Turkish Forum

Category: Authors

  • Open letter on Perinçek v. Switzerland case

    Open letter on Perinçek v. Switzerland case

    Open letter (slightly revised) rebutting Armenian claims submitted by Ferruh Demirmen to Swiss Interior Department on ECHR’s decision on Perinçek v. Switzerland.

    February 24, 2014

    An Open Letter to:
    Madame la Conseillère fédérale
    Simonetta Sommaruga
    Cheffe du Département fédéral de justice et police (DFJP)
    Palais fédéral ouest
    CH-3003 Berne, SWITZERLAND

    Dear Madame Sommaruga,

    This open letter is being submitted by a concerned citizen as a rebuttal of an open letter sent to you by a group called “concerned genocide scholars” regarding the December 17, 2013 judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on Perinçek v. Switzerland.

    In their February 16, 2014 letter, the “scholars” take issue with ECHR’s position that genocide is a precisely defined legal concept that is not easy to prove, and that the historical record on the 1915 events is a matter of debate. The “scholars” argue that the 1915 events constitute “genocide,” and request that you re-examine the Court’s judgment. This letter will endeavor to establish that the arguments advanced by the “scholars” are incomplete and specious.

    The “scholars” assert that Ottoman “mass killings” of Armenians conform to the definition of Article 2 of the 1948 U.N. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). But such assertion is based only on a partial reading of the Convention. That Convention, in fact, is the Achilles’ heel of the “Armenian genocide” thesis. For Article 2, while describing genocide as, in part, killing or causing serious harm to the members of a group, makes two additional provisos: (1) there must be intent, (2) the targeted victims should belong to a particular national, ethnical, racial or religious group. The “scholars” conveniently ignore these two provisos.

    Ottoman government archives contain incontestable evidence that the relocation of Armenians in 1915 was not related in any way to nationality, religion, etc., but to military exigency in time of war, which was being fought on multiple fronts. Rebellious armed Armenian groups were aiding and abetting the enemy and sabotaging the Ottoman army from behind, and the government had to intervene. In other words, Armenians were subjected to relocation not because of their religion or ethnicity, but because they posed grave security threat in time of war. Armenians in the western part of Anatolia were spared from relocation orders because they did not pose a security threat. The central government orders to local authorities made it clear that the security of Armenian convoys during relocation should be ensured, and that all necessary precautions should be taken to meet their needs during and after relocation.

    There was no intent to harm the Armenians; but war conditions including lawlessness, chaos, disease, and famine, gave rise to tragic events on both sides.

    The fact that Armenians in the western part of Anatolia were spared from relocation orders belies accusations that the 1915 events were religion or ethnicity-related.

    Russian archives also reveal that religion and ethnicity were not causal factors behind the relocation orders, that relocation was conceived as a measure of self-defense by the Ottoman government, and that the tragic events were inter-communal in nature.

    Considering the above facts, and viewed in its fuller context, Article 2 of the 1948 Convention negates the genocide argument advanced by the “scholars.” The “scholars” cannot pick and choose a portion of Article 2 and ignore the rest.

    Equally important, the 1948 Convention contains a stipulation, in Article 6, that those charged with the crime of genocide should be tried by a competent tribunal in the state where the act was committed, or by an international penal tribunal whose jurisdiction is recognized by the contracting parties. In other words, to establish the crime of genocide, a court verdict is a sine qua non. The judgments by the Nuremberg Tribunal post-World War II, and the International Criminal Court (ICC) more recently on the Rwanda and Srebrenica events are examples to such verdicts.

    There exists no court verdict, however, on alleged “Armenian genocide.” The Malta Tribunal, convened by the victorious British after World War I to prosecute 144 high-ranking Ottoman officials on charges of killing Armenians, yielded not a single conviction. Among those detained for trial were cabinet ministers, the Grand Vizier and Army Commanders. The Armenian Patriarchate at Istanbul was the principal source of information against the accused, but the evidence was too flimsy for formal prosecution. Even the search of the U.S. State Department files in Washington failed to produce incriminating evidence. After two years of investigation, all Malta detainees were released and returned to Turkish soil.

    It is interesting that in referring to the opinions of France, the United Kingdom and Russia in their 1915 joint declaration, the “scholars” do not mention the Malta Tribunal. The Malta Tribunal drew its jurisdictional authority from these three powers, and its findings were binding on the three powers.

    So, Article 6 of the 1948 Convention also negates the genocide assertions of the “scholars.” What Article 6 establishes, in principle, is that neither parliaments nor a group of academics can pass judgment on an alleged genocide crime. A verdict by a duly authorized court of law is a must. The “scholars” ignore this very fundamental precept contained in the 1948 Convention.

    In conclusion, the 1948 Convention, which is the fundamental international covenant bearing on genocide determination, completely vitiates the genocide thesis when viewed in its entirety. The “scholars do not have the luxury to use only a portion of the covenant to establish their case.

    The “scholars” note that in 1997 the “International Association of Genocide Scholars” passed a resolution recognizing the Ottoman massacres of Armenians as genocide. That may be so, but a large number of scholars hold the opposite view. In 1985, for example, 69 U.S. historians and researchers passed a unanimous resolution, addressed to members of the U.S. House of Representatives and published in New York Times and The Washington Post, refuting Armenian allegations. These were academicians specializing in Turkish, Ottoman and Middle Eastern studies. Many of these academicians were subsequently harassed or intimidated by the pro-genocide camp.

    The conclusion is inescapable, as ECHR observed, that there is no consensus among historians and scholars on the 1915 events. And that is not taking into account the views of Turkish researchers and historians.

    In their letter the “scholars” indirectly draw an analogy between Holocaust and the 1915 events. Such analogy is not only grotesque, but more bluntly, obscene. Jews of Nazi Germany did not rise in armed rebellion against the state, did not embark on a rampage of violence against the local population, did not join the ranks of an invading army, did not sabotage the German army behind the front lines, and in general did not engage in perfidious acts. Their only “crime” was not being of the “Aryan race.” Race was the motive behind the killings.

    The Nazis did not court-martial those implicated with wrongdoing against the Jews, as did the Ottomans prosecute those accused of mistreating Armenians during relocation. Nor did the Nazis deliberately spare Jews as “good citizens” in some parts of the Reich, or award meritorious awards to Jews, as did the Ottomans to Armenians. The Ottomans, having long embraced Armenians in high-ranking positions in the government, including generals and cabinet ministers, did not spread racist, scurrilous lies about the Armenian minority. And the Armenians certainly did not perish in gas chambers.

    To broaden their horizon on the 1915 events, the “scholars” should perhaps read, if they have not already, the admissions of Boghos Nubar Pasha at the Paris Peace Conference in January 1919, and the manifesto issued by Johannes Kachaznuni at the Dashnak convention in Bucharest in March 1923. It would be like hearing the truth from the horse’s mouth. More than half of a million Muslims lost their lives at the hands of Armenian guerillas who fought a losing battle relying on false promises of imperial Western powers and the Tsarist Russia. Even the Russian officers on the scene were troubled by the severity of violence inflicted by the Armenian guerillas on Muslims.

    And the terror inflicted was not confined to Muslims. As stated by Albert J. Amateau, a rabbi born in Turkey and later emigrated to America, in a testimony sworn before a notary public in California in 1989, Armenian atrocities also extended to Jews, and even to Armenian families who refused to cooperate with the armed guerillas.

    In their letter the “scholars” attempt to link the tragic murder of Hrant Dink to genocide controversy, and claim that Turkey has “one of the worst” records on human rights “over the past decades.” This is a slanderous attack aimed at Turkey, and it is deplorable. Dink was murdered by a deranged fanatic, and the facts behind the assassination are still unknown. More than 100,000 Turkish people took to the streets in Istanbul to protest Dink’s murder. Mention of human rights by the “scholars” is particularly ironic, considering that their list of signatories is headed by none other than Taner Akçam, an ex-convict and a prison escapee who advocated violence and was imprisoned for terrorist activities in Turkey. Akçam is now a protégée and beneficiary of the Armenian lobby.

    And speaking of human rights, it is curious that the “scholars” failed to mention the ASALA/JCAG terror that took more than 40 innocent lives, most of them Turkish diplomats, during 1973-1991. Not only did the committees funded by Armenian organizations pay for the legal defense of the majority of terrorists, but several prominent Armenians and pro-Armenian “scholars” testified in the trials of the terrorists. One terrorist, after his release from the French prison, was welcome as a hero in Armenia. So much about concern for “human rights”!

    Incidentally, how many Armenians took to the streets to protest the killing of Turkish diplomats and their families by the ASALA/JCAG terror?

    It is a known fact that Turkey and Armenia cannot agree on legal characterization of the 1915 events. That being the case, one wonders why the “scholars” have not urged Armenia to file a complaint with the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Established in 1945, ICJ is the primary judicial arm of the U.N. to settle legal disputes submitted by states. A court case undertaken by ICJ would require all historical archives to be open, due process to apply, and the evidentiary material scrutinized for probity. The only reasonable explanation for the stance of the Armenian side is that it finds a judicial process too risky for its taste.

    The Armenian side, instead, has over the years relied on propaganda in public arena, where bias and prejudice play a large role, and financial resources can be deployed aplenty.

    It is refreshing that the “scholars” make a concession in their letter: They agree with the notion of freedom of expression articulated by ECHR. It is impossible not to be sarcastic about their newly-found concern for this basic human right. Over the years these “scholars” attended conferences where presence of academics opposing their genocide thesis was not welcome. Did the “scholars” express any freedom of expression concern when, in 1995, a French court fined historian Prof. Bernard Lewis because he did not subscribe to the genocide thesis, or when, in 2007, Dr. Doğu Perinçek was convicted by a Swiss court for the same reason? And what was the reaction of the “scholars” when the French Senate passed a bill in 2011 (later overturned) that criminalizes denial of “Armenian genocide”?

    One additional comment in this context is noteworthy. The “scholars” use the word “denialist” to refer to those who reject their genocide assertions. “Denialist” is a pejorative term, and its use is a breach of academic decorum. It is also a sign of arrogance. How would the “scholars” like if their colleagues in the opposing camp call them “distortionists” or “fabricators”?

    To wrap up, characterization of the 1915 events as “genocide” is incompatible with the definition of this term as prescribed in the 1948 U.N. Convention. “Genocide” is a legal construct, and should not be used to further political aims. The suffering on the Armenian side in the 1915 events cannot be denied; but the suffering on the Turkish side also deserves recognition. After a century, it is time for the two sides to reconcile their differences without further recrimination, and move on. We don’t need new generations poisoned with “genocide” controversy.

    It is hoped that the Swiss government will accept the judgment of ECHR as final.

    Respectfully yours,

    (hard copy signed)

    Ferruh Demirmen, Ph.D.
    (address)

    Appendix
    SIGNATORIES TO MAY 19, 1985 STATEMENT ADDRESSED TO THE MEMBERS OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AS PUBLISHED IN NEW YORK TIMES AND WASHINGTON POST:

    RIFAAT ABOU-EL-HAJ
    Professor of History, California State University at Long Beach
    SARAH MOMENT ATIS
    Professor of Turkish Language & Literature, University of Wisconsin at Madison
    KARL BARBIR
    Associate Professor of History, Siena College, New York
    ILHAN BASGOZ
    Director of the Turkish Studies, Department of Uralic & Altaic Studies, Indiana University
    DANIEL G. BATES
    Professor of Anthropology, Hunter College, City University of New York
    ULKU BATES
    Professor of Art History, Hunter College, City University of New York
    GUSTAV BAYERLE
    Professor of Uralic & Altaic Studies, Indiana University
    ANDREAS G. E. BODROGLIGETTI
    Professor of Turkic & Iranian languages, University of California at Los Angeles
    KATHLEEN BURRILL
    Associate Professor of Turkish Studies, Columbia University
    RODERIC DAVISON
    Professor of History, George Washington University
    WALTER DENNY
    Associate Professor of Art History & Near Eastern Studies, University of Massachusetts
    DR. ALAN DUBEN
    Anthropologist & Researcher, New York City
    ELLEN ERVIN
    Assistant Professor of Turkish Researches, New York University
    CAESAR FARAH
    Professor of Islamic & Middle Eastern History, University of Minnesota
    CARTER FINDLEY
    Associate Professor of History, Ohio State University
    MICHAEL FINEFROCK
    Professor of History, College of Charleston, South Carolina
    ALAN FISHER
    Professor of History, Michigan State University
    CORNELL FLEISCHER
    Assistant Professor of History, Washington University (Missouri)
    TIMOTHY CHILDS
    Professorial Lecturer at SAIS, Johns Hopkins University
    SHAFIGA DAULET
    Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Connecticut
    JUSTIN MCCARTHY
    Associate Professor of History, University of Louisville, Kentucky
    JON MANDAVILLE
    Professor of the History of the Middle East, Portland State University, Oregon
    RHOADS MURPHEY
    Assistant Professor of Middle Eastern Languages & Cultures & History, Columbia University
    PIERRE OBERLING
    Professor of History, Hunter College, City University of New York
    ROBERT OLSON
    Associate Professor of History, University of Kentucky
    DONALD QUATAERT
    Associate Professor of History, University of Houston
    WILLIAM GRISWOLD
    Professor of History, Colorado State University
    WILLIAM HICKMAN
    Associate Professor of Turkish, University of California at Berkeley
    JOHN HYMES
    Professor of History, Glenville State College, West Virginia
    RALPH JAECKEL
    Visiting Assistant Professor of Turkish, University of California at Los Angeles
    JAMES KELLY
    Associate Professor of Turkish, University of Utah
    PETER GOLDEN
    Professor of History, Rutgers University, New Jersey
    TOM GOODRICH
    Professor of History, Indiana University of Pennsylvania
    ANDREW COULD
    Ph.D. in Ottoman History, Flagstaff, Arizona
    MICHAEL MEEKER
    Professor of Anthropology, University of California at San Diego
    THOMAS NAFF
    Professor of History & Director, Middle East Research Institute, University of Pennsylvania
    WILLIAM OCHSENWALD
    Associate Professor of History, Virginia Polytechnic Institute
    WILLIAM PEACHY
    Assistant Professor of the Judaic & Near Eastern Languages & Literatures, Ohio State University
    HOWARD REED
    Professor of History, University of Connecticut
    TIBOR HALASI-KUN
    Professor Emeritus of Turkish Studies, Columbia University
    J. C. HUREWITZ
    Professor of Government, Emeritus, Former Director, Middle East Institute (1971-1984) , Columbia University
    HALIL INALCIK
    Member of the of Arts & Sciences, Professor of Ottoman History, University of Chicago
    RONALD JENNINGS
    Associate Professor of History & Asian Studies, University of Illinois
    KERIM KEY
    Adjunct Professor, Southeastern University, Washington, D.C.
    DANKWART RUSTOW
    Distinguished University Professor of Political Science, Graduate Center, City University of New York
    STANFORD SHAW
    Professor of History, University of California at Los Angeles
    METIN KUNT
    Professor of Ottoman History, New York University
    AVIGDOR LEVY
    Professor of History, Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts
    DR. HEATH W. LOWRY
    Institute of Turkish Studies Inc. Washington, D.C.
    JOHN MASSON SMITH, JR.
    Professor of History, University of California at Berkeley
    ROBERT STAAB
    Assistant Director of the Middle East Center, University of Utah
    JAMES STEWART-ROBINSON
    Professor of Turkish Studies, University of Michigan
    FRANK TACHAU
    Professor of Political Science, University of Illinois at Chicago
    DAVID THOMAS
    Associate Professor of History, Rhode Island College
    WARREN S. WALKER
    Home Professor of English & Director of the Archive of Turkish Oral Narrative, Texas Tech University
    WALTER WEIKER
    Professor of Political Science, Rutgers University, New Jersey
    MADELINE ZILFI
    Associate Professor of History, University of Maryland
    ELAINE SMITH
    Ph.D. in Turkish History, Retired Foreign Service Officer, Washington, DC
    EZEL KURAL SHAW
    Associate Professor of History, California State University, Northridge
    FREDERICK LATIMER
    Associate Professor of History (Retired), University of Utah
    BERNARD LEWIS
    Cleveland E. Dodge Professor of Near Eastern History, Princeton University
    GRACE M. SMITH
    Visiting Lecturer in Turkish, University of California at Berkeley
    DR. SVAT SOUCEK
    Turcologist, Oriental Division, New York Public Library
    JUNE STARR
    Associate Professor of Anthropology, SUNY Stony Brook
    DR. PHILIP STODDARD
    Executive Director, Middle East Institute, Washington, D.C.
    METIN TAMKOC
    Professor of International Law and Regulations, Texas Tech University
    MARGARET L. VENZKE
    Assistant Professor of History, Dickinson College, Pennsylvania
    DONALD WEBSTER
    Professor of Turkish History, Retired, Beloit College, Wisconsin
    JOHN WOODS
    Associate Professor of Middle Eastern History, University of Chicago

  • Corruption Scandal May End Erdogan’s Political Career

    Corruption Scandal May End Erdogan’s Political Career

     

     

    In a series of secretly recorded phone conversations revealed last week, Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan was heard instructing his son to hide from police tens of millions of dollars of cash stashed in his Istanbul house.

     

    Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan delivers a speech at a press conference in Istanbul LU ZHE/XINHUA — MCT Read more here: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2014/02/26/3499532/erdogan-recordings-appear-real.html#storylink=cpy
    Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan delivers a speech

    This shocking revelation generated widespread calls for Erdogan’s resignation who claimed that the phone recordings are fake or edited. It appears, however, that the wiretapped conversations between the Prime Minister and his son are authentic, according to Guarded Risk, an American cyber company that conducted a comprehensive forensic analysis of the phone calls.

     

    It is ironic that Erdogan who came to power as an Islamist with the declared aim of eliminating corruption from Turkish politics, has fallen victim to the dictum: “power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely!”

     

    The phone calls were secretly recorded on the day police raided the homes of several cabinet members, prominent businessmen, and the head of the state bank. They were all accused of involvement in bribery and other corrupt practices.

     

    Here is the English translation of excerpts from Erdogan’s five wiretapped conversations with his son, Bilal:

     First phone call at 8:02 am on Dec. 17, 2013:

     

    Erdogan: …Take everything you have out of your house, OK?

    Bilal: What would I have, dad? Your money is in the safe.

    Erdogan: That’s what I am talking about….

    Bilal: What shall we do with it, daddy? Where shall we put it?

    Erdogan: In specific places, in some specific places… . Do it!

     

    Second call at 11:17 am:

     

    Bilal: …My brother [in-law] Berat has another idea. He says we should give some of it to Faruk [Kalyoncu, president of a construction company] for the other job, so he can process them like the previous ones. Shall we do that? We can sort out a big amount of money that way.
    Erdogan: Possibly.
    Bilal: OK. For the other part, because we started a business partnership with Mehmet Gur [managing director of a construction group], we thought of giving it to him saying, ‘keep it, you can use it as projects come up.’ This way, we can reduce it and move the rest to somewhere else.
    Erdogan: OK, fine, as long as you do it…. It would be good if you do… If you can liquidate them all.
    Bilal: Yes, we will liquidate them all today, God willing!

     

    Third call at 3:39 pm:

     

    Erdogan: Did you complete the tasks I gave you?

    Bilal: We will finish them by this evening. We sorted some out; We sorted the Berat part, now we will first handle the part with Mehmet Gur, and the rest, we will do after dark….
    Erdogan: What did Sumeyye [daughter] do?
    Bilal: She took them out, brought them over, we spoke, etc.
    Erdogan: Do not speak on the phone with each other.

     

    Fourth call at 11:15 pm:

     

    Bilal: Hi daddy, I am calling to… we did [it] mostly. Did you call me just now, daddy?

    Erdogan: No I did not, you called me.
    Bilal: I was called from a secret number.
    Erdogan: When you say ‘mostly,’ did you fully liquidate it?
    Bilal: It’s not zero yet, daddy. Let me explain. We still have 30 million euros that we could not yet liquidate. Berat has an idea. There was an additional 25 million dollars Ahmet Calik [businessman] should receive. They say let’s give this [to him]. When the money comes, we do [something], they say. And with the remaining money we can buy an apartment from Sehrizar, he says. What do you say, father?
    Erdogan: Whatever, we will sort it out.
    Bilal: Should we do it like this?
    Erdogan: OK, do it.
    Bilal: Do you want them all liquidated, father, or do you want some money for yourself?
    Erdogan: No, it can’t be left over, son. You could transfer it to the other, with Mehmet you could transfer it there.
    Bilal: Yes, we gave it to them. We gave $20 [million] to them.
    Erdogan: For God’s sake, first you should have transferred it. Then you could have done it…
    Bilal: We were able to give this much for now. It is hard already; it takes too much space. We are putting part of it somewhere else, we gave part of it to Tunc, and then…
    Erdogan: Did you transfer all to Tunc?
    Bilal: They asked, I guess he said that he could only take 10 million euros.
    Erdogan: Whatever! Don’t talk on this [phone].
    Bilal: OK, then, we will sort it.
    Erdogan: OK, do it. I am not able to come tonight. I’m staying in Ankara.

     

    Fifth call at 10:58 am on Dec. 18, 2013:

     

    Erdogan: I decided to call to see if there is anything new.

    Bilal: No, nothing. We finished the tasks you gave us, with God’s help.
    Erdogan: Has it been all liquidated?
    Bilal: Completely! How should I put it? I had Samandira and Maltepe’s money, 730,000 US Dollars and 300,000 Turkish Liras. I will handle these too. We owe 1 million Turkish Liras to Faruk İsik [parliament member]; I will give it to him and tell him to transfer the rest to the academy.
    Erdogan: Do not speak so openly!
    Bilal: Shouldn’t I?
    Erdogan: Don’t. OK?
    Bilal: OK, daddy
    Erdogan: I mean, do not keep anything on your person, whatever it is Samandira or whatever… Send it to where it needs to be, why do you keep it on you?
    Bilal: OK, daddy, but I think currently we are under surveillance.
    Erdogan: What have I been telling you since the very beginning!
    Bilal: But is the security staff following us, father?
    Erdogan: Son, you are being wiretapped.
    Bilal: But they are also visually monitoring us.
    Erdogan: That may be true. Now, we’ve just done some things at the Istanbul police headquarters.

     

    Additional recordings have since surfaced in which Erdogan and his son talk about rejecting a $10 million bribe offer from a Turkish businessman for being insufficient.

     

    Erdogan could end up losing not only his current position and the chance of becoming President later this year, but may also face prosecution and a lengthy jail term for his alleged crimes.

     

  • Armenia &Turkey Clash Over Genocide At UN Security Council

    Armenia &Turkey Clash Over Genocide At UN Security Council

     

     

     

    Foreshadowing next year’s Centennial commemorative events, the Armenian Genocide issue was discussed for the first time at the UN Security Council on January 29.

     

    Armenia’s Ambassador Garen Nazarian, addressing the main topic of the Security Council session, ‘War, its Lessons, and the Search for a Permanent Peace,’ began his remarks with a subtle hint to Turkey on UN’s peacemaking role: “to forge a deeper reconciliation among peoples, based on a shared narrative and memory of a troubled past. Often this process entails more than simply adopting declarations and resolutions, visiting and laying down flowers at victims’ memorials or signing agreements or protocols and shaking hands. To be lasting, reconciliation may require the settling of the past, recognition and acceptance of responsibility for committed crimes.”

     

    Regarding lessons learned from the Armenian Genocide, Amb. Nazarian specifically mentioned that the “reconciliation process could be delayed for decades or even generations. This was the first modern genocide perpetrated under the cover of the First World War.” Armenia’s representative went on to insist that “ending impunity for heinous mass atrocity crimes is vital for restoring justice and normalcy.”

     

    Amb. Nazarian also outlined the steps necessary for proper reconciliation between nations: “successfully reconciled societies and nations usually undergo an extensive process of restoring justice, including reparations to victims and their heirs in order to re-establish their national dignity and identity. It is also imperative to speak with one voice against the distortion of history, the denial of historical crimes, and negationism.”

     

    In his response, Turkey’s UN representative Halit Cevik, not surprisingly, focused on the future rather than his country’s bloody past. Without realizing that he was condemning his own country, the Turkish delegate insisted that “those responsible for the most serious crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and war crimes, must be held accountable.” Amb. Cevik then went on to repeat his government’s worn-out denials, claiming that “allegations of genocide regarding the 1915 events have never been legally or historically substantiated. In this same vein, there is neither political nor legal consensus as to the nature of those events…. We believe that deriving animosity from history by trying to imprint on others an incriminating and one-sided view of the past, and calling for selective compassion, is not the proper way of respecting the memory of many Turks, Armenians, and others who lost their lives during the First World War. It is therefore important to face history in its entirety, and through impartial scientific examination of historical records and archives, so that the right lessons may be drawn from history and the common fair memory can be reached.”

     

    Amb. Nazarian, in his right of reply, expressed deep regret to hear the Turkish representative’s “distorted explanations about the undeniable fact of the Armenian Genocide which took the lives of 1.5 million Armenian children, women and men living in the Ottoman Empire during the regime of Young Turks…. It began on April 24, 1915, and went on until 1923 — the systematic and planned slaughter of the entire nation.”

     

    Describing in detail the deportations and massacres culminating in genocide, Amb. Nazarian asserted that “this crime has been recognized by a number of [UN] member states and international organizations, including the United Nations and its subsidiary body — the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities.”

     

    In a second reply to Amb. Nazarian, Turkey’s representative became more subtle in his denialism: “We did not say that nothing happened in 1915. These events do not fit in the description of genocide which was defined in the [UN] Convention of 1948. Now, an Armenian delegation is raising that the 1915 events are genocide in the absence of any resolution or any decision of the International Court. So how do you expect us…,” before he could finish his statement, his cell phone rang, interrupting him in mid-sentence.

     

    It is very likely that more such confrontations will take place with Turkey leading up to the Centennial of the Armenian Genocide. Turkish officials do not seem to realize that the more they deny and counter the Armenian activities, the more they help publicize the Genocide and the just demands of the Armenian people. Meanwhile, thanks to the Turkish delegation’s two responses to Amb. Nazarian statements, the Armenian Genocide was extensively discussed at the UN Security Council for the first time ever!

  • Armenian Genocide Recognition: Necessary but not Sufficient

    Armenian Genocide Recognition: Necessary but not Sufficient

     

     

    With the approaching Centennial of the Armenian Genocide in 2015, Turkish leaders are coming under increasing pressure from the international community to face their country’s sordid past and acknowledge the Genocide. Significantly, public statements regarding the Armenian Genocide were made in the last few days by heads of three European states: France, Germany, and the Czech Republic.

     

    During his last month’s visit to Turkey, French President Francois Hollande, without using the genocide term, called on Turkish leaders to confront their history: “Memory work is always painful… but must be done. What we need is to carry out reconciliation through research and recognition of what has happened…. By recognizing the historical events you will be elevated not only in your own eyes, but also in the eyes of the world.” Pres. Hollande also held a private meeting with Rakel Dink, the widow of martyred Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink.

     

    Similar wise counsel was offered last week by German Chancellor Angela Merkel to visiting Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan: “Turkey must come to terms with its history.” Ironically, Erdogan was the one who brought up this issue by complaining that Germany was planning to allocate funds for the commemoration of the Armenian Genocide Centennial.

     

    The President of the Czech Republic, Milos Zeman, went even further than the French and German leaders by actually using the term Armenian Genocide during Pres. Serzh Sargsyan’s visit to Prague two weeks ago: “Next year marks the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. In 1915, 1.5 million Armenians were killed.”

     

    While international pressure on the Turkish government is expected to become progressively more intense with the approach of the Genocide Centennial, Armenians should be wary not to be misled by such well-meaning, but at times, self-serving statements. If such pressures would prompt a Turkish leader to admit the Ottoman government’s guilt in committing massacres or even genocide, that would be insufficient to satisfy the just demands of the Armenian people. In fact the raising of expectations for Turkish recognition could be counter-productive because if and when Turkey does acknowledge it, everyone including Armenians may wrongly assume that their long-anticipated objective has been realized!

     

    Several decades ago, when the world was still unaware of the basic facts of the Armenian Genocide, its recognition by the international community and the Turkish government was imperative. However, at this stage, when over two dozen countries, many international organizations, and the International Association of Genocide Scholars have acknowledged the Armenian Genocide, mere recognition is no longer the ultimate goal.

     

    Rather than recognition, Armenians and all people of goodwill now seek justice for the genocide committed by Ottoman Turkish leaders. Just as Germany paid compensation to Holocaust survivors, the government of Turkey, as successor to the Ottoman Empire, has to pay billions of dollars in restitution, and return the stolen Armenian properties and occupied lands.

     

    To strive for restitutive justice, Armenians should use every possible means — political pressure, economic boycotts, public protests, and lawsuits — to convince Turkey’s leaders that they would be better off to negotiate with representatives of the Armenian government and Diaspora, seeking a just resolution for this long-lasting injustice. As there are considerable disparities between the political, economic and military capabilities of the two sides, Armenians may not be able to obtain all their demands overnight, but should insist that Turkish officials offer them as much restitution as possible in a phased manner towards eventual full justice.

     

    The just settlement of the Armenian Genocide issue would have many benefits for Turkey which would be hailed by the international community as a progressive and civilized country. Its leaders may even be considered for the Nobel Peace Prize. Recognition followed by restitution would also facilitate Turkey’s entry into the European Union. Otherwise, the continued refusal to come to terms with the Armenian Genocide would prolong the Turkish people’s embarrassing predicament of being constantly reminded of the crimes committed by their forefathers and continuously humiliated before the entire world as genocide denalists.

     

    Should Turkish leaders have the courage to resolve their Armenian conundrum, the Armenian people would finally begin obtaining long-awaited compensation for their losses, enjoy an economically and geopolitically more viable and secure homeland, with the expectation that a repentant neighbor would be more inclined toward peaceful coexistence.

     

     

     

  • Syrian President Finally Recognizes the Armenian Genocide

    Syrian President Finally Recognizes the Armenian Genocide

     

    January 29, 2014

    In a lengthy interview last week with Agence France Presse (AFP) on the tragic situation in Syria, Pres. Bashar al-Assad made an unexpected reference to the massacres of 1.5 million Armenians. This is the first time that any Syrian head of state has acknowledged the Armenian mass murders and identified the perpetrator as Ottoman Turkey.

    During the interview, Pres. Assad compared the Armenian Genocide of 1915 to the brutal killings of civilians by foreign fighters nowadays in Syria: “The degree of savagery and inhumanity that the terrorists have reached reminds us of what happened in the Middle Ages in Europe over 500 years ago. In more recent modern times, it reminds us of the massacres perpetrated by the Ottomans against the Armenians when they killed a million and a half Armenians and half a million Orthodox Syriacs in Syria and in Turkish territory.”

    Not surprisingly, two days later, Bashar Jaafari, Syria’s Ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, made a similar remark: “How about the Armenian Genocide where 1.5 million people were killed?”

    The only other high ranking Syrian official who has acknowledged the Armenian Genocide was Abd al-Qader Qaddura, Speaker of the Syrian Parliament, when he inscribed a poignant statement in the Book of Remembrance of the Armenian Genocide Monument and Museum in Yerevan on July 16, 2001: “As we visit the Memorial and Museum of the Genocide that the Armenian nation suffered in 1915, we stand in full admiration and respect in front of those heroes that faced death with courage and heroism. Their children and grandchildren continued after them to immortalize their courage and struggle…. With great respect we bow our heads in memory of the martyrs of the Armenian nation — our friends — and hail their ability for resoluteness and triumph. We will work together to liberate every human being from aggression and oppression.”

    While the Parliament Speaker’s 2001 statement was a candid and heartfelt message with no political overtones, the same cannot be said about Pres. Assad’s words on the Armenian Genocide as he clearly intended to lash back at the Turkish government’s hostile actions against the Syrian regime. It is well known that Turkey has played a major role in the concerted international effort to topple Pres. Assad, by dispatching heavy weapons and arranging the infiltration of foreign radical Islamist fighters into Syria.

    Relations between Syria and Turkey were not always hostile. Before the start of the Syrian crisis in 2011, the two countries were such close political and economic allies that the Assad regime banned the sale of books on the Armenian Genocide, and did not permit foreign film crews to visit Der Zor, the killing fields of thousands of Armenians during the Genocide. Mindful of possible Turkish backlash, Pres. Assad’s staff cancelled my courtesy meeting with the President in 2009 after they discovered on the internet my countless critical articles on Turkey. Moreover, during the honeymoon period between the Syrian and Turkish governments, Pres. Assad advised the visiting Catholicos Aram I that Armenians should maintain good relations with Turkey and not dwell on the past!

    In his recent interview with AFP, Pres. Assad also complained about the failure of Western leaders to comprehend developments in the Middle East: “They are always very late in realizing things, sometimes even after the situation has been overtaken by a new reality that is completely different.” Frankly, one could make the same criticism about Pres. Assad for realizing at his own detriment only too late the dishonesty and duplicity of Turkey’s leadership.

    Regrettably, the Syrian President is not the only head of state who has failed to decipher the scheming mindset of Turkey’s rulers. Countless Middle Eastern, European, and American leaders have made the same mistake, trusting Turkey’s feigned friendship, only to be let down when the time came for Turkey to keep its end of the bargain.

    In recent months, with the increasing dissatisfaction of the international community with Prime Minister Erdogan’s autocratic policies and belligerent statements, it has become crystal clear that no one knows the true face of Turkey better than Armenians, Assyrians, Greeks and Kurds, who have suffered countless brutalities, massacres and even genocide under despotic Turkish rule.

    Despite Pres. Assad’s political motivations, Armenians should welcome his belated statement on the Armenian Genocide. After refraining from acknowledging the Genocide for all the wrong reasons for so long, at least now the Syrian President is on record telling the truth about past and present Turkish atrocities!

  • How Can Benefactors Meet Armenia’s & Diaspora’s Many Needs?

    How Can Benefactors Meet Armenia’s & Diaspora’s Many Needs?

     

     

    Peter Balakian, Professor of Humanities at Colgate University, recently wrote a thought-provoking commentary, titled: “A Broken Connection: The Armenian Financial Community and the Making of Culture.”

     

    In his article, Balakian deplores the Armenian-American community’s failure to support a proposed Armenian Genocide

    exhibit at the Illinois Holocaust Museum, on the eve of the Genocide Centennial in 2015.

     

    The exhibit, “The Shadow of Mount Ararat: The Armenian Genocide,” would have been in display not only at the Illinois Holocaust Museum — the second largest such institution in the United States — but also throughout the country, and possibly in Europe and South America.

     

    Balakian expresses his disappointment that the Chicago Armenian community could not raise the necessary $600,000 to fund the project, resulting in the cancellation of the planned exhibit. In his view, this incident “reflects a larger failure of the Armenian community in the United States to create culture, by which I mean: to use financial means to conceive and engineer cultural production.” Balakian believes that Armenian-Americans “have almost nothing to show in the domain of cultural production and representation in the mainstream.” With few exceptions, “Armenians have created no mainstream cultural foundations, museums, [and] performing arts centers.”

     

    Balakian complains that “the Armenian financial community has not been able to bring to fruition one feature film about the Armenian Genocide or other aspects of Armenian history.” He quotes a Jewish scholar who told him: “There seems to be a disconnect between the Armenian business community and the Armenian arts community; the business people don’t see that investing in the arts is investing in the core continuity of Armenian civilization. Investing in the community’s culture should be understood as a celebration of the life of Armenians past and present, something that the Turkish perpetrators tried to extinguish. This is certainly the philosophy of a lot of Jewish investment in Jewish arts. It’s a ‘f-you Hitler’ attitude.”

     

    While I share Balakian’s concerns, I would like to express some additional thoughts regarding this important topic:

     

    1)  Most Armenian benefactors prefer to contribute and attach their names to tangible brick and mortar projects like churches and schools rather than more abstract endeavors such as public relations and the arts. Yet, everyone should realize that wealthy Armenians are entitled to spend their hard-earned money as they see fit. It’s their money and they decide how to spend it!

    2)  The needs of the Armenian Diaspora and the Armenian Republic are so massive that it is practically impossible for even generous benefactors to satisfy everyone’s demands.

    3)  There are no established mechanisms to prioritize the community’s need and assess their merit. Benefactors and charitable organizations are bombarded with requests to fund movies, publications, artwork, aid to Armenia, monuments, memorials, churches, schools and orphanages. Few benefactors have the time and expertise to judge the quality and utility of the proposed projects in so many diverse fields.

    4)  Projects are sometimes funded not on merit, but on the basis of the personal relationship between the donor and the recipient. It could boil down to who is doing the asking!

    5)  Even though Armenians are quite generous in supporting their community organizations, the requests often outstrip the available funds. One cannot name a single category of needs that receives adequate funding, including social, cultural, religious, political, athletic, and humanitarian activities. Can anyone say that there are sufficient funds to:

    — Print all the books that are worthy of publication?

    — Digitize ancient manuscripts and other valuable archival materials before they are lost forever?

    — Produce professionally-made movies and documentaries on the Armenian Genocide and other topics?

    — Fund Genocide Centennial projects?

    — Provide funds for electing political candidates who endorse Armenian issues?

    — Support concerts, art exhibits, museums, medical, scientific, and countless other worthy projects?

    — Meet the basic needs for the survival of Syrian Armenians, and the poor and needy in Armenia, Artsakh and the Diaspora?

     

    Donors could certainly do more to support the seemingly endless needs of Armenians worldwide. However, a mechanism must first be established to prioritize the various needs, judge their merit, and make a professional presentation to potential donors. Finally, after the donation is made, periodic reports on the progress of the project must be given to the donor, demonstrating that the allocated funds are being properly spent to accomplish the promised objectives.