Turkish Forum English

Category: USA

Turkey could be America’s most important regional ally, above Iraq, even above Israel, if both sides manage the relationship correctly.

President Bush Meets with President Talabani of Iraq

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

President Bush met with President Jalal Talabani of Iraq and discussed the political, security, and economic gains in Iraq. Afterwards, President Bush participated in the National Security Advisor’s Meeting with the United Nations Security Council Permanent Representatives.

“It’s been my honor to welcome a friend, President Talabani, back to the Oval Office. He is the President of a free Iraq. He is a man who’s been on the front lines of helping to unify Iraq and to help Iraq recover from a brutal regime — that of Saddam Hussein. I complimented the President on the progress that the government has made. I complimented the President on the fact that as security has improved, he and his fellow officials are reaching out to all aspects of society to help people realize the blessings of a free life.”

President Bush Meets with President Talabani of Iraq

June 29, 2008
Invigorating the U.S.-Turkish Strategic Partnership

Featuring Matthew Bryza
June 27, 2008

On June 24, 2008, Matthew Bryza delivered The Washington Institute’s ninth Turgut Ozal Memorial Lecture. Mr. Bryza is the deputy assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs. He also coordinates U.S. energy policy in the regions surrounding the Black and Caspian Seas and works with European countries on issues of tolerance, social integration, and Islam. The following is a rapporteur’s summary of his remarks.

View the full text of his prepared remarks or listen to an audio recording of the entire event.

Background

Energy. At the outset of President George W. Bush’s administration, the United States sought to build on its strong energy cooperation with Turkey and create an east-west corridor in Central Asia and the Caucasus. As Turkey’s economy grew, so did its demand for energy, along with its ambitions to reconnect with the region’s Turkic populations.

Our goal was to help the young states in the region secure their sovereignty by linking them to Europe, the world markets, and Euro-Atlantic institutions through the corridor established by the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) and the South Caucasus pipelines. To that end, Turkey would be the gateway. Reflecting this vision, the National Security Council and the U.S. Department of State reorganized their bureaucratic structures to encourage a philosophical shift toward this region. The Caucasus and Central Asia were grouped with Turkey, a country the U.S. administration viewed as a crucial partner in connecting them to European and global markets, and Euro-Atlantic security institutions.

Iraq. The growing partnership was interrupted by the dramatic events of early 2003. Scholars will long debate what went wrong in the lead-up to the Turkish Grand National Assembly’s vote on March 1, 2003. The Turkish parliament declined U.S. requests to transit American troops and equipment to Iraq via Turkey, setting U.S.-Turkish relations into a tailspin and shattering our concept of strategic partnership.

Turkey and the West. We viewed 2004 as a potentially key year for restoring the U.S.-Turkish partnership. It began with Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s visit to the White House in January. That June, Erdogan joined G8 leaders at Sea Island to discuss the advancement of democracy across the Middle East, and then hosted the NATO Summit in Istanbul. We hoped these events would help Turkey showcase its strategic value to the EU as a democracy with a predominantly Muslim population and a strong tradition of secularism and the rule of law. In December 2004, the European Council decided to commence EU accession negotiations with Ankara, and the talks began in October 2005 with strong U.S. support.

Three Clusters of Interests

Energy and Central Asia. Today, we are focusing on the next phase of Caspian development, looking to the Caspian Basin and Iraq to help reduce Europe’s dependence on Russia’s energy company Gazprom, which provides 25 percent of all gas consumed in Europe.

Our goal is to develop a “southern corridor” energy infrastructure to transport Caspian and Iraqi resources to Turkey and Europe. The Turkey-Greece-Italy (TGI) and Nabucco natural gas pipelines are key elements of this corridor. The two pipeline projects could provide Europe up to 44 billion cubic meters (BCM) of new gas supplies over the next seven to twelve years, of which 20 BCM (a significant amount) will hopefully come from Azerbaijan, while the rest from Iraq and the Caspian Basin.

In Afghanistan, Turkey has made important contributions to reconstruction and the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). During the Paris Conference earlier this month, Turkey increased its original $100 million humanitarian assistance pledge for Afghanistan to $200 million. Since 2002, Turkish firms have invested $1.5 billion in Afghan projects that have included schools, mosques, hospitals, health clinics, bridges, and water wells.

Shared vision and security. Since 2006, we have made important progress in undercutting the Kurdistan Workers Party’s (PKK) financial, operational, and political support mechanisms in Europe through a robust combination of political pressure and information sharing. But the continued presence of PKK terrorist bases in northern Iraq led many Turkish citizens to resent — what they perceived as — a U.S. bias toward its own main national security threat (al-Qaeda) while treating Turkey’s security interests differently. But the November 2007 Oval Office meeting between President Bush and Erdogan marked a decisive turning point. Bush’s designation of the PKK as “an enemy of Turkey, an enemy of Iraq, and therefore an enemy of the United States,” signaled Washington’s new approach.

The public sentiment surrounding our bilateral ties is different from that at the government level. Although we have renewed governmental cooperation with Turkey, this has not translated to Turkish society. It will take a while for the Turkish people to get over the “hood incident” — a reference to the events of July 4, 2003, when U.S. troops arrested, hooded, and detained eleven Turkish soldiers in northern Iraq. The Valley of the Wolves and Metal Storm — a Turkish film and book respectively that inflamed Turkish attitudes toward the United States — also did serious damage. I think it would help tremendously if the Turkish government told its people the extent of our cooperation and what we are doing to improve relations.

Regarding Iran, while we recognize Turkey’s longstanding economic and political relationship with its neighbor, we look to Ankara to be a regional leader and reinforce the international community’s demands that Iran cease its uranium enrichment program. Moving forward, we need a strong commitment from Turkey and the international community to send the message to Tehran that we are united.

We anticipate that Turkey will maintain its deep ties with Israel, something that developed into a strategic partnership in the 1990s based on shared democratic values. Turkey is making important contributions to maintaining peace and restoring stability in Israel’s northern neighbor, Lebanon. Turkey can also play an important role in supporting economic growth in the Palestinian territories.

We are also upbeat about the Cyprus process. We support a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation in the island.

Democratic and market reform. The United States remains convinced that Turkey’s eventual membership in the European Union would benefit Europe and Turkey alike. Turkey’s blend of democracy, secularism, and rule of law can help deepen our understanding of how to integrate Muslim populations into society while countering extremism. Meanwhile, Europe’s criteria for accession to the EU provide a set of incentives for sustained reforms that, while in Turkey’s national interests, are difficult to make politically.

The current Constitutional Court case against the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) is a good example of this conundrum. Turkey’s vibrant political system is the product of its historical experience, and as in the past, Turkish democracy will work through this difficult challenge. In the end, a democracy requires its voters to determine the country’s political future, and Turkey’s voters made clear decisions during the 2007 elections. Prime Minister Erdogan, President Abdullah Gul, and other Turkish leaders have underscored the crucial importance of maintaining the separation of mosque and state through the central constitutional principle of secularism. Ultimately, we are confident our Turkish allies will rely on their Anatolian traditions of pragmatism and tolerant faith, combined with a modern embrace of scientific learning, to resolve the current controversy in a way that strengthens Turkish democracy.

This rapporteur’s summary was prepared by H. Akin Unver

June 29, 2008
Even the U.S. prosecutors claim that Gulen is financed by the CIA!

Gülen not granted green card
Thursday, June 26, 2008

RAZİ CANİKLİGİL
NEW YORK – Hürriyet

Controversial Islamic scholar Fetullah Gülen’s application for a U.S. Permanent Resident Card, widely known as the “green card,” has been refused by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, or USCIS.

He has also lost the lawsuit he filed for the reconsideration of the verdict. The court found the arguments Gülen had set forth to receive the green card as “an extraordinarily talented academic” to
be insufficient.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Stewart Dalzell ruled in favor of Immigration Services. Upon the verdict, Gülen, the leader of a religious movement with interests in
the media and education sector, needs to leave the United States in one month’s time. However, the time Gülen can illegally stay in the country can go as high as six months.

Gülen’s financial resources were detailed in the public prosecutor’s arguments, which claimed that Saudi Arabia, Iran, the Turkish government, and the Central Intelligence Agency, or CIA,
were behind the Gülen movement. It stated that some businessmen in Ankara donated 10 to 70 percent of their annual income to the movement and that it corresponded to $20,000 to $300,000 per year per person. It added that one businessman in Istanbul donated $4-5 million each year and that young people graduating from Gülen’s schools donated between $2,000 and $5,000 each year.

The prosecutor said Gülen was a religious and political figure and that, aiming to gain academic prestige, paid academics to write about him and his movement. The prosecutor added, “None of Gülen’s books are about education or educational models; they are entirely religious works. Moreover, the statement that an educational model has been created by blending traditional secular educational system and tolerance toward faiths is not convincing.”

© 2005 Dogan Daily News Inc. www.turkishdailynew s.com.tr

June 29, 2008
Talk, Talk, Talk, Talk To Iran

June 25, 2008
by Faiz Shakir,

IRAN

Despite growing international pressure, including three Chapter 7 U.N. Security Council resolutions — the last of which was adopted in April of this year — Iran continues to move forward with its nuclear program. Iranian government officials have repeatedly said that they will not agree to suspend uranium enrichment, which they insist is their right. Though Tehran “maintains the program is exclusively for electricity-producing purposes,” the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported in May that Iran was “still withholding critical information that could determine whether it is trying to make nuclear weapons.” The U.S. National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran last December concluded that Iran had “halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003,” but the United States and its international partners continue to “accuse Iran of using its nuclear program as a cover for weapons development.”

THE DIPLOMACY: The latest package of incentives was presented to Iran during a recent visit to Tehran by EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana and “gives Tehran the opportunity to develop alternate light water reactors, trade and other incentives, in return for dropping the enrichment.” However, the countries represented “alongside Mr Solana were Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China. Nobody from the US.” There are also disincentives to match the incentives for Iran. On Monday, EU states agreed to impose new sanctions prohibiting Iran’s largest bank from operating in Europe” and adding to the list of banned individuals and organizations. With the Iranian economy in tatters, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is politically weakened, and defiance on the nuclear issue represents a way for Ahmadinejad to maintain his political relevancy. Former diplomat Peter Galbraith wrote that, “from the inception of Iran’s nuclear program, prestige and the desire for recognition have been motivating factors,” and he “has made uranium enrichment the centerpiece of his administration and the embodiment of Iranian nationalism.” Ahmadinejad has thus far “successfully used the threat of war to suppress dissent and divert attention from domestic woes.”

UNHELPFUL RHETORIC: The release of the NIE on Iran last December effectively removed the short-term prospect of military action against Iran. But the last few months have seen a renewed effort on the part of pro-war conservative extremists to lay the groundwork for what they see as an inevitable armed conflict. Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol recently suggested that President Bush might consider bombing Iran, depending on the outcome of the U.S. presidential election. Former U.S ambassador to the U .N. John Bolton also said a U.S. military strike against Iran “is really the most prudent thing to do.” IAEA Director General Mohamed El-Baradei warned in an interview last week, “I don’t believe that what I see in Iran today is a current, grave and urgent danger. If a military strike is carried out against Iran…it would make me unable to continue my work.” In a recent panel discussion, former ambassador James Dobbins suggested that threats force against Iran were unproductive and that the United States should “get busy with the job of diplomacy.”

RECOGNIZING NEED FOR DIRECT DIPLOMACY: In May, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated, “We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage…and then sit down and talk with them [Iran].” Recently retired CentCom chief, Admiral William Fallon, took “public positions favoring diplomacy over force in Iran,” suggesting “a navy-to-navy relationship with Iran as a way to begin a sustained dialogue with the country.” A new report from the United States Institute of Peace asserted that “Iran’s goals appear to be largely defensive: to achieve strategic depth and safeguard its system against foreign intervention, to have a major say in regional decisions, and to prevent or minimize actions that might run counter to Iranian interests.” The report also concluded that “it is hard to envision” any kind of lasting peace in the region “without a reduction in tensions between the United States and Iran.” Citing recent polling evidence, National Security Network policy director Ilan Goldenberg wrote that “diplomatic engagement with Iran…is the consensus position” among Americans. In what could represent a significant policy shift that accords with this consensus, yesterday the Associated Press reported that the Bush administration is considering “opening a U.S. interests section in Tehran,” the first U.S. diplomatic outpost in Iran in nearly thirty years.

June 28, 2008
U.S. RECOGNIZED ARMENIAN GENOCIDE IN 1951, WORLD COURT DOCUMENT REVEALS

Armenian Genocide

U.S. RECOGNIZED ARMENIAN GENOCIDE IN 1951, WORLD COURT DOCUMENT REVEALS

While President Bush and several of his predecessors have avoided characterizing the organized mass killings of Armenians in 1915 as genocide, it has recently come to light that 57 years ago the United States government officially recognized the Armenian Genocide in a document submitted to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), also known as the World Court.

This half a century old reference to the Armenian Genocide was discovered by Prof. William A. Schabas who posted it on the website “PhD Studies in Human Rights,” on June 4, 2008. Prof. Schabas, a world renown expert on genocide and international law, is director of The Irish Center for Human Rights at the National University of Ireland, Galway.

This document, filed by the Government of the United States with ICJ, is included in the May 28, 1951 ICJ Report titled: “Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.”

The specific reference to the Armenian Genocide appears on page 25 of the ICJ Report: “The Genocide Convention resulted from the inhuman and barbarous practices which prevailed in certain countries prior to and during World War II, when entire religious, racial and national minority groups were threatened with and subjected to deliberate extermination. The practice of genocide has occurred throughout human history. The Roman persecution of the Christians, the Turkish massacres of Armenians, the extermination of millions of Jews and Poles by the Nazis are outstanding examples of the crime of genocide.”

This is a very significant statement as it was made by the American government of that time with the sole intent of telling the truth, without taking into account any political or other considerations. Neither Armenians nor Turks had lobbied for or against the U.S. statement. In other words, it was simply made on the basis of historical facts.

How different is the situation today when the White House readily caves in to threats and pressures from the Turkish government to prevent the House of Representatives from passing a commemorative resolution on the Armenian Genocide!

Now that this critical filing by the United States government before the International Court of Justice has been discovered, it is no longer necessary to exert excessive efforts to try and reaffirm the facts of the Armenian Genocide by the U.S. Congress, particularly since the House of Representatives adopted Resolutions 247 and 148 in 1975 and 1984 respectively, to commemorate the Armenian Genocide.

Furthermore, there is no particular reason to insist that the next President of the United States acknowledge the Armenian Genocide since President Ronald Reagan, back on April 22, 1981, issued Presidential Proclamation Number 4838 which stated: “Like the genocide of the Armenians before it, and the genocide of the Cambodians which followed it – and like too many other such persecutions of too many other peoples – the lessons of the Holocaust must never be forgotten.”

Of course, should an elected official issue a statement reaffirming the facts of the Armenian Genocide, such an acknowledgment would be most welcome by Armenians worldwide. On the other hand, should a public official either deny or refuse to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide, Armenian-Americans would have good reason not to support his or her election.

Regardless of whether one agrees with Pres. Reagan’s politics, most people acknowledge that he was a man of principle. His successors – Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush – failed to display such moral leadership. During their presidential campaigns, they misled voters by pledging to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide, and broke their promises after the election. These three recent U.S. presidents went far beyond not keeping their word; they did everything in their power to prevent the adoption of congressional resolutions on the Armenian Genocide. The names of these infamous denialists should be etched in perpetuity on a special “Wall of Shame,” so future generations will not forget their reprehensible behavior.

On the basis of the official statement submitted by the Government of the United States to the World Court in 1951, combined with the two House resolutions adopted in 1975 and 1984, Pres. Reagan’s 1981 Proclamation, and resolutions adopted by more than forty U.S. states and hundreds of U.S. cities, Armenians should now classify the United States among the more than 20 countries that have officially recognized the Armenian Genocide.

All those who claim that the United States has not recognized the Armenian Genocide are misrepresenting the U.S. government’s clear record on this issue.

,

YUKARIDAKI GORUSE KARSI OLAYLAR: LUTFEN INCELEYIN .. TF

Issues to consider:

Is the statement quoted from the document the Armenians found inconsistent with the reservation the United States filed to the convention? I think it is.

Timing and sequence is important to put this document in context, when did the U.S. ratify/accede to the Convention and when did the U.S. file its reservations? If it was done after this document was filed with the ICJ, it could be that the U.S. came into possession of additional documents that resulted in a change of policy. Besides, we still have this document from the British archives about the position of the U.S. with respect to evidence re war crimes–

……………………………………………………………………..
British Archives: PRO—F.O. 371/6500/ E.6311
Foreign Office to Geddes
Telegram no 775, dated June 16, 1921

The British Foreign Office forwarded to Washington a list of the names and brief particulars of 45 Turkish deportees “who are being detained in Malta with a view of trial in connection with the alleged outrages perpetrated on Armenians and other native Christians.” And requested again Sir A. Geddes “to ascertain as early as possible whether the United States Government can furnish evidence against any of these persons.”

……………………………………………………………..

British Archives: PRO—F. 0. 371/6504/E.8515
R.C. Craigie, British Charge d’Affairs at Washington, to Lord Curzon,
Telegram No 722 of July 13, 1921
On July 13, 1921, the British Embassy in Washington replied as follows:

“I have the honor to inform your Lordship that a member of my staff visited the State Department yesterday in regard to the Turks who are at the present being detained in Malta with a view to trial. He was permitted to see a selection of reports from the United States consuls on the subject of the atrocities committed on the Armenians during the recent war. These reports, judged by the State Department to be the most useful for the purpose of His Majesty’s government, being chosen from among several hundreds.

I regret to inform your Lordship that there was nothing therein which could be used as evidence against the Turks who are being detained for trial in Malta. The reports seen made mention of only two names of the Turkish officials in question—those of Sabit bey and Suleyman Faik Pasha — and even in these cases the accounts given were confined to the personal opinions of the writers; no concrete facts being given which could constitute satisfactory incriminating evidence.

Department of State expressed the wish that no information supplied by them in this connection should be employed in a court of law. Having regard to this stipulation, and the fact that the reports in the possession of the Department of State do not appear in any case to contain evidence against these Turks which would be useful even for the purpose of corroborating information already in possession of H. Majesty’s government.

I believe nothing is to be hoped from addressing any further inquiries to the Department of State in this matter.”

United States of America

Reservations:

“(1) That with reference to article IX of the Convention, before any dispute to which the United States is a party may be submitted to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice under this article, the specific consent of the United States is required in each case.

(2) That nothing in the Convention requires or authorizes legislation or other action by the United States of America prohibited by the Constitution of the United States as interpreted by the United States.”

Understandings:

“(1) That the term `intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group as such’ appearing in article II means the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in substantial part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such by the acts specified in article II.

(2) That the term `mental harm’ in article II (b) means permanent impairment of mental faculties through drugs, torture or similar techniques.

(3) That the pledge to grant extradition in accordance with a state’s laws and treaties in force found in article VII extends only to acts which are criminal under the laws of both the requesting and the requested state and nothing in article VI affects the right of any state to bring to trial before its own tribunals any of its nationals for acts committed outside a state.

(4) That acts in the course of armed conflicts committed without the specific intent required by article II are not sufficient to constitute genocide as defined by this Convention.

(5) That with regard to the reference to an international penal tribunal in article VI of the Convention, the United States declares that it reserves the right to effect its participation in any such tribunal only by a treaty entered into specifically for that purpose with the advice and consent of the Senate.”

      AZG Armenian Daily #112, 13/06/2008

            Armenia-Azerbaijan
            ANOTHER AZERBAIJANI PROVOCATION

            Azerbaijan’s statements that the four young citizens of Armenia, detained in Azerbaijan two months ago, were members of a intelligence saboteur group, are nonsense, says Defense Minister Seyran Ohanian. He assured that Armenia, following Azerbaijan’s example, might have declared saboteurs all the Az …

            Genocide
            ARMENIAN GENOCIDE ISSUE IN THE SWEDISH PARLIAMENT.

            On June 11 the parliament of Sweden is to consider the question of recognizing the fact of the Armenian Genocide committed by Ottoman Turkey in 1915. The question was submitted to the parliamentary agenda by a group of Swedish historians. The message of the scientists says that Assyrians and Pontic …

            Armenian Genocide
            U.S. RECOGNIZED ARMENIAN GENOCIDE IN 1951, WORLD COURT DOCUMENT REVEALS

            While President Bush and several of his predecessors have avoided characterizing the organized mass killings of Armenians in 1915 as genocide, it has recently come to light that 57 years ago the United States government officially recognized the Armenian Genocide in a document submitted to the Inter …

            SWEDISH PARLIAMENT REFUSES TO RECOGNIZE THE 1915 GENOCIDE

            On June 12, 2008, the Swedish Parliament, with the votes 245 to 37 (1abstain, 66 absent), rejected a call for recognition of the 1915 genocide in the Ottoman Empire. On June 11, a long debate took place in the Swedish Parliament in regard to the Foreign Committee report on Human Rights, including fi …

            SWEDEN TURNS DOWN ARMENIAN GENOCIDE BILL

            On June 12only 37 of 245 members of the Parliament of Sweden voted for the recognition of the Armenian Genocide. According to Vahagn Avetian, head of Armenica.org, the Parliaments of Sweden held very long debates on the issue the day before.

            Opposition
            TER-PETROSIAN IN PARIS

            Ex-candidate for the office of the President of the Republic of Armenia Levon Ter-Petrosian has left for a 5-day visit to France, Ter-Petrosian’s spokesman told Radio Liberty. The purposes of the visit are unknown.

            Local
            THE MUNICIPALITY REFUSED THE MASS DEMONSTRATION

            Yerevan Municipality refused the application submitted by Levon Ter-Petrosian’s partisans for holding a four-hour mass demonstration on June 20.

            Sport
            “CHESS GIANTS; YEREVAN 2008” RENAMED KAREN ASRIAN MEMORIAL TOURNAMENT

            Chess Federation of Armenia took a decision on June 11 to rename the “Chess Giants; Yerevan 2008” international tournament into Karen Asrian Memorial Tournament taking into consideration outstanding chess player, triple champion of Armenia, Olympic Champion Karen Asrian’s exceptional achievements an …

            Local
            HUNGER STRIKE IN “YEREVAN-CENTER” CRIMINAL EXECUTIVE ESTABLISHMENT

            Gurgen Eghiazarian that is under pre-trial detention in “Yerevan-Center” Criminal Executive Establishment submitted an application to the head of the establishment for starting an indefinite hunger-strike, RA Justice Ministry Press Office reported.

June 24, 2008
Letter to Obama

June 23, 2008

Senator Barak Obama
713 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Improving our relations with our allies and trying to engage in talks with our enemies is good but endorsing the so called Armenian Genocide has already created an enemy of the entire population of a strategic ally in that of Turkey, Azerbaijan and other allied Nations.

The genocide claim is biased and inaccurate. A diligent and impartial person would look at the correct evidence and find that the events do not describe genocide. We need to have the truth be told. The following would show only some of the reasons for the claim to be false.

1. Ruling on Serbia is one indication what genocide means.

On February 26, 2007 the International Court of Justice determined that Serbia is NOT guilty of genocide in Bosnia in spite of the trials and conviction for war crimes of a number of Bosnians and Serbs who were financed and equipped by Serbia and findings of clear links between Serbia and the Bosnian Serb military who committed the genocide in Srebrenica. The Court ruled that the crime of genocide required showing convincingly there was a specific plan or the specific intention to destroy the group or part of it.

2. Trials conducted by Allies after the War acquitted the Turks.

At the end of WWI the allies occupied the Ottoman Empire. At the insistence of the occupying Allies a number of the ruling Party members were tried between 1919 and 1920 by the Ottomans and convicted of crimes. Please read Not finding these trials legitimate or satisfactory the Allies imprisoned more than 100 Ottoman officials and sent them to Malta for trial. The Allied High Court then convened, similar to the Nuremberg tribunal, and had all the archives and government documents searched by experts for evidence that showed crimes proving genocide. After 2 years and 4 months they were unable to find any evidence even after requesting evidence from the United States and others who could also not find any. All the Turkish officials in Malta prisons were released. There was and is NOT any evidence that will hold up in a court of law that will point to an Armenian genocide. If truly interested anyone could read the documents in the British archives. These documents are listed in:

3. No new trials have ever been set by the UN Criminal court.

Consider these two facts stated above and consider the standing of the persons proposing this legislation as presuming guilt before trial or without trial. If there would have been any serious evidence of genocide the Armenians would have long ago gone to the Criminal Courts.

4. Seven US Secretaries of State announced their views.

Seven US Secretaries of State signed a declaration that passing a resolution in the House regarding the alleged Armenian Genocide would be a mistake and counter productive. These are highly regarded experienced statesmen and diplomats. Foreign policy cannot be conducted by antagonizing our allies. Respected historians will agree that genocide does not describe the events. William Langer, Guenter Lewy, Heath Lowry, Justin McCarthy, Edward Erickson, Andrew Mango et al have written extensively on this subject. Another source would be the report of the first Armenian Prime Minister Hovannes Katchaznouni to the Dashnak Party in 1923. This Armenian Prime Minister writes that Turkey acted in defense of its existence in ordering the relocation.

5. Falsification of genocide numbers shows dishonesty.

Another fallacy is the number of Armenians killed in that period. A dozen or more sources put the population of the Armenians in Anatolia at around 1,100,000 of which 300,000 fled with the Russians after the War, 150,000 joined the French Army and attacked Turkish cities in the south and then with many others migrated to other Countries. The falsifiers have 1,500,000 killed out of less than half a million Armenians accounted for. The Armenian population never exceeded about 15% of the population in the eastern provinces.

6. The order to relocate the Armenians in 1915 had the same purpose as the relocation of the Japanese in the US during WWII.

The forced relocation of the 120,000 Japanese-Americans in WWII to barbed wire camps was found to be legal by the U.S. Appeals Court on 18 April 1942 in the case of Korematsu vs US citing a lengthy reasoning. This in effect closed all matters relating to compensation, return of property and claims of hardship. Yet Reagan signed a presidential apology in 1988. What he saw was that the relocation started four months after Pearl Harbor at which time there was no eminent danger that the Japanese were going to invade mainland US, the Japanese-Americans were not arming themselves and ready to fight with the Japanese and they were not starting a round of sabotage and terror. They were innocent citizens of the US.

Let us compare this with the Armenians in Turkey. The year is 1915. Russians have entered Turkish territory from the East. English, French and Anzac’s landed in Galipoli aiming to advance to Istanbul. Allenby crossed the Suez and was advancing to the North with the assistance of the Arabs. Since 1890 the Armenian Hinchak and Dashnak organizations were actively engaged in armed revolt. Three prominent Armenians who were members of parliament defected and founded guerilla groups inside Turkey and started the ethnic cleansing of Turks with the help of Hinchak and Dashnak in regions where Turkish Army presence was minimal. The resulting destruction by the Armenians from 1890 to 1920 was the burning down of 22 villages, the killing of more than 400,000 Turkish civilians and the sabotaging of the Ottoman Armies where in one instant in Sarikamis resulted in the freezing to death of 80,000 troops while fighting the Russians.

On 11 April 1915 the minority Armenians of Van revolted and killed almost all of the Turkish population. A few weeks later they handed the city over to the Russians. In spite of a previous agreement between Armenians in Turkey and the Ottoman government that guaranteed that the Armenians would not fight against the Ottomans. As soon as the Russians further advanced into Turkey the Armenian guerillas revolted in Bitlis and Mus. At this time Enver Pasha decided to relocate the Armenians only in the war zones to the southern parts of the Empire. When finally the legislation was approved on 30 May 1915 it required protection of lives and property, resting during journey, distribution of food, designation of land for resettlement, the building of housing for those in need, the payment of assessed value of the property they vacated and for other items with a budget assigned for this purpose. Documents to this effect are available. They prove that the Armenian Genocide claim is false and a lie,

In his book “The Armenians”, Published by G. Toulmin, UK 1916, C.F. Dixon-Johnson wrote:

“Give a lie twenty-four hours’ start and it will take a hundred years to overtake it.”

7. We are hoping that you will be impartial and read the documentation before you start making enemies around the world..

We are praying for a peaceful world that is not filled with hatred and revenge.

Sincerely,

Demirtas Bayar
44 Alex Drive
White Plains, NY 10605

June 24, 2008