Turkish Forum

Category: Authors

  • Turkey Meets Over Half Its Defense Requirements Domestically

    Turkey Meets Over Half Its Defense Requirements Domestically

    Turkey Meets Over Half Its Defense Requirements Domestically

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 8 Issue: 100

    May 24, 2011

    By: Saban Kardas

    The 10th International Defense Industry Fair (IDEF), held in Istanbul on May 10 – 13, was an important venue to demonstrate the transformation of the Turkish defense industry in recent years. Organized biannually since the 1990s, the event featured over 600 companies or company representatives from 49 countries, including Turkey, while delegations from over 70 countries visited (www.idef11.com). Delivering an address at the inauguration, President Abdullah Gul reiterated the importance Turkey attaches to the defense industry. He referred to Turkey’s efforts to increase local input in defense procurement through greater utilization of various joint production programs and boosting domestically designed production (Star, May 11).

    Despite some international representation, the fair largely served to exhibit products of Turkish producers, as well as to publicize the achievements of Turkey’s flagship defense projects in recent years. Leading defense companies such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing and EADS were also present, but Western defense observers reportedly maintained that “in nature, the fair remains mostly a Turkish, regional and Middle Eastern event.” In a development reflecting the regional nature of the event, the largest deal struck at IDEF 2011 was reportedly an agreement for Turkey’s export defense equipment to Qatar, including small unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), worth $120 million (Hurriyet Daily News, May 13).

    Armored vehicles, Turkey’s major export items, which find buyers in the Middle East and South Asia, were on display at the event. Moreover, a great deal of publicity was devoted to Turkey’s main battle tank project, which was developed in partnership with South Korea’s Hyundai Rotem, supplying the technological know-how (EDM, August 7, 2008). Turkish military vehicle producer, Otokar, introduced the first prototype of the tank at the fair, named Altay. Otokar expects the tanks to be ready for sale by 2016.

    Similarly, the results of Turkey’s national warship projects were also publicized at the fair. A Turkish corvette designed and produced in Turkey’s shipbuilding yards was on display. In recent years, Turkey has placed greater emphasis on developing its national capacity to build warships of different classes to meet the Navy’s needs. Murad Bayar, the head of the Under Secretariat for the Defense Industry (SSM), the organization in charge of procurement programs, argued recently that Turkey is capable of producing aircraft carriers domestically (Star, May 8).

    Another high publicity weapons system on display was various UAV projects. The Turkish armed forces use several small-sized UAVs produced in Turkey and SSM has recently signed a contract with another defense manufacturing firm to produce tactical UAVs (Anadolu Ajansi, January 4). Turkey has also been working to develop a national medium-altitude long-endurance (MALE) UAV system to reduce its dependence on the United States and Israel for strategic intelligence gathering. ASELSAN, contractor for Turkey’s MALE UAV project, announced recently that its UAV, named ANKA, successfully passed test flights and could become operational in one year’s time. Defense industry analysts expect the UAV market to record rapid growth in the coming years. They argue that with its recent investments in the UAV sector, Turkey is poised to emerge as a leading supplier in its region (Haberturk, May 9).

    Turkey is also working on a national attack helicopter project, ATAK, in partnership with Italy. Meanwhile, to meet the Turkish army’s needs for general attack helicopters, Turkey has been evaluating various offers for some time (EDM, July 7, 2009). Turkey finally made a decision on a long-awaited tender and awarded the deal to U.S. Sikorsky. Turkish Defense Minister, Vecdi Gonul, described the $3.5 billion deal as a milestone, as it would involve joint helicopter production (Anadolu Ajansi, April 21).

    Although foreign participation remained limited, the expanding product line on display at IDEF underscored the transformation of the Turkish defense industry and its expanding potential to meet the needs of the armed forces. In that regard, the recent figures released by the Defense Industry Manufacturers’ Association also represented a bright picture for the sector (Anadolu Ajansi, April 26). In 2010, 52 percent of Turkish armed forces weapons systems needs were supplied by domestic producers. This development was seen as a success story, as the SSM had set the target of meeting 50 percent of the TAF’s needs domestically. In 2003, the ratio of domestic production in the military procurement total was only 25 percent.

    At the same time, the total volume of Turkish arms exports reached $634.2 million in 2010, five percent less than the previous year, reflecting the impact of the global financial crisis. Nonetheless, considering that in 2004 Turkey’s exports were only $196 million, there is a visible improvement in its overall export potential. Representatives of the sector aim to reach an annual export volume of $1 billion this year and $2 billion by 2016. According to other statistics, total revenues for Turkish defense firms reached $2.7 billion in 2010, again a significant leap from $848 million ten years earlier. Reflecting this growing economic potential, Turkey invested over $500 million in research and development activities in 2010.

    Determined to maintain this momentum, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan argued during a recent meeting with businessmen that the Turkish defense industry’s annual revenues will exceed $8 billion in five years (Hurriyet, May 19). Indeed, it has been part of Erdogan’s goals to achieve self-sufficiency in military procurement since his party came to power in 2002. In 2004, Turkey overhauled its military modernization programs and rules on military procurement, seeking to increase the domestically manufactured share. The recent advances in that direction have pleased Erdogan, as he constantly refers to the transformation of the Turkish defense industry in his state of the union addresses (Anadolu Ajansi, October 30, 2010).

    While Turkey was largely dependent on defense sector imports during the 1990s, the military modernization programs during that decade were focused on joint production with foreign manufacturers to supply the Turkish army. These facilitated the emergence of a domestic arms industry. In the last decade, the Turkish defense industry has increasingly shifted in the direction of national design and production, based on the accumulated experience and technology transfers achieved through international partnerships. This growth, which is geared toward meeting the Turkish army’s needs, has been achieved largely thanks to support and protection provided by the Turkish government. Yet, the Turkish defense industry seems to be moving to a new phase of mass production for international markets, where it is likely to face fiercer competition.

    https://jamestown.org/program/turkey-meets-over-half-its-defense-requirements-domestically/

  • Turkey Refuses to Stop Second Mavi Marmara

    Turkey Refuses to Stop Second Mavi Marmara

    Turkey Refuses to Stop Second Mavi Marmara

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 8 Issue: 97

    May 19, 2011

    By: Saban Kardas

    The Turkish-Israeli relationship has been in a limbo since the deadly Mavi Marmara incident in late May 2010, and various efforts to bridge the differences have failed (EDM, July 7, December 10, 2010). The approaching anniversary of the flotilla incident has reignited the debate on the future of Turkish-Israeli relations. Representatives of international advocacy groups, including the Turkey-based Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief (IHH), are planning to hold the Freedom Flotilla II to shed light on Israel’s blockade over Gaza. Around fifteen ships from various nations are expected to take part in the flotilla, to which over 10,000 volunteered to join. As the Middle East experiences troubled times, however, concerns have grown that this development might escalate the tensions. In a recent meeting, the flotilla organizers reiterated their determination to go ahead with their plans, though they indicated that they might postpone it until late June in order to avoid the intermingling of this campaign with the upcoming Turkish elections, slated for June 12 (Cihan, April 11).

    There has been rising concern in the United States over how the “second Mavi Marmara crisis” might unfold. Thirty six members of Congress sent a letter to Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan requesting that he prevent the second convoy and dampen the tensions. The members of the House, including both Turkey sympathizers and critics, expressed their deep concern over the developments and called on Erdogan to develop positive relationship with Israel. They also underlined Israel’s right to defend itself and argued that Israel would be forced to board the ships and search for weapons if a second flotilla sails to Gaza, raising the risk of another crisis (Sabah, May 13).

    In an interesting development amidst these reports, Turkish media speculated that the Israeli Ambassador to Turkey, Gaby Levy, paid a visit to the Turkish foreign ministry to relay Israel’s concerns and prevent a second Mavi Marmara crisis. Reportedly, he told Turkish diplomats that “the new flotilla is also [organized] for provocative purposes. If a similar situation emerges again, there will not be violent actions as in the Mavi Marmara. But, be assured, all that is necessary will be undertaken [by Israel].” Those words were interpreted in the Turkish media as akin to veiled threats (Haberturk, May 14).

    Turkish diplomatic sources reportedly maintained the position that Turkey officially cannot stop the convoy. Although Ankara could advise the organizers to cancel their plans, it would not be able to tell a civilian initiative not to go to Gaza. Moreover, according to some sources, intervening now might undermine Turkey’s position, as it would raise the question as to why Turkey had not stopped the first flotilla (www.cnnturk.com, May 16).

    The low attendance to the reception at the Israeli embassy in Ankara commemorating the foundation of the State of Israel was yet another occasion highlighting the ongoing tensions. While no member of the cabinet was present at the reception on May 16, foreign ministry officials and the Turkish military were represented at lower levels. Similarly, opposition parties did not have significant representation at the reception. The low interest in the event was interpreted in the media as the Turkish government’s boycott of Israel (Sabah, May 17).

    Meanwhile, there has been speculation that Turkey was threatening to withdraw from a UN panel investigating Israel’s attack on Mavi Marmara. The Palmer Commission, set up by the UN Human Rights Council in June 2010, was expected to present its report to UN Secretary-General Ban-ki Moon by mid May. Turkey’s objections to certain sections of the draft report, however, and the draft’s failure to name Israel’s actions in international waters as a violation of international law reportedly angered Turkey. While the announcement of the panel’s conclusions has been delayed, the Turkish media even maintained that Turkey threatened to withdraw from the panel if the final report appears to be favoring an Israeli point of view (www.cnnturk.com, May 16).

    In a live TV appearance evaluating Turkish foreign policy, Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu also commented on these various issues on the bilateral agenda. Davutoglu presented a different interpretation to the picture that has emerged in the Turkish media (Hurriyet Daily News, Anadolu Ajansi, May 17). Regarding the press reports that Levy issued a warning to Turkish foreign ministry to stop the organization of the second flotilla, Davutoglu contended that it was out of the question. On the contrary, Davutoglu maintained that Turkey summoned Levy in order to send serious warnings to Israel and convey Ankara’s expectation so that last year’s bitter experience would not be repeated. Davutoglu also criticized those who call on the Turkish government to stop the second flotilla, arguing that telling a civil society organization what to do would be an undemocratic approach.

    Davutoglu acknowledged Turkish dissatisfaction with the content of the draft report prepared by the UN fact finding mission, but rebuffed claims that Turkey would withdraw from the panel. Nonetheless, he added that Ankara’s response will be strong, if the final report contains elements that contradict the initial report last year, which was more favorable to the Turkish position. Last year’s report appeared to describe Israel’s actions in Gaza and the raid against Mavi Marmara as incompatible with international law. Regarding the delays in the presentation of the report’s findings, Davutoglu also put the responsibility on Israel, arguing that Israel delayed submitting its report to the UN panel.

    Davutoglu also sought to make the case that the task of the UN mission is not to reconcile Turkey and Israel, but “to serve justice.” “Why were nine civilians killed? Who dares to kill civilians in international waters? We want this to be described. We do not want a mediator with Israel,” Davutoglu added.

    Although Egypt now allows for the flow of humanitarian aid to Gaza following the fall of Mubarak, the organizers of the Freedom Flotilla remain determined to press ahead with their plans for a second convoy, largely to publicize their position worldwide. Also, Davutoglu’s comments indicate that Turkey remains determined to seek retribution for Israel’s deadly raid. Moreover, Turkey wants Israel’s acknowledgement of its responsibility and the issuing of an official apology. It may be too early to expect an improvement in the Turkish-Israeli relationship any time soon.

    https://jamestown.org/program/turkey-refuses-to-stop-second-mavi-marmara/

     

  • There is a Time to Sue And a Time to Settle

    There is a Time to Sue And a Time to Settle



    By Harut Sassounian

    sassounian32

    It is unfortunate that the noble and sacred concept of establishing an Armenian Genocide Museum and Memorial (AGM&M) in Washington D.C., had to end up in court.

    But contrary to popular belief, the issue was not simply a feud between two wealthy individuals — Gerard Cafesjian and Hirair Hovnanian — or a mere disagreement over the size and scope of the project. The actual dispute resulted from an attempt by Armenian Assembly leaders to take control of the multi-million dollar museum buildings donated by the Cafesjian Family Foundation (CFF) and exclude Cafesjian from any decision-making powers as a Board member of the AGM&M charitable organization.

    After a lengthy litigation, Federal Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ruled on January 26, 2011, that the museum buildings had to be returned to CFF. She upheld the validity of the “reversionary clause” included in the grant agreement signed by the Armenian Assembly of America on Nov. 1, 2003, which stipulated that the properties donated by CFF to the Assembly for the purpose of establishing an Armenian Genocide Museum and Memorial would be returned to CFF, if the Assembly failed to develop the museum by Dec. 1, 2010. That obligation was subsequently conveyed to the AGM&M organization.

    In response to a new filing by the Assembly objecting to the January 26, 2011 verdict, Judge Kollar-Kotelly made a final ruling on May 9, 2011 ordering the Assembly to transfer ownership of the museum property to CFF no later than May 23, 2011. She rejected the Assembly’s demand for a new trial. She also asked a magistrate judge to recommend to her the exact amount of Cafesjian’s legal fees to be reimbursed by AGM&M.

    While CFF must be satisfied with the verdict, the Assembly is probably considering its legal options. However, given the Judge’s two recent verdicts in favor of CFF, filing more lawsuits or appeals is neither in the Assembly’s interest nor that of the Armenian-American community. The time has come to put a stop to the legal wrangling and start concentrating on the important task of building a genocide museum.

    CFF’s chairman, Gerard Cafesjian, made the right decision when he announced that “the court’s concluding verdict frees us all to build this long-awaited museum and memorial about the fact and ongoing consequences of the Armenian Genocide.”

    CFF’s Board member Ross Vartian pledged that CFF would relaunch the museum project “with the participation of ALL interested organizations and individuals.” During a subsequent Voice of America interview, Vartian made it clear that CFF welcomed the participation of the Armenian Assembly in such a community-wide effort.

    This is a very sensible approach. As the Bible states, “to everything there is a season. …A time to break down and a time to build up, …a time for war and a time for peace.” In this instance, one could appropriately add: There is a time to sue and a time to settle!

    Over a decade ago when the idea of an Armenian Genocide museum was first discussed at an Armenian Assembly board meeting, long before any internal disputes had surfaced, the organizers asked for my view on their initiative. I suggested that they invite major Armenian-American organizations to participate in a community-wide effort to oversee the fundraising and implementation of this pan-Armenian project. Regrettably, back then, my advice was unanimously rejected.

    CFF is moving in the right direction by inviting major Armenian-American organizations, including the Armenian Assembly, and prominent Armenian and non-Armenian individuals to come together to realize the laudable, yet long-delayed plan to establish an Armenian Genocide Museum and Memorial by April 24, 2015 — the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. In order to accomplish such a lofty goal in four years, everyone must put aside all other considerations and concentrate on the monumental task at hand. Internal Armenian squabbles only serve to provide Turks with further ammunition to ridicule Armenians and their sacred cause. Rather than wasting more time and money on further lawsuits and appeals, the funds and energies of the Armenian-American community should be channeled towards establishing this important edifice which is expected to cost well over $100 million.

    An Armenian Genocide museum located in the heart of the nation’s capital, just two blocks away from the White House, will be a lasting memorial to the 1.5 million innocent victims and a tribute to the indomitable spirit of the survivors.

  • Sassounian’s column of May 12, 2011

    Sassounian’s column of May 12, 2011

    Sarkozy Joins Obama in Deceit: 

    Neither should be reelected in 2012

    sassounian31

    By Harut Sassounian

    Publisher, The California Courier

     

    Armenians in France and the United States have a common challenge in 2012: To do everything in their power to block reelection of their deceptive presidents.

     

    Neither Nicolas Sarkozy nor Barack Obama kept their promises to their respective Armenian constituents. The French President failed to honor his commitment to support a law penalizing denial of the Armenian Genocide, while the American leader broke his promise to acknowledge the genocide.

     

    The long trail of Obama’s broken promises is well-known, but not many know about Sarkozy’s deception. On January 29, 2001, Pres. Jacques Chirac signed into law a decision adopted by the National Assembly on May 29, 1998, and the Senate on November 7, 2000, recognizing the Armenian Genocide. The Armenian community then petitioned the French government to assign a penalty of 45,000 euros and 5-year imprisonment for denial of the Armenian Genocide, similar to the existing law penalizing denial of the Jewish Holocaust.

     

    This reasonable expectation turned into a major controversy due to Turkish pressure on France and opposition from some French intellectuals who staunchly defended free speech. Under these circumstances, the French government tried to block a vote on this measure in the National Assembly.

     

    The French intellectuals, who objected to this law on grounds of restricting freedom of expression, conveniently ignored the fact that a similar law existed in France since 1990 to punish those who deny the Holocaust. The objections raised by Turkish denialists, on the other hand, were totally absurd. Turkey’s autocratic leaders had no right whatsoever to lecture the French on freedom of expression, while their own country arrested journalists, censored the media, and banned the acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide.

     

    It was unfortunate that some well-intentioned but naive Armenians and their liberal Turkish friends also opposed the proposed law, thereby unintentionally supporting Turkish denialism. They opposed this bill by equating the infamous Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code banning the acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide, with the proposed French law penalizing the denial of the genocide. This is a farcical comparison because the Turkish law makes it a crime to tell the truth about the Armenian Genocide, while the French law makes it a crime to lie about it! Why didn’t these liberal Turks and French intellectuals, who claim to support freedom of speech, object to a similar French law penalizing denial of the Holocaust? Doesn’t that law also restrict freedom of speech? Why shouldn’t Armenian genocide victims be accorded equal protection under French law?

     

    After lengthy debates and delays, the French National Assembly approved the law on penalizing denial of the Armenian Genocide on October 12, 2006, and sent it to the Senate, where it has been stalled until last week.

     

    While Sarkozy was a presidential candidate, he repeatedly promised to support adoption of this law in the French Senate. But as President, he reversed course and opposed the measure. After coming under intense criticism by Charles Aznavour and the influential French Armenian community, and realizing that he is badly trailing his likely opponents in next year’s presidential election, Pres. Sarkozy recently met with several prominent French Armenians and promised not to oppose the bill in the Senate. This was too little too late. After Turkish leaders once again unleashed an intense lobbying campaign, Sarkozy’s political party (UMP), which holds a majority in the Senate, was instructed by his government to oppose the bill. On May 4, after a three-hour debate, the Senate refused to take up the measure by a vote of 196-74.

     

    The battle for this bill is by no means over. Taking advantage of Pres. Sarkozy’s poor rating in the polls, Armenians will now join forces with a majority of French voters to support the Socialist Party’s candidate in next year’s presidential election, just as Armenian-Americans are preparing to oppose Pres. Obama in the 2012 elections.

     

    In an attempt not to alienate Armenian voters altogether in the upcoming elections, France’s Justice Minister proposed the formation of a joint commission of Armenians and ministry officials that would bring to the courts’ attention incidents of genocide denial. This is a welcome development and in line with the existing commission on the Holocaust, but French Armenians should still insist on having a law that penalizes denial of the Armenian Genocide.

     

    While politicians, whether in France or the United States, are notorious for breaking their promises, Armenians in both countries can only reach their objectives by pooling their resources and forming a cohesive voting block that backs their political supporters and counters their opponents.

     

  • Golden Rules of Tallahassee Democrat “Faith and Courtesy”

    Golden Rules of Tallahassee Democrat “Faith and Courtesy”

    IMG 5059International Center for Journalists continues to realize cross border projects all around the world. One of them is Turkish-Armenian-American journalists exchange program which combines 7 Turkish and 6 Armenian journalists to make them observers in different American media organs. Our author Mehmet Fatih Oztarsu is one of the participants of this project. Every journalists have gone to different regions of the US and they are visitors of American journalists. Oztarsu lives in Florida with his Armenian partner Ofelya Kamavosyan and observes American media mechanism`s differences. He compares business ethics, journalism style and effects of Tallahassee Democrat with the direction of International Center for Journalists. The author shares his observations with interesting points for us: (more…)

  • FOX-TV Airs Two Interviews On the Armenian Genocide

    FOX-TV Airs Two Interviews On the Armenian Genocide

    Publisher, The California Courier sassounian3 FOX-TV (Los Angeles) invited this writer for a live in-studio interview on the Armenian Genocide for two consecutive days. The first, lasting 5 minutes, took place on April 24, during the TV station’s evening news program. The second, lasting over 6 minutes, took place on April 25, during the Good Day LA Show. Below are excerpts from both interviews:

     

    April 24, 2011 FOX-TV: Joining us now is Harut Sassounian, the president of the United Armenian Fund. He’s also publisher of the California Courier, a newspaper here in Southern California, published out of Glendale. It is the 96th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. And it’s also kind of a confusing issue for a lot of us, because Armenian-Americans want the president to say, to claim that this was genocide. And yet, you just told me prior to coming on the newscast that really it doesn’t matter whether the president says it or not. Why? SASSOUNIAN: Because we already have another president, Ronald Reagan, 30 years ago in 1981, who issued a presidential proclamation in which he mentioned the words Armenian Genocide. Plus, we have two congressional resolutions, in 1975 and 1984, commemorating the Armenian Genocide.

     

    FOX-TV: Mr. Sassounian, then one would ask, and people who are not that familiar with the 1915 genocide would say, why are you protesting out in front of the Turkish consulate? SASSOUNIAN: We are simply protesting to let the president know, and every other politician know that if you come to us as a candidate and make [empty] promises and later on you get elected with our votes and money, we’re not going to just remain silent, we’re going to express our disagreement and we’re going to make sure that you’re not re-elected.

     

    FOX-TV: It’s not then good enough to have just the proclamation by Pres. Reagan; to have the Dept. of Justice write in a 1951 paper that it was genocide. You want that confirmed by the current administration? SASSOUNIAN: It would be nice if they confirm it, but we are trying to send a message to the president and all politicians that if you make a promise to the people, you have to keep your promise. You can’t make a false promise, get their money, get their votes, and then act like nothing happened! They have to pay a price! We have to change the whole political charade in this country where you just lie to the public and get away with it.

     

    FOX-TV: With Turkey being such a strategic ally of the United States, do you expect any president now or after this to come out and say, “The Ottoman Empire committed genocide against Armenians?” SASSOUNIAN: There is a big difference between politics and historical facts. Historical facts do not change with time. If an event happened, it happened! …So our alliances or relationships, good or bad, should not affect the facts of history.

     

    FOX-TV: Yesterday Armenian boxer Vic Darchinyan, on his trunks, when he was in the ring, were in big numerals 1915, and on a sports blog, the blogger said “In case you haven’t heard about the Armenian Genocide …” and then started to explain it. Does it upset you that so many people outside of Armenian-Americans really are ignorant about this? SASSOUNIAN: That doesn’t upset me because most people don’t know much about the world. They don’t follow the news very closely, as some of us do. What upsets me more is when you said at the top of the introduction of this news item “Armenians claim genocide.” Armenians are not the ones claiming genocide. The whole world knows there was a genocide. Hundreds of historians, 43 US states, Congress twice, President Reagan, 25 different countries have passed parliamentary resolutions. Just because Turkey, the successor of the criminal regime, denies it, that doesn’t make it an allegation or a claim. It’s a historical fact. For political reasons, Turks don’t want to face up to their own history.

     

    FOX-TV: And I think that was written, we were reporting that for the purpose of showing the contrast between Armenians and Turks. And yet, your point is well taken. Thank you for the correction.

     

    April 25, 2011 FOX-TV: Yesterday around the world, [there were] commemorations of the Armenian Genocide in 1915 — a very controversial historical event — perhaps a million and a half people died or were killed as a result of this. Joining us now is Harut Sassounian. He is the president of the United Armenian Fund and editor of the Armenian newspaper, the California Courier. We do this every year. The issue at stake is that the United States government, this president, the last president, the president before, all ran making big statements saying that the Armenian Genocide will be recognized as a genocide like the Holocaust around World War II. All three presidents run, all three presidents when they get into office, they look at Turkey, an ally we need badly in the Middle East, and they don’t do it.

     

    SASSOUNIAN: In general, politicians are all very bad in keeping promises on all subjects. But when it comes to this subject, there’s a little unfortunate situation where people confuse politics with history. You can remain good friends, good allies, with Turkey, but at the same time not change historical facts…. So we should not mix up politics and history. We should be truthful about facts, but we can still remain friends, trade, and maintain military relations.

     

    FOX-TV: Let me just play the devil’s advocate, as if I’m representing the president at this point. Yes, that’s true, but where I sit right now, the world where it is, leaves us in a position where we do not want to insult Turkey and they’ve made it very clear to us that they would be deeply insulted. SASSOUNIAN: First of all, this was done by the Ottoman Empire and not the Republic of Turkey which didn’t exist at the time. Secondly, Germany has no problem acknowledging what the Nazi regime did. There’s no reason why today’s Turkey should not acknowledge what was done by its predecessor….

     

    FOX-TV: Turkey has become more and more important to us as the years go on. SASSOUNIAN: It has become more important and recently it has become a serious problem for us because they’ve become more of a radical Islamic regime; they strengthened their ties with Iran and Syria and various other radical regimes.

     

    FOX-TV: And I believe the administration is afraid of pushing them more into that camp, if they take the step of recognition.

     

    SASSOUNIAN: This is the problem because we compromise our principles, our values, because of geopolitical considerations. We have to separate them. We have to say here are the facts, here’s history, here are our values, and you have to live with it. The more we cater to dictators, people who deny the facts of history, the more they’re going to be demanding from us.

     

    FOX-TV: And you know in history the Ottoman Empire, which fell right after that, the Turks say “not a genocide, it’s the fog of war, people died from war, people died from disease, it wasn’t planned, so therefore it wasn’t a genocide,” and you say…

     

    SASSOUNIAN: There are hundreds of historians, experts on the Holocaust and the genocide who have signed a unanimous letter saying it was genocide. We have court cases, we have the United Nations, we have the European Parliament that recognized the genocide, so many countries, U.S. states, and Pres. Reagan himself said it was genocide.

     

    FOX-TV: I know you want recognition — there has been some — but maybe not enough. What else is it that you would want? SASSOUNIAN: In fact, what we want is not really recognition, because from my point of view the world knows it was genocide. Some people don’t want to say it publicly. But what we really want is…we lost a lot beyond the people who were killed — we lost our culture, our churches, our lands, and our personal properties. Every Armenian had houses, farms, properties, and bank accounts. We’ve lost all of that. So my intent is to go to court — the World Court, the European Court, and U.S. Federal Courts. We want Turks to pay reparations, restitution and bring justice back for this massive crime they’ve committed. That’s much more important to us than the lip service that any politician would pay to us.

     

    FOX-TV: The fact that there isn’t that one level of official recognition keeps this topic very fresh. And to some extent there’s an advantage to that because we’re still talking about it all the time. SASSOUNIAN: You’re absolutely correct…let’s forget about Pres. Obama for a second. Even if the President of Turkey tomorrow morning would say it was genocide, most people around the world and maybe even some Armenians would say that we finally reached our objective, let’s move on. So maybe it’s a good thing that the Turks keep denying it.