepare the program of activities for the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. The committee, chaired by Armenia’s president, convened its inaugural meeting on May 30, 2011.

 

The Turkish editor then focuses on my articles, wrongly identifying me as “Ara” Sassounian, publisher of the California Courier. I am quoted stating that “demanding genocide recognition is no longer useful for Armenians. On the contrary it is harmful. Turks are happy that we are satisfied with this demand. What we should demand is justice. When he is asked what does justice entail, he explains that it means financial, moral and territorial restitution.”

 

The Turkish writer further elaborates on my views by stating: “Sassounian believes relations between Armenia and the Diaspora are not perfect, and that it is imperative to have a common understanding, especially on issues related to ‘Hay Tad’ (the Armenian Cause). Sassounian also believes that more serious results could be achieved by bringing together Armenians living in 100 countries under the umbrella of a Diaspora Parliament composed of 350 representatives.”

 

Gazete Kars concludes its editorial by outlining some of the Armenian activities planned for the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide:

 

1) Prepare publications in seven languages: Armenian, English, French, German, Russian, Spanish, and Turkish.

2) Produce films and documentaries, organize concerts and exhibitions, and publish books and scholarly materials.

3) Enlarge threefold the Armenian Genocide Museum in Yerevan.

4) Create a central coordinating committee for the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide.

5) Organize media conferences, establish contacts with press agencies in 89 countries, and invite Diasporan TV and Radio journalists to Armenia in advance of the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide.

6) Using modern technology, publish e-books in various languages, and establish contacts with academic and cultural figures, media and civil society, and international organizations conducting genocide research.

7) Produce an Armenian Genocide film with well-known Indian director Shekhar Kapur and Puerto Rican screenwriter Jose Rivera.

 

Since Turks are expecting a flurry of activities for the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, Armenians should do everything possible not to disappoint them!

 

The editors of Gazete Kars do not seem to realize that Armenians in fact welcome Turkish attempts to counter the upcoming genocide centennial activities. By doing so, the Turkish side would be helping to publicize the Armenian Cause beyond what Armenians are capable of doing on their own.

 

 

 

 

 

If it were possible to clone prominent Turkish commentator Orhan Kemal Cengiz and make multiple copies of his kind heart and righteous conscience, the Turkish government would then be able to come to grips with Armenian demands from Turkey in a humane and just manner.

 

Cengiz visited Germany recently with a group of Turkish journalists and human rights activists at the invitation of the European Academy of Berlin with the financial support of the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Turkish visitors participated in a conference titled, “Difficult Heritage of the Past,” on how today’s Germans face crimes committed by Nazis.

 

After returning to Turkey, Cengiz wrote two poignant articles published in Today’s Zaman: “Can Germany be a model for Turkey in confrontation with past atrocities?” and “Turkey and Germany’s past atrocities.”

 

Cengiz confesses that before his visit, he thought that “Germans were forced to look at their troubled past by external powers who had them on their knees after World War II.” He wonders whether Germany could serve as a model for other countries in facing their past voluntarily. To his surprise, the Turkish columnist discovered that even though Germans had begun confronting their past after a devastating defeat, they were determined to create a new country “based on an endless process of remembering, commemorating and confronting the past.”

 

The righteous Turkish writer was “extremely impressed and touched” seeing a brick wall in a Berlin kindergarten. Every year teachers would ask students to identify themselves with Jews who once lived in the neighborhood before being killed by the Nazis. The students would then write the Jewish names on bricks and put them on top of each other forming a wall. It became clear to him that “remembering has become a part of daily life in Germany.”

 

Cengiz hopes that someday Turkish “children would do a similar thing. I imagined children in İstanbul building a wall by writing on bricks the names of Armenian intellectuals who were taken from their homes on April 24, 1915 and never came back again.” He is convinced that “confronting the past is a clear state policy here in Germany. Museums, exhibitions and the school curriculum all show how the state apparatus invested in this endeavor. So little by little I started to realize that Turkey can significantly benefit from the German experience on this difficult terrain of confrontation with the past.”

 

In his second article, Cengiz boldly describes the 19th and 20th centuries as “centuries of genocide,” which included the Armenian Genocide. He explains that contrary to the mass crimes committed by other nations, the ones perpetrated by Germans and Turks were against “neighbors with whom they had lived side-by-side for centuries. I think this alone is the most distinctive element of the German and Turkish example. … When you kill your neighbors, it creates a black hole, a gap in your national identity.”

 

In seeking to emulate the German experience, Cengiz hopes that he would see memorials erected in Turkey about “Armenian massacres, pogroms targeting Jews and Greeks, massacres targeting Alevis and others. When Turkey starts to remember and commemorate past atrocities, the Topography of Terror Museum, which is built on a former Nazi headquarters, the Jewish Museum of Berlin and others might be good examples to follow…. Turkey has a lot to learn from Germany in coming to terms with past atrocities.”

 

While Turkey’s acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide is long overdue, the actual process of reconciliation could begin by removing the names of the Turkish masterminds of the Armenian Genocide from schools, streets and public squares throughout Turkey. The Turkish government should also dismantle the shameful mausoleum of Talaat in Istanbul and replace it with a monument dedicated to the Armenian Genocide. It should also pay billions of dollars in compensation to descendants of Armenian victims, similar to German payments to Jews. Most importantly, Turkey should return to Armenians the occupied territories of Western Armenia!

 

Germany too, as Turkey’s close ally in World War I, has an obligation to Armenians — the acknowledgment of its role in the Armenian Genocide. It should apologize and make amends to the Armenian people. Only then would Germans fully deserve the praise heaped upon them by Orhan Cengiz for honestly facing their past.

 

While Turkey’s genocidal precedent served as model for Nazi Germany in committing the Holocaust, it is now Germany’s turn to become a role model to Turkey for reconciling with its genocidal past.