Category: Armenian Question

“The great Turk is governing in peace twenty nations from different religions. Turks have taught to Christians how to be moderate in peace and gentle in victory.”Voltaire’s Philosophical Dictionary

Armenians support the anti American Hezbollah in Lebanon

In Lebanon’s Patchwork, a Focus on Armenians’ Political Might

Bryan Denton for The New York Times

Supporters watched a speech by Hagop Pakradounian, a politician from the main party of the Armenians, Tashnaq, on May 9 in Beirut, Lebanon.

By ROBERT F. WORTH Published: May 25, 2009

BEIRUT, Lebanon – Their political apparatus is a model of discipline. Their vast array of social services is a virtual state within a state. Their enemies accuse them of being pawns of Syria and Iran.

Bryan Denton for The New York Times

Hagop Havatian, a Tashnaq official, under a portrait of the party’s founders. The party operates in 35 nations.

They are the Armenian Christians of Lebanon, one of the Middle East’s most singular and least-understood communities. And if they sound a bit like Hezbollah, the Shiite militant group based here, that is no accident.

Last month, the main Armenian political bloc decided to support Hezbollah’s alliance in the coming parliamentary elections in Lebanon against the pro-American parliamentary majority. Because of their role as a crucial swing vote, the Armenians could end up deciding who wins and who loses in what is often described as a proxy battle between Iran, Hezbollah’s patron, and the West.

That fact has brought new attention to the Armenians, a distinct and borderless ethnic group that is spread throughout the region much as the Jews once were. In Lebanon, they have their own schools, hospitals and newspapers. They speak their own language, with its own alphabet. Their main political party, Tashnaq, operates in 35 countries and has a secretive world committee that meets four times a year. Their collective memory of the genocide carried out against them in Turkey from 1915 to 1918 helps maintain their identity in a far-flung diaspora.

“There is a sense of invisible nationhood across borders,” said Paul Haidostian, the president of Haigazian University, the Armenian university in Beirut.

In fact, their political enemies here accuse the Armenians of siding with Hezbollah in order to protect the substantial Armenian populations in Syria and Iran. But the Armenian political leadership says it is fully independent and has no ideological sympathy for either of Lebanon’s two main political camps.

Instead, the Armenians say, they are voting with the opposition for reasons that are entirely local and pragmatic: it offered them full control over the parliamentary seats in Armenian-dominated districts. The other side did not, said Hovig Mekhitarian, the chairman of the Lebanese branch of Tashnaq.

“We want candidates who represent our community,” Mr. Mekhitarian said. “We are not with the opposition, and not with the majority.”

That dynamic is common enough in Lebanon, a checkerboard of mutually suspicious sectarian groups that are usually more concerned with protecting their own interests than with advancing any broader national or regional agenda.

But even in Lebanon, the Armenians stand out for their independence. During the 1975-1990 civil war, the Armenians refused to take sides. Tashnaq discouraged its members from leaving the country (though many Armenians did leave), in deference to Lebanese patriotism. Officially, the party is socialist, but its only real credo is survival.

Mr. Haidostian said: “I remember when I used to get stopped at a checkpoint, they would ask, ‘Are you Christian or Muslim?’ I would say ‘Armenian,’ and it was like a third category. They didn’t know what to do.”

Despite the risks, many Armenians say they find Lebanon a uniquely accommodating place, largely because its weak state allows them to live almost as a separate nation. “There is something tentative about Lebanese identity, and in that questioning Armenians have found a comfortable space,” Mr. Haidostian said.

Although there have been Armenians here for centuries, they first came in large numbers after the genocide. Later wars and crises led to more migration, increasing the size of the Lebanese Armenian community to 240,000 by the 1970s. The creation of the independent state of Armenia in 1918 had provided refuge to some, but its small size and role as a Soviet client state after 1920 set limits on its role as an Armenian homeland.

In Lebanon, the Armenians had an unusual mix of freedom and insecurity, allowing them to practice their religion and culture, but also limiting their assimilation into the general culture. In the United States, Armenians often marry outside their group and are less likely to speak their own language; here, they remain far more distinct.

The Beirut neighborhood of Bourj Hamoud is a kind of miniature Armenia, with shop signs written in Armenian script and a dense, familial culture of working-class shops, homes and restaurants. The Lebanese branch of Tashnaq is based there, flying the party’s distinctive banner bearing a pen, a shovel and a dagger – representing ideology, work and struggle. There is also a rich network of schools, orphanages, retirement homes and hospitals. Schoolchildren learn three languages (and three different alphabets), and start on a fourth language in the fourth grade.

Maintaining this independence requires political skill. During the civil war, Bourj Hamoud was trapped geographically between Christian and Palestinian areas, and its leaders had to work hard to avoid becoming a target for either side.

Recently, that neutrality has been difficult to preserve. Tashnaq has long been a de facto Syrian ally, partly because of Syria’s former military domination of Lebanon. After the Syrian withdrawal in 2005, it remained in the Syrian political camp, mainly because it blamed the other side for an electoral law that divided Armenian districts and reduced its power.

This spring, Saad Hariri, the leader of the pro-American parliamentary majority, tried to mend fences with Tashnaq, which controls the vast majority of Armenian votes. He had good reason: last year the electoral law was revised in a way that restored the Armenians’ power.

Lebanese Christians represent the swing vote in this election, and the 160,000-strong Armenian community is by far the most unified subgroup of those votes. If Mr. Hariri could have persuaded Tashnaq to vote with him, the balance might have tipped in his favor to defeat Hezbollah and its allies.

He did not succeed. Mr. Mekhitarian said Mr. Hariri had not offered enough. “He was really only offering one seat, and he wanted our support in 15 other seats,” Mr. Mekhitarian said.

Members of Mr. Hariri’s party who took part in the negotiations offered a slightly different account. They said Mr. Hariri offered to satisfy Tashnaq’s demands on parliamentary seats, but only if the party would commit firmly to supporting him before and after the elections. It would not do so, they said.

That is not surprising. In a sense, the Armenians cannot afford to make such political commitments. Like the Druse and other minorities in Lebanon, they believe they must subordinate all ideological principles to a nimble defense of their community.

“In politics, you can’t always be neutral,” said Hagop Pakradounian, a Tashnaq member of Parliament. “But we try to maintain links to all sides.”

May 28, 2009
Prime Minister Erdogan Finally Admits

Turkey Practiced Ethnic Cleansing

In a daring statement, Prime Minister Rejeb Erdogan admitted for the first time, that the expulsion from Turkey of tens of thousands of ethnic Greeks in the last century was a “fascist” act, Reuters reported.

Some commentators viewed Erdogan’s remarks as a reference to the expulsion of 1.5 million ethnic Greeks from Turkey to Greece in 1923. The large-scale population exchange between the two countries also included the transfer of more than 500,000 ethnic Turks from Greece to Turkey.

Other observers thought that Erdogan was referring to the pillaging of thousands of Greek shops and houses by Turkish mobs in Istanbul on Sept. 6-7, 1955, following the spread of false reports that Atatürk’s house in Thessaloniki, Greece had been burned down.

Beyond the expulsion of Greeks, Erdogan made an indirect reference to the tragic fate of other ethnic groups, such as Armenians, in Turkey. “For years, those of different identities have been kicked out of our country.… This was not done with common sense. This was done with a fascist approach,” Erdogan said on May 23, during the annual congress of the Justice and Development Party, held in the western province of Düzce.

“For many years,” Erdogan continued, “various facts took place in this country to the detriment of ethnic minorities who lived here. They were ethnically cleansed because they had a different ethnic cultural identity. The time has arrived for us to question ourselves about why this happened and what we have learned from all of this. There has been no analysis of this right up until now. In reality, this behavior is the result of a fascist conception. We have also fallen into this grave error.”

The Turkish Prime Minister’s candid remarks were harshly criticized by opposition parties. Onur Oymen, vice president of the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) said that associating Turkey’s history with terms like fascism based on hearsay was not right. He also said that no Turkish citizen had ever been expelled because of his or her ethnic background. Oktay Vural of the opposition MHP party added: “Erdogan’s words are an insult to the Turkish nation.”

In sharp contrast, liberal Turkish commentators praised Erdogan for his conciliatory remarks: “For the first time you have a prime minister who wants to admit that mistakes were made in the treatment of religious minorities. This is historic,” wrote journalist Sami Kohen in Milliyet. “But whether this rhetoric will be followed with deeds, remains to be seen.”

Hürriyet Daily News added: Erdogan’s speech was historic; it was the first time that a high official accepted there have been unlawful and undemocratic practices against minorities in the past. This sentiment was echoed by Prof. Halil Berktay in Vatan newspaper: “That statement was the most courageous thing ever said by Erdogan.” Baskin Oran, another academic well-known for his liberal views, told Star newspaper that he was “proud of a prime minister who denounces ethnic and religious cleansing.”

CNN-Turk News Director Ridvan Akar was more skeptical about Erdogan’s true intentions. He wrote in Vatan: “Minority rights as well as those of religious foundations are a structural problem within the Turkish state. Of course, Erdogan has taken a step forward with this declaration. But the sincerity of his words will depend on facts to back them up, such as the restitution of rights to those who have been expelled, the return of confiscated properties, or compensation.”

The Prime Minister’s statement is encouraging, if it is an indication that Turkey’s leaders have finally decided to face the ugly chapters of their country’s past.

However, it would be wrong to draw overly optimistic conclusions from this single statement. Erdogan has made similar comments about the Kurds in Turkey, only to have their hopes dashed by taking unexpected repressive measures against them.

The fact is that Erdogan is not the master of his political domain. The “fascists” he attacks are not buried in an Ottoman historical grave, but are alive and well in Turkish society and occupy the highest echelons of the military and judiciary.

Yet, Erdogan is politically shrewd enough to realize that his condemnation of fascism would resonate at home and in the West, and win him accolades and support against his powerful domestic opponents.

Erdogan’s battle against the ghosts of the Turkish past is in fact a fight for his political survival against those in today’s Turkey who view him and his Islamic party with deep suspicion, and are determined to counter his every move, ultimately seeking his downfall from power.

May 26, 2009
A Special Conference held at British House of Commons

British House of Commons: Demanding Justice For Armenians, Not Just Genocide Recognition

Harut Sassounian

At the invitation of the British-Armenian All-Party Parliamentary Group (BAAPPG), I spoke on May 7 at a special conference on the Armenian Genocide held at the House of Commons, Committee Room 3, the British Parliament, London.

Dr. Israel Charny, Director of the Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide in Jerusalem, was also invited to speak at this conference. Regrettably, due to a last minute illness, Dr. Charny could not attend. His prepared remarks titled, “Denial of Genocide is not only a political tactic, it is an attack on decent people’s minds and emotions,” was read by Peter Barker, a former broadcaster of BBC Radio. The conference was chaired by House of Lords member Baroness Cox, Chairman of BAAPPG. In attendance were members of the House of Lords, the Armenian Desk officer of the Foreign Office, representatives from the Embassies of Greece, Kuwait, Serbia, Slovenia, and Syria, non-governmental organizations, scholars, journalists, and other distinguished guests. In my remarks entitled, “Armenian Genocide and Quest for Justice,” I cited the acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide by the United Nations, European Parliament, legislatures of more than 20 countries, U.S. House of Representatives, Pres. Reagan, 42 out of 50 U.S. States, and the International Association of Genocide Scholars. I concluded that “after so many acknowledgments, the Armenian Genocide has become a universally recognized historical fact.” I expressed regret that the United Kingdom remained one of the rare major countries that has yet to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide. I pointed out that “Britain’s siding with a denialist state is not so much due to lack of evidence or conviction, but, sadly, because of sheer political expediency, with the intent of appeasing Turkey.” I urged British officials to heed the cautionary words of Prime Minister Winston Churchill who said: “An appeaser is someone who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.” I suggested that Armenians no longer needed to convince the world that what took place during the years 1915-23 was “a genocide.” Here are excerpts from my May 7 speech:

“A simple acknowledgment of and a mere apology, however, would not heal the wounds and undo the consequences of the Genocide. Armenians are still waiting for justice to be meted out, restoring their historic rights and returning their confiscated lands and properties.””In recent years, Armenian-American lawyers have successfully filed lawsuits in U.S. federal courts, securing millions of dollars from New York Life and French AXA insurance companies for unpaid claims to policy-holders who perished in the Genocide. Several more lawsuits are pending against other insurance companies and German banks to recover funds belonging to victims of the Armenian Genocide.” “In 1915, a centrally planned and executed attempt was made to uproot from its ancestral homeland and decimate an entire nation, depriving the survivors of their cultural heritage as well as their homes, lands, houses of worship, and personal properties.” “A gross injustice was perpetrated against the Armenian people, which entitles them, as in the case of the Jewish Holocaust, to just compensation for their enormous losses. “Restitution can take many forms. As an initial step, the Republic of Turkey could place under the jurisdiction of the Istanbul-based Armenian Patriarchate all of the Armenian churches and religious monuments which were expropriated and converted to mosques and warehouses or outright destroyed.” “In the absence of any voluntary restitution by the Republic of Turkey, Armenians could resort to litigation, seeking ‘restorative justice’.” “In considering legal recourse, one should be mindful of the fact that the Armenian Genocide did neither start nor end in 1915.” “Large-scale genocidal acts were committed starting with Sultan Abdul Hamid’s massacre of 300,000 Armenians from 1894 to 1896; the subsequent killings of 30,000 Armenians in Adana by the Young Turk regime in 1909; culminating in the Genocide of 1.5 million Armenians in 1915 to 1923; and followed by forced Turkification and deportation of tens of thousands of Armenians by the Republic of Turkey.” “Most of the early leaders of the Turkish Republic were high-ranking Ottoman officials who had participated in perpetrating the Armenian Genocide. This unbroken succession in leadership assured the continuity of the Ottomans’ anti-Armenian policies. The Republic of Turkey, as the continuation of the Ottoman Empire, could therefore be held responsible for the Genocide.” “An important document, recently discovered in the U.S. archives, provides irrefutable evidence that the Republic of Turkey continued to uproot and exile the remnants of Armenians well into the 1930’s motivated by purely racist reasons. The document in question is a ‘Strictly Confidential’ cable, dated March 2nd, 1934, and sent by U.S. Ambassador Robert P. Skinner from Ankara to the U.S. Secretary of State, reporting the deportation of Armenians.” “In the 1920’s and 30’s, thousands of Armenian survivors of the Genocide were forced out of their homes in Cilicia and Western Armenia to locations elsewhere in Turkey or neighboring countries. In the 1940’s, these racist policies were followed by the Varlik Vergisi, the imposition of an exorbitant wealth tax on Armenians, Greeks and Jews. And, during the 1955 Istanbul pogroms, many Greeks as well as Armenians and Jews were killed and their properties destroyed.” “This continuum of massacres, genocide and deportations highlights the existence of a long-term strategy implemented by successive Turkish regimes from the 1890’s to more recent times, in order to solve the Armenian Question with finality.” “Consequently, the Republic of Turkey is legally liable for its own crimes against Armenians, as well as those committed by its Ottoman predecessors. Turkey inherited the assets of the Ottoman Empire; And, therefore, it must have also inherited its liabilities.” “Finally, since Armenians often refer to their three sequential demands from Turkey: ‘Recognition’ of the Genocide; ‘Reparations’ for their losses; and the ‘Return’ of their lands, Turks have come to believe that once the Genocide is recognized, Armenians will then pursue their next two demands.” “This is the main reason why Turks adamantly refuse to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide. They fear that acceptance of the Genocide would lead to other demands for restitution. They believe that by denying the first demand, they would be blocking the ones that are sure to follow.” “The fact is that, commemorative resolutions adopted by legislative bodies of various countries and statements made on the Armenian Genocide by world leaders have no force of law, and therefore, no legal consequence.” “Armenians, Turks and others involved in this historical, and yet contemporary issue, must realize that recognition of the Armenian Genocide or the lack thereof, will neither enable nor deter its consideration by international legal institutions.” “Once Turkish officials realize that recognition by itself cannot and would not lead to other demands, they may no longer persist in their obsessive denial of these tragic events. “Without waiting for any further recognition, Armenians can pursue their historic rights through proper legal channels, such as the International Court of Justice (where only states have such jurisdiction), the European Court of Human Rights and U.S. Federal Courts.” “Justice, based on international law, must take its course.”

Following an extensive question and answer period, Armenia’s Ambassador to Great Britain, Vahe Gabrieliyan, delivered the closing remarks. Based on the speeches of the two speakers, the BAAPPG issued a statement calling on the British Government to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide.

Source: www.huffingtonpost.com, May 20, 2009

May 24, 2009
Başbuğ questions media perception

ANKARA – Chief of General Staff Gen. İlker Başbuğ poses questions to well-known foreign scholars of history on the perception of Turkey in the West. ’Today, we see very strong prejudice against Turks is still there,’ replies historian Justin McCarthy.

Well-known scholars of Turkish history received a flurry of questions at a two-session panel held by the General Staff to commemorate the 90th anniversary of the Turkish War of Independence on May 19.

During his presentation, historian Justin McCarthy said the Western media largely labeled the Turks before the War of Independence as barbarians and tyrants, but that the situation began changing after the victory by the forces of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the founder of the Turkish Republic.

In the question-and-answer part of the session, Chief of General Staff Gen. İlker Başbuğ, who was in the audience, asked McCarthy about the reason for these differing perceptions. Gen. Başbuğ also posed a second question, which he warned could be provocative, about how the Western press covers Turkey today. “Is it like before the war, or after the war?” he asked.

In response, McCarthy said the negative coverage of Turks mostly stemmed from ignorance and strong prejudices in the West that developed as a result of the World War I-era killings of Armenians at the hands of the Ottoman Empire.

’Prejudice against Turks is still there’
“Today, we see very strong prejudice [against Turks] is still there,” he said, adding that the New York Times was one of the most anti-Turkish newspapers in the United States, both during the war years and today. As an example, he cited the paper’s language referring to the Armenian killings as “genocide.”

McCarthy also said the newspaper once printed an article about Turkish lobbying groups in the United States fighting against genocide claims, while mentioning nothing about the Armenian side.

Another panelist, Prof. Salahi Sonyel, said he had advised the Turkish government to give up on the Armenian diaspora and instead concentrate on the Armenians of Armenia. In his opinion, the Armenian diaspora will never come to good terms with Turkey, but it is important for Turkey to normalize ties with neighboring governments, including the one in Yerevan.

Following the panel, Gen. Başbuğ inaugurated a statue of Atatürk that had been crafted by Sait Rüstem. The statue, decorated with quotes from the Turkish leader, stands 4 meters tall and weighs 2.3 tons.

Source: www.hurriyet.com.tr, May 20, 2009‎

May 24, 2009
Adi Ignatius to discuss the future of media

Adi Ignatius.

WATERTOWN, MASS. – Adi Ignatius, the editor-in-chief of Harvard Business Review and a former executive editor of Time magazine will be the guest speaker at the dinner meeting of the St. James Armenian Church Men’s Club on Monday, June 1.

Mr. Ignatius will discuss “The future of media. Who will survive? Who won’t? How we’ll consume news.”

The meeting will take place at the church cultural hall, 465 Mount Auburn Street in Watertown. The social hour starts at 6:15, with a dinner of losh kebab and kheyma at 7.

Mr. Ignatius is the son of Paul Ignatius, the former secretary of the Navy who was the highest-ranked Armenian-American in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations.

Source: www.reporter.am, May 22, 2009

May 24, 2009
Myth of Armenian claims against Turks

Name of the book: Lies,Lies and More Lies
Author: Col Masud Akhtar Shaikh (R)
Reviewed by: Col Ghulam Sarwar (R)
Published by: Encore, Islamabad
Pages: 250

A reputed Pakistani scholar of the Turkish language and literature, Col Masud Akhtar Shaikh is the proud author of sixteen books and some of these are translations from Turkish literature. A few more books, I understand, are in the pipeline. Besides, writing books on Turkish literature, he has carried out an indepth analysis of the Armenian issue and in the process has exploded the myth of the Armenian genocide by the Ottoman Turks. He has convincingly brought out that the issue of genocide is a total hoax and has nothing to do with facts on ground. He holds that this “hoax” was woven by some Christian powers during World War I, as a part of their vicious propaganda against the Turks. Col Shaikh, on the other hand, makes us believe that the myth of Armenian genocide by the ottoman Turks, was designed to cover up the genocide of the Turks at the hands of the Armenians.

It is extremely deplorable that the propaganda against the Turks has so successfully been launched that the world has seriously started believing that the Armenians were the most oppressed nation in the world and that the Ottoman Turks had mercilessly subjected them to genocide and for this, the Turkish Republic should accept responsibility. The learned author feels that it is high time that this myth is exposed threadbare.

From the narrative, we learn that knowing that the Ottoman government would not easily agree to further disintegration of the Empire, the Americans had adopted the policy of terrorism on an extensive scale. Gradually, the terrorist operations engineered by the Armenians had become so frequent and so widespread, that it had become almost impossible to keep a count of the number of Turks killed by the Armenians. It was also difficult to assess the value of Turkish assets that were destroyed by the latter. To put facts in their proper perspective, the author makes us believe that during the Ottoman Empire, there was no bar or prejudice against the employment of Armenians in any government or ministry. Also, there was no objection to their elevation to the higher echelons of the bureaucratic hierarchy. This situation continued right upto the end of World War I. This fact was borne out by the Report of the Commission led by General Horbord, and presented to the American Senate. This Commission had carried out a study on the status of Armenians in Antolia and Russia at the end of the Great War.

The report had stated that the Turkish people and the Armenians had been living side by side on friendly and peaceful terms. In fact, the Armenians had lived in peace and prosperity for many centuries as the loyal citizens of the Ottoman Empire, enjoying full confidence of the Ottoman Rulers. However, starting from the last quarter of the 19th century, this situation had started undergoing a drastic change in relation between the Turks and the Armenians. Thus, through cunning mechanism of the Big Powers, the age-old brotherly feelings between the two communities were gradually replaced by feelings of mutual hatred and acrimony. With regard to geo-political importance of Turks, the author brings out that all along history, Turkey had remained the centre of attraction for various powers, because of its extremely important strategic and geo-political location. Obviously, it had served as a bridge between Europe and Asia. To add to its importance, we see that it controlled two highly important straits, the Dardanelles and the Istanbul straits (Bosophorus), which provided passage between the Mediterranean Sea and the Black Sea. It was located at a nodal point where the natural energy resources of Asia, Caucasus and Middle East intersect each other. In view of this enviable position, Turkey has always been the centre piece of plots and conspiracies hatched against it by big powers. Further, we learn from the narrative that Armenia is in dire need of economic developments, both in the industrial and the agricultural sectors. For this, it has to rely on outside help in terms of technical know-how, heavy equipment and machinery and external investment. With the present strained relations with Azerbaijan, Turkey, Georgia and to some extent, Iran, it would be futile on the part of Armenia to expect desired goodwill from any of these countries. In view of above constraints, what Armenia needs in the immediate future is a friendly Turkey, a friendly Azerbaijan and a friendly Georgia. All these neighbouring countries can be of a great assistance to Armenia in its economic and social development as well as its security as an independent nation. It is in Armenia’s own interest to realise that no attempt at reconciliation can be successful unless the outside powers, namely Russia, America and France realise that their respective national interests can be served better if durable peace prevails in the region. By contributing towards accelerated economic and industrial development of the region, these powers can also reap rich dividends in terms of greater opportunities for secure investment in the whole region. International development and financial agencies would also be encouraged to invest substantial funds for speedy regional development. This done, hopefully, within a short period, Armenia would no longer remain a permanent liability for Russia and America, as well as for rest of the Christian world, as it has been for the last many decades. So, in the interest of Armenian people, it is imperative that Russia, America and France, voluntarily lend their support in paving the way for inter-state reconciliation in the region.

Source: www.pakobserver.net, May 24 2009

May 24, 2009