Wednesday, 13 May 2009 | |
“I think it should be absolutely applauded that Turkey has undertaken these bold steps,” said the top British diplomat in Turkey, referring to the diplomatic process of normalization between Turkey and Armenia.”I think it should be absolutely applauded that Turkey has undertaken these bold steps,” said the top British diplomat in Turkey, referring to the diplomatic process of normalization between Turkey and Armenia.
In an interview with Today?s Zaman, British Ambassador Nick Baird described a visit made by Turkish President Abdullah GЭl to Armenia last September as “very courageous.’ The trip set off a series of diplomatic initiatives to normalize relations between Turkey and Armenia, beginning with the possibility of opening their border, which was closed in 1993. Baird acknowledged that the issues in the Caucasus are complex but offered his government?s help to facilitate a thaw between neighboring countries. ?We are hugely keen to help solve the Nagorno-Karabakh issue, and we are very supportive of the Minsk process,’ he said. The Minsk Group was created in 1992 under the umbrella of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) with the intention of finding a solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh problem. The Minsk Group is co-chaired by Russia, the United States and France. Recalling that the United Kingdom had offered to open British archives to help settle a dispute over tragic events that happened in 1915, Ambassador Baird said Turkey?s suggestion of establishing a joint history commission to investigate genocide allegations is ?a good one and we absolutely support it.’ He revealed, however, that the UK was never asked to participate in such a commission or provide a historian. ?If we are asked to do so, we would be happy to consider it,” he said. Asked if he is concerned about Russia being a disruptive influence on regional peace, Baird said, “I very much hope that Russia will play a constructive role in the Caucasus.’ ?They [Russians] have a great interest in political stability in the region,’ he emphasized, indicating that some positive signs have already emerged on the Russian side in solving the Nagorno-Karabakh issue. Baird believes the current economic crisis has resulted in one positive development, albeit unintentionally. ?It reminded us how we are so interconnected with each other,’ he said. ?The energy-rich countries like Russia all want stability in client states so that they can pay their bills without a delay,’ the British ambassador noted. On the Nabucco project, a pipeline that will carry Caspian oil to Europe through Turkey, Baird said, ?We are making progress and having successful negotiations despite some political difficulties with Moscow.” Close cooperation on terrorism The UK?s top representative in Ankara described the level of cooperation with Turkey on terrorism as “very strong.’ After a visit from Home Secretary Jacqui Smith on Jan. 5-7, cross-agency involvement in combating terrorism has picked up speed, according to Baird. The UK considers the outlawed Kurdistan Workers? Party (PKK) – an armed Kurdish group waging a separatist battle in the Southeast – a terrorist organization. ?This classification gives us certain powers in terms of the seizure of its financial assets and the cutting of its activities,’ Baird explained. He further remarked, ?There is a noticeable increase in the number of terrorist arrests in the UK, and the Turkish government recognizes the increased commitment by British authorities.” On the European front, Baird hinted that his government was trying to cooperate in developing an action plan against the PKK?s terrorist activities throughout Europe. Commenting on the Kurdish problem, the ambassador urged a broader and more comprehensive action plan, saying, “Complex problems need complex responses.’ He said Turkey needs to address security measures, economic development, assistance programs, protecting cultural rights and having good relations with the Kurdish regional government in northern Iraq as a single package. Acknowledging the progress the Turkish government has made so far, Baird said, ?We see genuine improvements in Turkey.’ Discussing Iraq, the ambassador praised Turkey?s foreign policy and its focus on fostering political stability in the war-torn country. He acknowledged the importance of Turkey?s encouragement for the Sunni minority to remain engaged in the political system. ?The surprise visit of Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr to Turkey earlier this month did not go unnoticed,’ he added. The visit showed Turkey?s leverage on the Shiite population in Iraq as well. Relations with Iraq also carry huge economic importance for Turkey as the trade volume between the two countries has grown to $5 billon annually. ?Turkey is indisputably the most important neighbor of Iraq,’ Baird stressed, adding that the UK supports the transit of significant amounts of Iraqi gas through Turkey. Turkey is very much involved in the economic development of Iraq, especially in the northern part where most Kurds live. ?We are trying to enhance economic cooperation, especially in the Basra area in the south that was controlled by British forces,’ Ambassador Baird said. Turkey already maintains a consulate in Basra to keep an eye on economic opportunities. The British ambassador explained how crucial it is for NATO to have Turkey?s involvement in Afghanistan. ?The terrain in Afghanistan is very similar to one you have in Turkey and your gendarmerie is very experienced in handling security in tough geography,’ he said, ?so the training of Afghanis by the Turkish military is very important for stability in Afghanistan.’ Turkey is also providing aid and development assistance to Kabul and has contributed substantially in the reconstruction of the country by building schools and hospitals in and around Kabul. ?I?m trying to get more involvement from the Turkish Cooperation and Development Agency [TİKA],’ Baird said. TİKA is a Turkish government agency charged with delivering aid and development assistance throughout the world. With news coming out of Pakistan of violent clashes between the military and the Taliban, Ambassador Baird seemed very concerned about the stability of the country, describing the situation as ?very troublesome.’ ?What we ought to do is to provide economic help, support the army and restore political stability,” he said. Turkey?s role in assisting Pakistani government Stressing that Turkey plays an important role in assisting the Pakistani government, he said the Pakistani army must control the situation on the ground. “We have a substantial number of British citizens with Pakistani origin, and they are worried about their families and relatives back in Pakistan,’ he underlined. The ambassador reiterated his country?s support for Turkey?s full membership in the European Union, but cautioned that the Cyprus issue posed a major challenge along the way. He conceded that resolution of the Cyprus issue is a very painstaking process but sounded hopeful as the process is again under way after a period of no talks. He urged leaving the past where it is supposed to be and moving on. Baird said that if the Cyprus issue were resolved, there would be huge infusion of EU aid to Turkish Cypriots, amounting 250 million euros. ?Considering the northern Turkish part is very small, the aid would be one of the largest per capita assistances within the EU,’ he claimed. Ambassador Baird also provided an update on the previously announced British University that is to be launched in Turkey shortly. Though he conceded that the process is slow and has been hindered at times, Baird said, ?We find the Turkish side to be flexible, and the work is in progress.” The bulk of the problem seems to have been caused by differences between the university systems in the two countries. |
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
-
TOP BRITISH DIPLOMAT OFFERS UK’S SUPPORT TO TURKEY ON A RANGE OF ISSUES
-
Ohio elections spat involves Turkish history
By STEPHEN MAJORS
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — The state Elections Commission agreed Thursday to hear a case far outside the typical realm of Ohio politics, one involving claims of genocide, Turkish history, U.S. foreign policy and a growing and personal political rivalry.
At issue are comments made by an Armenian-American congressional candidate during the 2008 campaign. A Republican congresswoman from Cincinnati, Jean Schmidt, claims her opponent violated election law when he accused her of being a puppet of Turkish efforts to deny that the mass killings of Armenians during World War I constituted genocide.
The commission on Thursday found probable cause that David Krikorian’s statements violated election law, voting unanimously to bring the case to a full hearing.
The 94-year-old killings in Turkey are an unlikely topic for a congressional campaign in America’s heartland, where Schmidt’s staunchly conservative values find favor among a large portion of her constituents. But for Krikorian, Schmidt’s comments that she doesn’t have enough evidence to call the killings of an estimated 1.5 million Armenians “genocide” make her morally unfit to serve in Congress. Krikorian refused to shake the hand of Schmidt’s attorney following the hearing Thursday.
“It is my right under political free speech to point out these facts that she denies the Armenian genocide,” Krikorian told the commission Thursday.
He alleged that Schmidt had taken campaign donations from Turkish interests in return for “denying” the genocide.
“And, yes, I refer to it as blood money because where I come from, when you take money to deny the killing of innocent women and children, that is blood money,” he said. “That’s exactly what it is. It’s reprehensible.”
But the dispute isn’t just about the past — Krikorian is challenging Schmidt again in 2010, but as a Democrat. He won 18 percent of the vote as an independent in 2008, a performance Krikorian claims has Schmidt worried enough about 2010 to file a “frivolous” elections complaint to discredit him.
Schmidt’s attorney, Donald Brey, refuted all of Krikorian’s claims Thursday, taking particular issue with his equating Schmidt’s unwillingness to call the killings genocide with denial.
“She wasn’t a genocide denier,” Brey said. “She didn’t do anything as a quid pro quo.”
Federal Elections Commission records show Schmidt received $3,300 from the Turkish American Heritage Political Action Committee between January and October 2008. The committee was formed to defend Turkish heritage against “slanderous campaigns” carried out by ethnic groups in the United States to influence public opinion.
Schmidt’s unwillingness to proclaim what many history scholars regard as fact is also shared by the U.S. government. The U.S. foreign policy establishment’s careful positioning on the issue is driven by the importance of maintaining productive relations with a moderate ally in the Middle East.
In April, President Barack Obama refrained from branding the WWI-era massacre of an estimated 1.5 million Armenians in Turkey a “genocide” and instead referred to the killings that began in 1915 as “one of the great atrocities of the 20th century.” The careful words were a backtrack from Obama’s campaign promise to refer to the killing as genocide, which the Bush administration also declined to do.
Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland recognized the killings as genocide in 2007, and former President Ronald Reagan did so in 1981.
Turkey denies that the deaths constituted genocide, contending the toll has been inflated and the casualties were victims of civil war. It says Turks also suffered losses in the hands of Armenian gangs.
Turkey and Armenia have had no diplomatic ties since closing their border in 1993 because of a Turkish protest of Armenia’s occupation of land claimed by Azerbaijan.
Copyright 2009 Associated Press.
-
Putting Principle over Power:
Why Samantha Power Must ResignBy David Boyajian
The author is an Armenian American freelance writer
Samantha Power, Senior Director for Multilateral Affairs in President Obama’s National Security Council (NSC), has failed the American people and her own principles regarding genocide recognition. She must resign.
Let’s look at how Power got into this sad state of affairs. Power is, of course, the well-known, highly regarded genocide studies specialist. Her Pulitzer Prize-winning book on genocide, A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide, harshly criticized policymakers in the U.S. who “avoid use of the word genocide” and are slow to “reckon with” genocide. Chapter One, “Race Murder,” focused on the Armenian genocide.
Following the book’s publication, many Armenians saw Power as a sort of heroine. Indeed, two years ago, her Time magazine article (The U.S. and Turkey: Honesty Is the Best Policy) argued for passage of the Armenian genocide resolution in Congress. She condemned President Bush for “avoiding honesty” in opposing it and for not correctly characterizing the Armenian genocide as “genocide.” And yet President Obama himself – Power’s boss – just avoided the “G word” in his April 24 statement about 1915.
A President without Principle Obama imitated his three predecessors (but not Reagan, who acknowledged the Armenian genocide in 1981) by using words such as “massacre,” not “genocide,” in his statement.Obama tried to score points with Armenians by tossing in the term “Meds Yeghern” – great catastrophe. In reality, Armenians themselves rarely use that term to refer to the genocide. The Armenian word for genocide is actually “Tseghasbanoutyoun” – race killing.
Now compare President Obama’s evasive language with candidate Obama’s promise: “As President, I will recognize the Armenian Genocide” because it is “a widely documented fact supported by an overwhelming body of historical evidence.”
If Power advised Obama to acknowledge the genocide, he obviously rejected that advice, and broke his own pledges. If, on the other hand, she advised the president to not use the “G word” because Armenia and Turkey will allegedly establish a “joint historical commission” on 1915, she was woefully misguided.
Turkey would ensure that such a body could never come to a timely and definitive decision. It also makes no sense for Power or Obama to support such a “commission” since they themselves previously affirmed the factuality of the genocide.
And let’s put to rest the myth that reaffirmation of the genocide could harm the United States. Turkey depends on America for sophisticated military weapons, support for billions in loans from the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, advocacy for Turkey’s membership in a reluctant European Union, and much more. No country that has acknowledged the Armenian genocide has ever experienced much more than rhetorical Turkish reprisal.
Notice that since Obama’s dishonest April 24 declaration, Power has said nothing to Armenian Americans. No explanation. No apology. Nothing. Power Plays And let’s understand that Power was directly complicit in having voters believe Obama’s genocide promises.
Last year, Power made a 4-minute video in which she passionately appealed to Armenian Americans to support Obama. He had, she said, read A Problem from Hell and understands “genocide prevention and the costs of denial.” He’s a man of “unshakeable conscientiousness” who “can actually be trusted.” She urged the Armenian community to “take my word for it.” Naively, many did.“Armenians,” she also said, “have always taken me seriously.” Yes, but at this point in time, only if she resigns. Frankly, I’ve had reservations about Power’s commitment to justice for Armenians ever since her April 24 genocide presentation at Tufts University several years ago. She seemed to disparage Armenian demands for reparations. “Do you really want,” she asked the largely Armenian American audience, “a check from Turkey?” I stood up and pointed out that Armenians were seeking material restitution for the Armenian nation as a whole, not “checks” for students to squander on clothes and cars.
She has since received documentation about the exact nature of Armenian demands. Whatever her excuse, Power now appears to be precisely the kind of official whom she excoriated in her book and article, one who “avoids use of the word genocide.”The only way she can distance herself from the unprincipled political calculations of President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, whom she once labeled “a monster,” is to resign.
Understandably, no one wishes to give up the power and prestige of being an NSC director. Power’s association with Obama has even brought her romance. Last year she married top Obama advisor and Harvard Law School professor Cass Sunstein. The president and Sunstein were friends and colleagues for 12 years when they taught at the University of Chicago Law School. Sunstein is reportedly in line for a White House appointment. Sunstein could be embarrassed if his wife resigned from the administration. But no more than Power would be if she does not resign.
Power really has only two choices. She can resign. Or she can lose the trust and respect of the American people.
The author is an Armenian American freelance writer. Several of his articles are archived at
Armeniapedia.org. -
Turkey Reacts to Obama’s “Meds Yeghern;”
Turkish Media Echoes USA Armenian LifeBy Appo Jabarian
Executive Publisher / Managing Editor
USA Armenian Life Magazine
Friday, May 8, 2009On April 24, moments after Pres. Barack Obama issued a statement on the Armenian Genocide, this writer stated in the on-line special edition of USA Armenian Life that the U.S. President’s usage of the Armenian term “Meds Yeghern” as being the equivalent of the word genocide.
There were numerous responses from the readers. Some agreed with and others disagreed with the title and the content of the special edition.One must note that before the creation of the legal term genocide by Rafael Lemkin in 1943, Armenians employed the term “Meds Yeghern” in reference to the Genocide perpetrated by Ottoman Turkey (1915-1923) in Western Armenia and Cilica.
The purpose of this week’s article is not to argue as to who is right and who is wrong. The intention here is to shed light on some of the aspects of the response by Turkey to Pres. Obama’s; and the Turkish media’s response to the April 24 USA Armenian Life article.
On April 25, Turkish Pres. Abdullah Gul criticized Obama. Turkish Foreign Ministry said some parts of the statement are “unacceptable. We consider some expressions in that statement and the perception of history it contains regarding the events of 1915, as unacceptable,” the ministry said.
On April 29, Robert Ellis of The Guardian reported in an article titled “Tackling the Turkish taboo” that Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan also called Obama’s remarks “an unacceptable interpretation of history.” (www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/29/armenian-genocide-turkey)Apparently what must have troubled Turkey’s President and Prime Minister is President Obama’s usage of the words: “Those who tried to destroy them (the Armenians).”
As David Boyajian, a Boston-based freelance writer points out: “Obama’s April 24 statement broke his many promises. But I did notice one thing, he said ‘… Armenian people, and as the ultimate rebuke to those who tried to destroy them. … ‘Destroy’ is part of the Genocide Convention’s very definition of genocide.” Boyajian still thinks that the overall April 24 declaration by Pres. Obama was a travesty, adding “I don’t want anyone to ever think that I somehow find the lack of the word Genocide acceptable or that I would ever approve of Obama’s duplicity.”
The Turkish www.YeniCagGazetesi.com.tr’s Sava? SÜZAL wrote an article on April 28 titled “Armenians now pursue lands and reparations.” (Click on the following link to the article in Turkish: ).
He elaborated: “Appo Jabarian, the publisher and the managing editor of USA Armenian Life Magazine wrote about the necessity of embarking on recovering the ancestral lands (meaning Anatolia) that were confiscated from their forefathers and reparations for their lost properties.” Mr. SÜZAL’s commentary also appeared on www.HaberGazete.com.
Another Turkish daily HaberGazete.com‘s contributing writer Muammer Kaylan wrote on April 27 that “Appo Jabarian is saying in his commentary that several Armenian political observers agree with leading Armenian American activists such as Harut Sassounian that Armenians need to move on and pursue their quest for Justice. Sassounian wrote on several occasions that the international recognition of the Armenian Genocide has already been achieved through the collective hard work by notable Armenian organizations during the past several decades.”Mr. Kaylan continued “According to Jabarian, in an interview with The Los Angeles Times in April 2008, Sassounian has stated that ‘Now the genocide is an established fact. So we’re not clamoring anymore about the world ignoring us. With these remarks Sassounian said that the Armenian people are in pursuit of justice. During those days whatever has been taken away from the Armenians resitutions must be made.”
Mr. Kaylan added: “Armenia and the Armenian American Diaspora are not letting up on the Genocide issue. Their objectives are obvious and their intention to march toward this goal is now very clear. But the Armenians’ insistence on Turkey’s genocide recognition and their demands for lands and reparations has brought upon Turkey difficult situation.”
Not all Turks were as courteous as the ones mentioned above. Soon after the article by this writer titled “U.S. Pres. Obama Twice Uses Meds Yeghern The Armenian Equivalent Of Genocide in His Presidential Statement” appeared on the TurkishForum.com.tr numerous denialist Turkish blogers expressed frustrations at a few Armenians’ resolve to find victory in Pres. Obama’s April 24 statement. As a result, they attacked this writer hurling at him all kinds of insults.
Joining their denialist peers at The Turkish Forum, other denilialist Turks also attacked Jabarian on YouTube.
In response to the venomous denialists insult against Jabarian, Agho, a fellow activist wrote: “To all those Turks that attack Appo Jabarian: Appo never used any foul language against you, but you guys have bombarded him and other Armenians with all kinds of garbage spilled out of your…blessed… mouths. This is the difference between civilized Armenians like Appo and nomads like … well, it’s obvious. … One more thing: Why is the most stupid bird in animal kingdom called turkey????”
As worldwide Armenian activism for justice continues to grow, denialist Turks increasingly feel the heat. Having lost their homeland in Western Armenia and Cilicia, Armenians in both Armenia and the Diaspora have no choice but to continue their drive for further consolidating their political and economic power for the specific purpose of recovering their forcibly Turkish-occupied lands. Any letting up on that purpose spells trouble not only for the Armenians living in dispersion but also for the fledgling republics of Armenia and Artsakh.
-
Demanding Justice for Armenians
Remarks at House of Commons,
By Harut Sassounian,
Publisher, The California Courier
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 titled, “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.
000000000000000000000000000000000000
Pelosi Statement on 94th Anniversary of Armenian Genocide
Washington, D.C. – Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued the following statement today to commemorate the 94th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide:
“Today, we commemorate the 94th Anniversary of the Armenian Genocide and pay tribute to the victims and survivors. We know from their testimony and historical records that the Armenian genocide was conceived and carried out by the rulers of the Ottoman Empire from 1915 to 1923.
“It is estimated that more than 1.5 million Armenian men, women, and children were killed and more than two million others were expelled from their homeland. International observers and diplomats to the Ottoman Empire, including U.S. Ambassador Henry Morgenthau, watched a nightmare unfurl and provided detailed accounts about ‘a campaign of race extermination.’
“It is long past time for the U.S. Government to formally recognize the Armenian Genocide. If we ignore history then we are destined to repeat the mistakes of the past. The genocides in Rwanda and Darfur remind us that we must do more to prevent this from ever happening again.
“On this anniversary, we must remember the victims and survivors of the Armenian Genocide. We must also provide the leadership to ensure that this human tragedy is not repeated.”
-
Comment: “Recommendations for the Armenian Diaspora”
E-mail : [email protected]
Comment:
It takes chutzpah the size of Mt. Ararat for these hate-mongering Armenians to pontificate even as they sit on the stolen lands of the Native Americans who were the victims of the mother of all genocides. Yes, Mr. and Ms. Yan and Ian, those usurped lands include Glendale, Fresno, Watertown, Providence, Pawtucket and Hohokus, New Jersey. Before the Armenian can preach ‘holier-than-thou’, he must vacate those stolen lands he occupies. Before the Armenian can play the “eternal victim,” he must apologize and pay reparations to the Native Americans. Before the two-faced Armenian can gripe about Armenians’ lost “historical lands,” he must give back the stolen historical lands of the Amerindians. Before the Armenian plays the profitable victimhood game, he must get it through his thick skull that the lost lives and lost lands of the Native Americans are worth just as much as lost Armenian lives and lands. For that matter, the lands that the Armenian goon squads stole from Azerbaijan and the Azeri lives they snuffed out, are just as worthy as those of the Armenians.
So when can we expect these sanctimonious Armenian colonists, settlers, usurpers/thieves to pack their bags and return the land to its rightful owners, the Native Americans? And as these slick operators leave my lands, is it too much to ask them to also pony up that 40 acres and a mule that was promised but never delivered to the freed African slaves?
As for apologies, when can we expect the oily, loud-mouthed, victim-playing French Armenians to apologize for their participation in the genocide of the Algerian people? Some of the Algerian torture victims are still alive today – albeit mutilated and disabled. How about the pushy Glendale Armenians pushing their Parisian cohorts to apologize and compensate for the Algerian genocide?
You can see all comments on this post here:
https://www.turkishnews.com/en/content/2009/05/10/recommendations-for-the-armenian-diaspora/#comments