Tag: ethocide

ARMENIAN ATTROCITIES UPON OTTOMAN MOSLEMS

By Erkan Esmer, Ph.D., Prof. Engineer

Armenians prospered greatly under the protection of Ottoman Turks. They were dubbed as the “Loyal Tribe” by the Ottoman Sultans. The Ottomans were late in accepting the Industrial Revolution. They preferred to stay as soldiers, farmers, and bureaucrats as was fashionable at the feudal era. They left the services, trade, banking, and industrial production to their Christian subjects (Greeks and armenians) who were a small segment of the population in Anatolia (Asia Minor). This made them very wealthy and powerful. Russian General Maievski’s 1890 map is presented in Figure 1 in the ensuing page, clearly shows that they were a small minority. Of course, the Russians naturally would inflate the Greek and armenian populations within the empire, because they had invented the so called “Eastern Problem”. They under the pretext of protection of Christian Ottoman citizens, vied for conquest of Ottoman lands.

When Russians attacked the Ottomans in 1877, they along with concurrence of European powers established Principality of Bulgaria. They advised the armenians that they could establish their own country in Eastern Anatolia. I doubt that they would ever allow them to have their own country. They had no intensions to do so, but wanted to use the armenians. Czarist Russia along with the help of American missionaries armed the armenians all over Anatolia. These terrorist forces were stationed all over the Turkish mainland. {Fig. 2-15} These above mentioned facts are confirmed by August 23, 1895 New York Times article. They were united under the command of armenian terrorist groups Dashnaks and Hunchaks. The armenians’ barbaric atrocities and heinous crimes upon the Moslems were unspeakable. {Fig. 16-29} These massacres naturally angered the authorities and Moslem population who defended themselves. They knew that this would bring the wrath of European powers (super powers of the era), because Europeans wanted to dismember the Ottoman Empire for its fertile land, valuable mineral and oil resources (Iraq, Saudi Oil Fields). They finally achieved this goal at the end of World War I.

During World War I, all of Turkish and Moslem young men were not home, but were fighting for their homeland in many different fronts. Only Women, children, and old Men lived in Ottoman Anatolian provinces, then. All of them were unarmed!!! Many of the armenians who were inducted into Ottoman forces, ran away with their weapons. The armenian cowards butchered these unarmed civilians. They acted as scouts/vanguards for the Russian forces. They ambushed Ottoman forces, cut down the telegraph lines, which caused a lot of havoc at the time. The Ottoman government had to relocate them from the war zone to provinces where there were no fighting with the means available to them at the time. {Fig. 30-33}. Many armenians migrated to other countries such as USA, France, and England, enhancing their lives tremendously. Since this barbaric tribe of armenians left the corpses of Moslems rot in open air, since they drowned them in wells, or threw the corpses in creeks or rivers, this caused a severe cholera epidemic which took many lives, including their own. Even though armenians and Russians massacred about 2,500,000 Moslems, where as, armenian losses were between 36,000 and 125,000, this is the so-called “ARMENIAN GENOCIDE”.

“Photographs are from Turkish Armed Forces archives or my own post card collection”

May 8, 2010

Do we have to defend the actions of the Committee of Union and Progress?

AN ARTICLE LOVED BY ARMENIANS —

for Original comments from Armenians see

ordudan kovulan bu yazar hakkindabasinda cikanlar :

Ümit Kardaş*

In January 1913, the Committee of Union and Progress overthrew the government and started to implement a policy to homogenize the population through a planned ethnic cleansing and destruction and forced relocation.

The term “genocide,” defined as the “crime of crimes” in the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) Rwanda decision, was first coined by Raphael Lemkin, a Jewish lawyer from Poland.

He was particularly known for his efforts to draft the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which cast genocide as an international crime in 1948.Dealing with the case of Talat Paşa being murdered by an Armenian youth in Berlin in 1921, Lemkin started to compile a file about what happened in the Ottoman Empire in connection with the case. As he discussed the case with his professor, he learned that there was no international law provision that would entail the prosecution of Talat Paşa for his actions, and he was profoundly shocked when his professor likened the case of Talat Paşa to a farmer who would not be held responsible for killing the chickens in his poultry house.

In 1933, Lemkin used the term “crime against international law” as a precursor of the concept of genocide during the League of Nations conference on international criminal law in Madrid. After Nazi-led German forces devastated Europe and invaded Poland in 1939, Lemkin was enlisted in the army, but upon the defeat of Polish forces, he fled to the US, leaving his parents behind. Later, while working as an adviser during the Nuremberg trials, he would learn that his parents had died in the Nazi concentration camps.

In his book “Axis Rule in Occupied Europe,” published in 1944, he defined genocide as atrocities and massacre intended to destroy a nation or an ethnic group. Coining the term from the Greek genos, meaning race or ancestry, and the Latin cide, meaning killing, Lemkin argued that genocide does not have to mean direct destruction of a nation. In 1946, the UN General Assembly issued a declaration on genocide and unanimously accepted that genocide is a crime under international law, noting that it eliminates the right of existence of a specific group and shocks the collective conscience of humanity. However, Lemkin wished that in addition, a convention should be drafted on preventing and punishing the crime of genocide. This wish was fulfilled with the signature of the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in 1948. Lemkin died in a hotel room in New York in a state of poverty at the age of 59 in 1959. Although they left this idealist defender of humanity alone, people were gentle enough to write, “The Father of the Genocide Convention,” as an epitaph on his grave.

1843-1908 period

In 1843, Bedirhan Bey, who commanded the Kurds who were assigned with the duty of massacring the people of Aşita (Hoşud), connected to the sanjak of Hakkari, where the population was predominantly Armenian and Nestorian, persuaded the Armenians and Nestorians who had fled to the mountains to return and hand in their weapons, and then, the people who were massacred were largely thrown in the Zap River. The majority of their women and children were sold as slaves. It is reported that at least 10,000 Armenians and Nestorians were killed in this massacre. In 1877, the Ottoman Army and the Russian Army started to fight again, and availing of this opportunity, Armenia once again became a battlefield, and the soldiers shouted, “Kill the disbelievers.” Circassians and Kurds slaughtered 165 Christian families, including women and children, in Beyazıt. In 1892, Sultan Abdülhamit II summoned the Kurdish tribal chiefs to İstanbul and gave them military uniforms and weapons, thereby establishing the Hamidiye cavalry regiment with some 22,500 members. In this way, Abdülhamit II played with the foreign policy equilibrium between the UK and Russia and organized a specific ethnic/religious group against another ethnic/religious group based on a Muslim vs. non-Muslim dichotomy. The Ottoman administration appointed the worst enemies of Armenians as their watchdogs, thereby creating a force that could crush them even in peacetime. The persecution of Armenians peaked in the Sason massacre in September 1894. Abdülhamit II declared resisting Armenians rebels and ordered that they should be eradicated.

1908-1914 period

Europe and America extensively supported the Young Turks, who were seeking legitimacy. When the Movement Army threatened to launch a campaign against İstanbul, Abdülhamit II declared a constitutional monarchy on July 24, 1908. Without using any discretion, ordinary people were both amazed and pleased. Moved by slogans calling for equality, freedom and brotherhood, Armenians, too, welcomed with joy the government backed and controlled by the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP).

Britain and France made loans available to the new regime and sent consultants for the treasury and the navy in support. To alleviate the consequences of the massacres of 1895 and 1896, European countries increased their humanitarian assistance. Orphaned children of Christian families were placed in care centers, and schools were opened in eastern Anatolia. The introduction of the second constitutional monarchy was seen as an assurance of the creation of equality among all races and religions. However, on April 14, 1909, a new wave of slaughter started against Christians in Adana. The CUP’s close alliance with the Armenian Dashnak Party was a major reason for the rekindling of these massacres. For the first time, these attacks did not discriminate between Armenians and eastern Christians. Thus, Orthodox Syriacs, Catholic Syriacs and Chaldeans were also killed. Apparently, Armenians had stood apart with their penchant for trade, banking, brokerage as well as for pharmacy, medicine and consulting and other professions; they constituted a wealthy portion of the population. As a result, this and their identity as non-Muslims made Armenians a clear target. As a commercial and agricultural factor, Armenians also served as an obstacle to the Germanification of Anatolia.

After the Adana massacre of 1909, there was a period of good faith that lasted until 1913. Meanwhile, the CUP improved its ties with the militant Dashnak Party. After transforming into a democratic party, this party was represented with three deputies in the Assembly of Deputies (Meclis-i Mebusan) that was renewed in 1912. This assembly also had six independent Armenians members. In 1876, the Assembly of Deputies had 67 Muslim and 48 non-Muslim deputies. However, in January 1913, following the defeat in the first Balkan War, the CUP overthrew the government (known as the Raid of Bab-ı Ali) and started to implement a policy to homogenize the population through a planned ethnic cleansing and destruction and forced relocation.

Talat Paşa prepared plans for homogenizing the population by relocating ethnic groups to places other than their homeland. According to the plan, Kurds, Armenians and Arabs would be forced to migrate from their homeland, and Bosnians, Circassians and other Muslim immigrants would be settled in their places. The displaced ethnic groups would not be allowed to comprise more than 10 percent of the population in their destinations. Moreover, these groups would be quickly assimilated. The Greeks had already been relocated from the western coasts of the country in 1914.

In addition to the regular army, Enver Paşa believed that there must be special forces that would conduct undercover operations. Thus, he transformed the Special Organization (Teşkilat-ı Mahsusa), which he had established as a secret organization before the Balkan War, into an official organization. This organization had intelligence officers, spies, saboteurs and contract killers among its members. It also had a militia comprised of Kurdish tribes. Former criminals worked as volunteers for this organization. Talat Paşa created the main body of the Teşkilat-ı Mahsusa from gangs of former criminals whom he arranged to be released from prisons. In Anatolia, the Teşkilat-ı Mahsusa worked at the disposal of the 3rd Army.

Forced relocations of 1915-1916

The German-backed pan-Islamist policy implied a fatal solution for non-Muslims living within the borders of the empire. The conditions for the forced relocation campaign launched in 1915 were different from previous ones. The two-month campaign covered not only Armenians but also all Christians in eastern Anatolia. These relocations could not be considered a resettlement because the specified destinations were not inhabitable and only very few could make it there. Many people were immediately killed either inside or outside the settlements where they were born or living, and others were murdered on the roads on which they were forced to walk on foot.

Most of those who were immediately killed were men. Women and children formed the largest portion of the groups banished toward the southern deserts. There were continual attacks on these processions, accompanied by rapes of women and kidnappings of children. Provincial officials did not take any measures to provide the convoys with food, water and shelter. Rather, high-level officials and local politicians mobilized death squads against them. These squads would confiscate the goods of the relocated people, sending some of them to the Interior Ministry and embezzling the rest.

Eventually, the forced relocation campaign turned into a series of atrocities which even bothered the Germans. The ongoing campaign was never a population exchange. As noted by British social historian David Gaunt, the purpose of these forced relocation campaigns was to remove a specific population from a specific location. Because it was intended to be performed quickly, this added to the intimidation, violence and cruelty involved. As resettlement was not intended, neither the administration nor the army cared about where the deported population was going or whether they would survive physically. The high degree of the culture and civilization exhibited by Armenians made the atrocities against them all the worse in the eyes of the world. Talat Paşa mistakenly made his last conclusion: “There is no longer an Armenian problem.”

Conclusion and suggestions

The foregoing account cannot duly express what really happened in its scope, dimension and weight. These atrocities and massacres were not only regularly reported on in European and US newspapers, but were also evidenced in the official documents of Britain and the US and even Germany and Austria, which were allies of the Ottoman Empire, and in the minutes of the Ottoman Court Martial (Divan-ı Harbi), the descriptions of diplomats and missionaries, in commission reports and in the memoirs of those who survived them.

No justification, even the fact that some Armenian groups revolted with certain claims and collaborated with foreign countries, can be offered for this human tragedy. It is misleading to discuss what happened with reference to genocide, which is merely a legal and technical term. No technical term is vast enough to contain these incidents, which are therefore indescribable. Atrocities and massacres are incompatible with human values. It is more degrading to be regarded as a criminal in the collective conscience of humanity than to be tried on charges of genocide.

A regime that hinges upon concealing and denying the truth will make the state and the society sick and decadent. The politicians, academics, journalists, historians and clerical officials in Turkey should try to ensure that the society can face the truth. To face the truth is to become free. We can derive no honor or dignity from defending our ancestors who were responsible for these tragedies. It is not a humane or ethical stance to support and defend the actions of Abdülhamit II and senior CUP members and their affiliated groups, gangs and marauders. Turkey should declare to the world that it accepts said atrocities and massacres and that in connection with this, it advocates the highest human values of truth, justice and humanism while condemning the mentality and actions of those who committed them in the past.

After this is done, it should invite all Armenians living in the diaspora to become citizens of the Turkish Republic. As the Armenians of the diaspora return to the geography where their ancestors lived for thousands of years before being forced to abandon it, leaving behind their property, memories and past, this may serve to abate their sorrow, which has now translated into anger. The common border with Armenia should be opened without putting forward any condition. This is what conscience, humanity and reason direct us to do. Turkey will become free by getting rid of its fears, complexes and worries by soothing the sorrows of Armenians.

*Dr. Ümit Kardaş is a retired military judge.

02 May 2010, Sunday

May 4, 2010

How A Court Case Was Won In France Against A Dashnak

Maxime Gauin
Paris, May 2, 2010

“We live in fact for some moments, intense and special; the rest of the time, we wait these moments.”

Edgar Faure (1908-1988), French lawyer and statesman.

On April 27, the Lyon’s tribunal declared Movsès Nissanian, municipal counselor of Villeurbanne (biggest city of Lyon’s suburb) member of Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF-Dashnak), guilty of “public insult against an individual” (me) and sentenced him. As a preliminary information, I have to say the following:

— Lyon is comparable to Boston in USA for the influence of Armenian nationalism, and the ambiance in Villeurbanne could be compared, by some aspects, with New Jersey’s ambiance. The mayor and former MP, Jean-Paul Bret, has some common points with US Senator Robert J. Menendez.

— I received no support from Lyon’s Turkish associations for the costs, or any other aspects, of my court case.

— As a MA student in history, I sued Mr. Nissanian to defend my dignity and the freedom of speech, against the political misuse of history.

I) Background: the facts, the procedure, the collateral incidents

.

February 15, 2008. During a meeting about the Sirma Oran affair, Movsès Nissanian says that I am exactly like “those who sent Jews to Auschwitz” during the WWII. He says that because I wrote an article, published on the Web, criticizing the mayor of Villeurbanne (who harassed Sirma Oran by his questions about the so-called “genocide”) and the ARF (for his crimes of the past, including terrorism and massacres of Muslims and Jews). I signed the article by initials only, to remain quiet, but my name was revealed on the free-access forum of armenews.com, first French-Armenian Web site. His editor-in-chief is Ara Toranian, former spokesman of ASALA (1976-1983) then of dissident group ASALA-RM (1983-1985).

May 15, 2008. I file a complaint in Lyon’s tribunal.

June 2008. The Lyon’s prosecutor opens a criminal investigation.

October 21, 2008. I file a complaint in the police station of my Parisian district, against vitriolic messages who insult and defame me, on the forum of armenews.com. I sent before several e-mails to Mr. Toranian, but he did not respond, so I take my promise to complaint. Less than seven hours after that, Mr. Toranian destroys for ever his dear free-access forum. Even some of his friends asked to him, before my complaint, to close this forum, because it was full of racist, anti-Semitic and anti-homosexual messages, several with direct incitation to physical violence, including murder.

December 2008 (I do not remember the precise date). I give to the chief of Lyon’s investigative magistrates, in charge of my complaint, the record of Mr. Nissanian’s statements during the meeting of February (Jean-Patrick Martz, husband of Sirma Oran, was in the room and recorded the speeches). The record is later authenticated by an expert, because a demand of Mr. Nissanian.

July 31, 2009. The procedure is completely finished. Both the chief of investigative magistrates and the deputy prosecutor ask that Mr. Nissanian be sent in front of Lyon’s tribunal for “public insult against an individual”.

September 9, 2009. The trial is fixed to November 3.

End of October 2009. Mr. Nissanian’s lawyer, Xavier Vahramian, files his written conclusions: 18 pages, plus 33 pieces, mostly about the so-called “genocide”; Mr. Nissanian lawyer argues that since I “denied the genocide”, I am guilty of “provocation”, as defined by law, and that, as a result, Mr. Nissanian must be not sentenced. He adds that “ARF did never use terrorism” and even that “ARF has always condemned terrorism”. The defense lawyer filed nothing during more than one year of investigation. It is now too late to make an appropriate response. Me and my lawyer ask that the trial be postponed; the tribunal accepts and fixes the date to January 5.

One can notice that the accusations of war crimes against Muslim and Jewish civilians, perpetrated by ARF members from 1914 to 1922, were never challenged, or even mentioned, by Mr. Nissanian or his lawyer, during the whole procedure.

November 3, 2009. Oran vs. Bret trial. The ambiance is terrible. I am scolded upset when I am leaving the tribunal’s room, by fanatic young Dashnaks (it is fair to add that few others young Dashnaks were unaggressive and expressed their disapprobation to such an aggressive attitude). I prevent insult and assault only in asking: “Do you want take the place of Mr. Nissanian?” I file a “main courante” (complaint without legal consequence) in the police station of my Parisian district, in coming back to my home.

November-December 2009. In French National Library, I search extensively in the archives of Haïastan, official newspaper of young Dashnaks and France-Arménie, monthly edited by Dashnaks of Lyon; I photocopy many articles supporting stridently terrorism. During the same time, I write a draft of response, about Dashnak crimes (terrorism of 1890’s and 1900’s years; terrorism of interwar period; collaboration with Nazism; terrorism of 1970’s and 1980’s; celebration of terrorism until today) and about the allegations of “genocide”, using writings of Feridun Ata, Donald Bloxham, Gwynne Dyer, Edward J. Erickson, Yusuf Halaçog(lu, Hilmar Kaiser, Guenter Lewy, S,inasi Orel and Sürreya Yuca, Stanford J. Shaw, Philip H. Stoddard, Malcom E. Yapp and others. My lawyer makes with this draft two appendixes for the revised version of his written conclusions (the first was established in October 2009). Written statements of Türkkaya Ataöv, Mumtaz Soysal and Norman Stone are also filed. I would like express my thanks to these professors.

January 4, 2010. Ara Toranian publishes on his site armenews.com a defamatory article against me, saying that Movsès Nissanian was right in saying that I have the same mentality of those who sent Jews to Auschwitz. Immediately, I sent an e-mail to him, threatening to make a new court case. Less than one half-hour, he answers that to prevent any misunderstanding about his intentions, he is deleting the article (and keeps his promise).

II) The trial of January 5, 2010, and its consequences

The trial happens in front of the same tribunal than for Oran vs. Bret case. However, the ambiance is much more quiet for this trial that on November 3. Not a single young Dashnak, and less activists in general. All are calm — excepted one, expelled by the president in the beginning of my statement. I speak about terrorism: nobody screams. I say that Mr. Toranian was president of the “National Armenian Movement for ASALA” (I say that because Mr. Nissanian used one of his articles for his defense); Mr. Toranian is three or four meters behind me; he says absolutely nothing. The president asked to everybody to be short, so I say almost nothing about “genocide” claims, just quoting Hilmar Kaiser’s praising of Yusuf Halaçog(lu.

Movsès Nissanian’s lawyer asks few question to me, but no one about history. My lawyer asks to his colleague of defense: “You asserted in your written conclusions that ‘ARF has always condemned terrorism’; did you file a single piece proving that?” No reply. My lawyers asks then to Mr. Nissanian if he regrets to have used such words against me. The defendant answers that yes.

Later during the trial, the president says: “the tribunal has not to decide between historical thesis”.

As usual in French procedure, the last word is for the defendant. In his short final declaration, Mr. Nissanian says: “I reprove these acts of terrorism” used by ARF and ASALA.

Mid-January 2010. Clash in the staff of France-Arménie, which published my account of trial on its Web site. Readers are chocked by what Mr. Nissanian said about terrorism, and call him a “coward”, a “shame” for ARF. Both my account and the comments are finally deleted, and the editor-in-chief, the passionately anti-Turkish racist Laurent Leylekian is furious because this incident.

III) The judgment: some commentaries

It is pronounced on April 27. The full text is available here:

Even more quiet ambiance than on January 5. No one Armenian media announced the date of the judgment. The tribunal rejects the excuse of provocation, arguing that such an excuse needs to be a direct and personal attack against the person who insult, and must be made few time before that the insult happens. No allusion to “genocide” claims in the discussion of the excuse of provocation. Mr. Nissanian is declared guilty of insult against an individual and sentenced. The president found a judgment of the Cour de cassation (French Supreme court) of April 1908 (!), saying that there is a difference between a “fault” of victim (excessive imprudence in the expression), which decreases the sentence, and the excuse of provocation, which prevents a sentence. In this case, the tribunal argues that it is an unneeded strident formulation to quote Gaïdz Minassian’s critical analysis about Dashnak terrorism (ARF “elevated terrorism until a saint method”, he writes in his book “Guerre et terrorisme arméniens”) in a context which concerns not ARF, but its Villeurbanne’s chapter, not involved in terrorism or in glorification of terrorism. I wanted not to libel this section, but to show the contrast between the repeated ask to Sirma Oran about “genocide” recognition (asks made by the Villeurbanne’s mayor) and the complete absence of ask of “recognition” about crimes perpetrated by ARF; but I did not insist of this point, before and during the tribunal, because I did not know the decision of 1908, and because my lawyer did not think to it.

So, Mr. Nissanian is sentenced, but to slight punishment: 300 € of suspended fine; 90 € as costs of judgment’s registration; 500 € for me. The president says that “it is a warning” to him.

Despite the slightness of the sentence, this judgment is terrible for ARF. The “genocide” claims are not accepted, not even discussed; the tribunal confirms by this way that he does not want “decide between historical thesis”.

The basic accusation of terrorism against ARF is validated; the judgment says that I mentioned “the acts attributable to ARF”, referring, among others, to terrorism. Even the use of jurisprudential notion of “fault” is terrible for ARF: the fundamental contradiction between the Dashnak terrorism on one side, the Dashnak desire of respectability, not the say the Dashnak arrogance in pretending to say what is good, on the other side. Mr. Nissanian escaped to a severe sentence only in substantiating his claims to be not favorable to terrorism, i.e. in saying “I reprove these acts of terrorism”; so, he broken ties with a considerable part of Dashnak activists. But the worst is perhaps that this defeat happened in front of the same tribunal than Mr. Bret’s success against S?rma Oran.

When I am writing this text, not a single Armenian Web site or forum has been mentioned the judgment; so, even is the sentence is slight, it seems sufficient for a strong symbolic effect.

As a result of two years of I renounce to nothing and regret nothing; I express my thanks to the thirty persons who I did not know before the judgment, and who sent to me their congratulations for the success in front of Lyon’s tribunal.

Many other people could make a successful court case, in France as well as in other countries of Western Europe, against Armenian nationalists who use insult or defamation as a political instrument — frequently with more viciousness and perseverance than Mr. Nissanian; one can hope, at least, that I will not remain alone to do that for a long time.

Maxime Gauin
Paris, May 2, 2010

Google Translation Of Maxime gauin’s Article in

The Theodor Mommsen Villeurbanne
A misunderstood genius: Jean-Paul Bret
By Mr. G, lundi11 February 2008

“Hypocrisy is a tribute that vice pays to virtue. “

Francois de La Rochefoucauld, Maxims.

The mayor of Villeurbanne, Mr. Bret is an extraordinary perspicacity. He decided to joint list with the Greens. He asked one of the candidates nominated by the party to “recognize the genocide of Armenia. This person has a Turkish name, she would have called Jeannine Smith, the same question he asked was, no doubt. This person runs. It is not enough for Mr. Bret: he asks her to repeat the “Armenian community” of Villeurbanne. She runs again. It is still not enough for Mr. Bret, which then requires a “recognition” writing.

Hunting “revisionist”

For Mr. Bret, anyone denying that the plight of Armenians in 1915-1916 could be a genocide, he said, “Holocaust denier” – even if this dispute does not affect the individual suffering and the magnitude of various crimes. The slightest suspicion that subject can cause the most severe sanctions, the most exemplary. Mr. Guenter Lewy, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Massachusetts, who fled Nazi Germany as a teenager with his family in 1939, is “revisionist”.

“The three pillars of the Armenian claims, to classify the losses suffered during the First World War as genocide fail to substantiate the charge that the Young Turk regime organized the massacres. Other alleged evidence of a plan of annihilation are no better.

Apply or not the term genocide to events which occurred here nearly a century may seem unimportant to many historians, but this application – or not – keeps a great political importance. The Armenians and their supporters, such as Turkish nationalists have made claims and defended their cause at the cost of simplification of historical reality, complex, and by ignoring crucial evidence that would lead to a more nuanced view of the past. Scholars have based their professional position on previous work, often ignoring dishonest interpretations of primary sources as they behaved. Against the backdrop of major policy issues, both sides have sought to silence opponents of their views, and to prevent a confrontation of all arguments in this case [1]. “

Historians specializing in Ottoman history, and whose fame is international, so all are “deniers”, including MM. Bernard Lewis (Jewish), Stanford Jay Shaw (of the Jewish faith), and Gilles Veinstein (born in 1945 in Paris, in a Jewish family).

“During the rest of the [First World War], much of the Armenian population was killed or fled. […] The Armenians say that these deaths are the result of a policy of genocide implemented by the Ottoman government. […] The minutes of the council of ministers did not confirm this, rather they show great willingness to investigate and improve a situation where six million people (Turks, Greeks, Arabs, Armenians, Jews and others) were killed by a combination of rebellions, attacks by bandits, killings and massacres-cons, famine and diseases, compounded by sudden foreign invasions, in which all peoples of the empire, Muslim and non-Muslims, have counted the victims and criminals. […] After the Revolution [Russian], a truce was signed between the Republic and the Ottoman Empire, but the Armenian units then began a massacre of Turkish peasants generalized still resident in the South Caucasus and eastern Anatolia, where were more than 600,000 refugees, in addition to 2,295,705 Turks living in the provinces of Erzurum, Erzincan, Trabzon, Van and Bitlis after the war [2]. “

“1) There was no hate campaign aimed directly at the Armenians, no demonizing comparable to European anti-Semitism.

2) The deportation of the Armenians, although widespread, was not total, and in particular it did not apply to the two main cities of Istanbul and Izmir.

3) The Turkish actions against Armenians, although disproportionate, were not born from nothing. The fear of a Russian advance into the eastern Ottoman provinces, knowing that many Armenians viewed the Russians as liberators against the Turkish regime and awareness of Armenian revolutionary activities against the Ottoman State, all contributed to create an atmosphere of anxiety and suspicion, aggravated by the situation becoming more desperate by the Empire and the neuroses – oh – usual time of war. In 1914, the Russians formed four large Armenian volunteer units and three others in 1915. These units accounted for many Ottoman Armenians, including some well-known public figures.

4) The deportation for criminal reasons, strategic or otherwise, had been practiced for centuries in the Ottoman Empire [3]. “

“Second point: there were also many casualties among Muslims throughout the war, the fighting but also by actions against them by Armenians, in a context of ethnic and national rivalry. If there are victims forgotten, are those, and the Turks of today are right to denounce the bias of Western opinion in this regard. Is it because there were only Muslims that are neglected, or because they implicitly consider that the ultimate success of their peers deprives them of the status of martyrs? What view would carry us so on the same facts, if things had turned out differently, if the Armenians were eventually based on the rubble Ottoman state in Anatolia sustainable?

But the last point is crucial, debate, its legal and political implications, is whether the massacres perpetrated against the Armenians were the order of the Young Turk government, if the transfers have been a lure for systematic extermination company, implemented in different ways, but decided, planned, RC governmental level, or if the Young Turks were only guilty of recklessly triggered movements which ended in bloodshed. Merely asking the question may seem absurd and outrageous. It is true that state involvement is a prerequisite for the complete application to the Armenian tragedy of the term genocide, as it was coined in 1944 and defined by the Nuremberg Trials and the United Nations Convention of 1948.

It must however admit that one has so far no evidence that government involvement [4]. “

Similarly, are counted among the “deniers”, Professor Eberhard Jäckel, one of the leading names of Nazi [5], the UK government [6], the German government [7], the Spanish government, Israeli Parliament [8], the Bulgarian Parliament [9] and the Nobel Peace Shimon Peres. [10]

Some disgruntled say that Mr. Bret has led a miserable political operation, whose methods disturbingly reminiscent of inquisitorial trials: the repentant heretic in public, and is excluded from the community if it persists in the heresy. Daring to proclaim the truth loud and clear: Mr. Bret is a genius – a misunderstood genius. Although he never made a study of history (like many other “specialists” self-appointed Ottoman history, such as Yves Ternon surgeon), he managed to unmask the “denial,” where is: in scientific research, recognized as such, and the governments of key allies of France. This genius can not be praised enough.

Dear friends of Mr Bret

Think! He is already struggling Turkish hydra, but it must also be wary of his friends. Mr. Bret indeed maintains the best relations with the local Armenian Revolutionary Federation (USA-Dashnaktsutiun). For, as amazing as it sounds, this foreign party (or to be absolutely correct its youth branch) has a section villeurbannaise, and also a section of Paris, Lyon, Marseille, Nice, and another in Décines, situated, as Villeurbanne, a suburb of Lyon. If a reader knows a European Turkey section of the PS in the suburbs of Munich, Milan, and Edinburgh, he would write to the association, which will transmit.

The heroic and visionary Mr. Bret managed a tour de force: to remain an impeccable democrat, while the friend of the local members of the FRA. Indeed, the FRA has “elevated to the rank of terrorism sacrosanct practice [11]. The list of major terrorist acts in the ARF include:

the first hostage of the contemporary era, which took place at the Ottoman Bank (Istanbul), August 26, 1896, the stated purpose (and succeeded, unfortunately, beyond all hope) promote violence antiarméniennes, a pretext for intervention further increased the great powers in the Ottoman Empire [12];

the failed assassination attempt against Sultan Abdul Hamid II in 1905, which killed the founder of the Dashnaktsutyun, Christapor Mikaelian, who died while handling a bomb he was preparing [13];

the assassination of Bedros Kapamaciyan Mayor Armenian Van, 10 December 1912 [14];

the massacre of many Muslim civilians between 1914 and 1922 [15];

the assassination of Archbishop Leon Tourian, head of the Armenian Church in the Americas, New York, December 24, 1933 [16];

a series of attacks between 1973 and 1985, including the suicide bombing of Lisbon, July 27, 1983, commemorated each year by the FRA [17];

the twin bombings of August 1, 1993, against Viktor Polianitchko (Russian officer) and General Ossetian Safonov [18] who won, the FRA to be prohibited in Armenia until the election of Mr. Kocharian, a of his friends, as President of the Republic [19].

The long record of party Dashnak not limited to these terrorist activities, it also includes the pro-Nazi activism of some of its most prominent members, never disavowed activism, but rather glorified, until today, by the direction of FRA. Hairenik, party organ Dashnak United States, has shown its unwavering support and full support to Nazi ideology. The edition of September 17, 1936 states as follows:

“Then came Adolf Hitler, after fighting worthy of Hercules. He spoke of race in the pulsing heart of the Germans, making the fountain spring of the national genius. “

A month earlier, on August 19 exactly Hairenik not hesitate to write:

“It is sometimes difficult to eradicate these harmful [Jews], when they have contaminated up to the root like a chronic illness, and when it becomes necessary for one people [in this case the Germans, or rather Nazis] to eliminate an uncommon method these attempts are regarded as revolutionary. During such surgery, it is natural that the blood flows. Under such conditions, a dictator emerges as a savior. “

Other members of the FRA are not content to support the Third Reich by words: they gave him the gift of their person. Thus General Ganayan (or Kanayan, according to a transcript of the Armenian alphabet in Latin script), better known by his nickname, Dro, he formed and led the 812th battalion of the Armenian Wehrmacht, the main fact of weapon was the roundup of Jews in occupied Soviet Union [20]. Dro is in the mausoleum since 2000, inaugurated by President Kocharian [21]. In an editorial in April 2001, General Dro Hairenik ranks among the “heroes” of the Armenian people [22], thereby demonstrating his perfect continuity with the line of the 1930 pro-Nazi. Mr. Vahan Hovhannesian, candidate of the ARF in the presidential elections in Armenia, also believes Dro as a “hero” [23].

It goes without saying that Mr. Bret has asked all his friends from the USA to recognize and condemn, orally then in writing, all of his crimes. It goes without saying that Mr. Bret is necessarily also “committed” to the “recognition” of the “Armenian genocide” as “recognition” of numerous crimes of the FRA, the 1890s to today.

How? You have not read, heard or seen it in the media, but then not at all? This may be an omission on their part. Just think, a genius like Mr. Bret can not ignore such acts.

[1] Guenter Lewy, “Revisiting the Armenian Genocide,” Middle East Quarterly, Winter 2005.

[2] Stanford and Ezel Kural Shaw Jay Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, New York / London, Cambridge University Press, Volume II, revised edition, 1978, pp. 315-325 (according to Ottoman documents).

[3] “The explanation of Bernard Lewis,” The World, 1 January 1994.

[4] Gilles Veinstein, “Three questions about a massacre,” The History, April 1995.

[5] “But if we take into account the fact that Turks and Kurds have also deplored the heavy loss, and certainly more than combat due to illness, approximately one third of British soldiers Indians and taken prisoner by the Turks in 1916 have died, all this strongly suggests that no genocidal intent existed. “Eberhard Jäckel,” Genozid oder nicht? “Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, March 22, 2006.

[6] “The evidence is insufficient evidence to convince us that the events should be classified as genocide under the terms of the UN Convention on Genocide of 1948 which, anyway, is not to retroactive application. The interpretation of events in Eastern Anatolia in 1915-1916 is still the subject of genuine debate among historians. “Lady Scott (Foreign Office), statement on behalf of the British Government in the House of Lords, 2001.

[7] “The federal government believes that consideration of massacres in 1915-1916 can not be by definition a matter of history and that it therefore applies only to historical research and both countries are interested in ascertaining the Turkey and Armenia. Response from the German Minister of Foreign Affairs to a parliamentary question in March 2001.

[8] “Israeli Parliament Rejects Alleged Genocide Bill”, Turkish Daily News, March 16, 2007.

[9] “Bulgarian Lawmakers reject Armenian” genocide “claims”, Turkish Daily News, January 18, 2008.

[10] “We reject attempts to create a similarity between the Jewish Holocaust and the Armenian allegations. Nothing comparable to the Holocaust has taken place. What the Armenians suffered a tragedy but not a genocide. Shimon Peres interview with the Turkish Daily News, April 10, 2001.

[Eleven] Gaïdz Minassian, Armenian War and Terrorism, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, 2002, p. 262.

[12] Francis Georgeon, Abdulhamid II, Sultan Caliph, Paris, Fayard, 2003, pp. 299-300, Stanford and Ezel Kural Shaw Jay Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, op. cit., pp. 203-205.

[13] Gaïdz Minassian, Armenian War and Terrorism, op. cit., p. 2.

[14] Justin McCarthy, Esat Arslan, Ömer Cemalettin TASKIRAN and Turan, The Armenian Rebellion at Van, Salt Lake City, Utah University Press, 2006, pp. 164-165.

[15] Justin McCarthy et al, The Armenian Rebellion at Van, op. cit., pp. 233-251.

[16] Michael M. Gunter, “Pursuing the Just Cause of Their People. A Study of Contemporary Armenian Terrorism, Connecticut, Greenwood Press, 1986, p. 55.

[17] Gaïdz Minassian, Armenian War and Terrorism, op. cit., pp. 21-114, especially pp. 88-93 on the attack in Lisbon.

[18] “A representative of Boris Yeltsin killed in the North Caucasus”, Le Monde, August 3, 1993; Gaïdz Minassian, Armenian War and Terrorism, op. cit., p. 262. It is true that the two victims have not breached the global humanism, is the least we can write, but they deserved a trial, not an ambush.

[19] The ban was also motivated by the relations between the USA and part of the Russian extreme right, one led by Mr. Zhirinovsky: Gaïdz Minassian, Armenian War and Terrorism, op. cit., p. 241.

[20] Sedat Laçiner, “The Second World War: Armenian-Nazi Collaboration? “The Journal of Turkish Weekly, May 21, 2005. id = 1133

[21] “Dro, became pro-Nazi hero,” L’Humanite, 19 April 1999. See also the official website of the FRA:

[22]

[23]
URL for this article: http://www.turquieeuropeenne.org/article2455.html

© 2004 European Turkey. All rights reserved

May 3, 2010
Nancy Pelosi: “We are all Armenians!”

House Speaker pledges to fight on for Genocide recognition

by Emil Sanamyan

Published: Wednesday April 21, 2010

Speaker Pelosi speaking at April 21 congressional commemoration. The Armenian Reporter

Washington – “Tonight we are all Armenians!” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) declared as she began her address at the annual congressional commemoration of the Armenian Genocide on April 21.

“We are tired of the story being told [about why Congress should not adopt an Armenian Genocide resolution] but we are not tired of fighting for the truth,” Pelosi insisted as she spoke in front of some 200 people, mostly Armenian Americans.

Speaker noted the importance of last month’s House Foreign Affairs Committee vote on the Armenian Genocide resolution that “insisted on the truth” and expressed hope that the vote was “of some comfort” to Armenian Americans.

Pelosi added that she and other supporters of affirmation would not rest until the federal government clearly recognizes the Armenian Genocide, but she made no commitments about bringing the House resolution to vote, a move that is opposed by the Obama Administration.

She also referred to last year’s court decision in California that used the U.S. government position as justification to deny Armenian Americans an opportunity to collect on WWI-era insurance policies of their ancestors.

The event organized by co-chairs of the Armenian caucus Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), included House Majority leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and Chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee Howard Berman (D-Calif.) and more than a dozen other members of Congress, including two members of Armenian descents Reps. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) and Jackie Speier (D-Calif.)

The event also featured remarks by Armenia’s Ambassador to U.S. Tatoul Markarian, Artsakh’s Representative Robert Avetisyan, and invocations by the Armenian Church clergy, including Archbishop Oshagan Choloyan who offered an opening prayer for the House of Representatives earlier in the day.

April 22, 2010
CONDEMNING A BOGUS GENOCIDE AND THE FALSIFIERS PROMOTING IT

Dear fair-minded, honest, truth-seeker,

As you may be aware, members of the Armenia Caucus are circulating a “Dear Colleague” letter, signed by Berman, to counter the letter by the Turkey Caucus to Speaker Pelosi, the latter urging that the alleged Armenian Genocide Resolution (H. Res. 252), recently passed by the Foreign Affairs Committee, not be brought to the full House for a vote.

The authors, i.e. Berman’s Armenian writers, would have you believe that passage of the bill by the House would do no “irrevocable harm” to U.S. national security, not “derail ongoing efforts” by Armenia and Turkey to normalize relations, or harm in any way the U.S. economy by putting American exports to and investment in Turkey at risk.

I disagree with many points in the Armenian letter signed by Berman, but I take particularly strong exception to the use of the phrase ‘Armenian Genocide’ without the qualifier “alleged” before it. There is no court verdict supporting the Armenian claims which strive to pass a bogus genocide as settled history. We all know, beyond a shadow of doubt, that it is neither a genocide nor settled.

In doing so, it flies in the face of the overwhelming weight of unimpeachable historical evidence and the virtually unanimous opinion of non-Armenian, non-partisan, and un-biased scholars, researchers, and historians, as well as many Turkish ones. In fact, the man who coined the term “genocide,” Rafael Lemkin, was duped by the Armenian propaganda, just like many in the unsuspecting public, to consider the World War I-era revolts, treason, and terrorism by Armenians and the mutual massacres and TERESET (temporary resettlement) that ensued the Armenian disloyalty and fifth column to constitute genocide.

In 2003, I have coined a much needed companion term, ETHOCIDE, a short definition of which is “systematic extermination of ethics by malicious and repetitive mass deception for political and other gain”, simply to fill the vacuum where racist and dishonest Armenian falsifiers and Turk haters would abuse to pass their revolt as genocide. A simple search on the net for ETHOCIDE will reveal more extensive coverage of the term, its uses, and sources.

I also reject the downplaying by the Armenian falsifiers and Turk haters the various national-security arguments cited by the Turkey Caucus letter. I believe that US-Turkish security relations should not to be distorted and downplayed into fodder for the greedy and tricky Armenian propagandists. The US-Turkish mutual interests should not be allowed to be destroyed by self-serving Armenian lobby and their irresponsible politician benefactors like Berman, Schiff, Pallone, or others.

The US is not about to discard the immense benefits it derives from bilateral security relations for the sake of “rewarding” Armenia with a defamatory resolution. For example, would the US risk losing logistic support and real-time intelligence in America’s war on terrorism, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere? Highly doubtful. How about the delicate role of Turkey on the issues like Iran and its nuclear projects, Israel-Palestinian conflict, Pakistan, and the Balkans and Central Asia?

Moreover, the acknowledgement of a racist and dishonest resolution promoting a bogus genocide by other governments and parliaments suggests that Armenian euphoria would be limited and short-lived, at most. It would start poisoning Turkey-US relations all over again the next year, and then the next, and the next, repeating an endless, meaningless cycle. Why? Because some dishonest and racist people actually derive their livelihood from the “genocide industry”, in terms of votes, dollars, book sales, speaker’s honorarium, film financing, panels, exhibitions, travel, etc. Think of Nazi propaganda machine only run by equally atrocious but much trickier Armenian lobby and their thinly-veiled Turk-hating partners.

In addition, I dispute the argument that passing H. Res. 252 would not derail the Turkish-Armenian protocols. The protocols have been gathering dust in the Armenian parliament since they were signed in October, and particularly in light of the preconditions fabricated by the Armenian constitutional court and Armenian leadership. There is little likelihood that they will be ratified any time soon because Armenians still resist the world pressure to end their brutal military occupation of Karabagh and seven surrounding provinces, constituting 20% of Azerbaijan’s soil, and allow a million Azeris, mostly women and children, to return to their homes from which they were evicted 18 years ago by Armenian bombs and bayonets. (It is remarkable how Berman letter is shamefully silent about the 18-year-old-and-counting Azerbaijani suffering at the hands of Armenians.)

Finally, I take issue with the assertion that passing the resolution would not harm the U.S. economy. It strains credulity to believe that the US, at a time when its economy is reeling from the effects of a deep seated crisis, would reject Turkish economic cooperation and investment and stop trading all Turkish products just to appease a few loud and selfish Armenian falsifiers and their self-serving, Turk-hating, irresponsible partners by letting the House adopt a racist and dishonest resolution appearing before us for the millionth time.

In a more general sense, I am deeply disturbed by this morally-blind line of argument, as it could be used to justify inaction by Armenia in Karabakg and the seven provinces of Azerbaijan.

I do not accept the arguments of those who expect no potential harm to U.S. national security should the House pass the alleged Armenian Genocide Resolution, totally disrespecting Turkish sensitivities and real politik of the region.

What I can neither accept nor respect is any claim, direct or implied, that one of the greatest lies of modern history did actually happen.

I say to those: PROVE IT!

And if you cannot, then simply shut up!

Sincerely,

Ergun Kirlikovali

PS: There are always two sides to any story. Don’t anyone ever forget that!

April 15, 2010
Turkish EU Minister on the Armenian Genocide Controversy

‘We Are Very Sensitive About This Issue’

Photo Gallery: 3 Photos

DPA

In a SPIEGEL interview, Ankara’s Minister for European Affairs Egemen Bagis discusses Turkey’s journey to the West and his country’s dispute with the United States over a resolution on the genocide of the Armenians recently passed by Congress.

SPIEGEL: Mr. Bagis, why does Turkey still need a minister for European Union affairs? Isn’t Europe a dead issue in your country?

Bagis: Absolutely not. My government is investing more energy in the reform process than any other government. In 2013 we will be ready for accession.SPIEGEL: But do Turks share your enthusiam? Three out of four Turks believe that the EU wants to divide your country and spread Christianity.

Bagis: I have other figures: If Turkey held a referendum today on accession, 60 percent would vote for it. On the other hand, only 40 percent of Turks believe that accession will definitely take place. In Europe it is the other way round: Forty percent want to take Turkey in, but 60 percent believe the country will join the EU one day.

SPIEGEL: In other words: There is skepticism on both sides.

Bagis: Let’s put it this way: Some countries like Malta apply for membership and are in the next day. Others need a little more time. I have no problem with the fact that some Europeans say they want negotiations with an open-ended outcome. Today everything has an open-ended outcome, even Catholic marriages.

SPIEGEL: Turkey has been seeking EU membership since 1959. Is it not humiliating to be held at bay for so long?

Bagis: No, because we also made mistakes. There have been three military coups since 1959, and many Turkish government’s didn’t have a clear vision or idea of Europe. It was the Justice and Development Party (AKP) government of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan that first made the necessary constitutional amendments between 2002 and 2004 so that we could finally start accession negotiations.

SPIEGEL: Only 17 percent of Germans support Turkish membership in the EU.

Bagis: Believe me, one day Europeans will have to appeal to the Turkish public to support EU membership. Europe has many problems. Tell me, for example, how the EU plans to solve its energy crisis without Turkish help? A large part of the future energy resources Europe needs will flow through Turkey. And tell me how you are going to solve your economic and demographic problems? The average age in Europe is 40, while in Turkey it is 28. Where are you going to get your work force from? Who is supposed to pay your pensions?

SPIEGEL: As long as declared opponents of Turkish accession like German Chancellor Angela Merkel and France President Nicolas Sarkozy are in office, you won’t get very far with such arguments.

Bagis: I am very thankful that German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle has publicly stated that he wants accession talks to continue. With regards to President Sarkozy: He used this horrible, insulting phrase, “privileged partnership” …

SPIEGEL: … a term that was actually coined by Germany’s conservative Christian Democratic Union party.

Bagis: But Sarkozy repeated it often enough. My government has only one answer: We will only accept full membership — nothing more, nothing less. We want the same chances as every candidate country.

SPIEGEL: Atatürk, the founder of modern Turkey, said: “The Turks have only ever gone in one direction — towards the West.”

Bagis: And that is still true. But at the same time, we are also a bridge and have four strong pillars, one in each direction …

SPIEGEL: … of which you recently pulled out two by recalling your ambassadors to the United States and Sweden. The move was triggered by the decision of a Congressional committee to pass a resolution recognizing the death of more than a million Armenians in 1915-16 as genocide. A similar resolution was passed by Sweden’s parliament.

Bagis: With this decision, Sweden has become slave to a thesis that, unfortunately, is based on falsehoods. The voting in the US on the so-called genocide was a success for Turkey. The Congressman from California, who got support from the Armenian lobby, made a fool out of himself. He tried to scratch the back of every Representative in the corridors of Congress in order to get their vote. But then he only won by a single vote.

SPIEGEL: Still, a Congressional committee approved the resolution.

Bagis: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton later declared that the resolution will not be passed by the entire House of Representatives. As you know, the French parliament passed a similar law on the so-called Armenian genocide in 2006. Afterwards there was a ban on French airforce flights over Turkey. We are very sensitive about this issue.

SPIEGEL: What options do you have if the Americans do, in the end, recognize the genocide officially? Would you want to close the Incirlik airbase? Leave NATO?

Bagis: I will leave that up to your readers’ imagination. But allow me to remind you of one thing: Seventy percent of the logistical support for the Iraq deployment comes through Incirlik.

SPIEGEL: Why is it so difficult for Turkey to recognize the genocide of the Armenians?

Bagis: It is up to the historians, not politicians, to judge what happened in the past. Politicians look into the future. We have offered to create a joint commission of historians together with the Republic of Armenia — so far without success. Besides, you should know that the Ottoman Empire was an ally of the German Reich. Nothing that happened back then happened without consultations with the Germans.

SPIEGEL: If you dont accept the word “genocide,” then how can you have a “Genocide Museum” in the city of Igdir in eastern Turkey, dedicated to the Turks who died in 1915?

Bagis: That’s very easy: Every action leads to a reaction. But I don’t want to rule out the possibility that, someday, this museum could be transformed into a “Museum of Coexistance” or a “Museum of Mutual Pain.” I do not want to deny that the Armenians went through very difficult times …

SPIEGEL: You call it “difficult times”? We are taking about 1.5 million Armenians who perished between 1915 and 1917.

Bagis: According to American historian Justin McCarthy, 600,000 Armenians died at the time — and at the same time, 2 million Kurds and Turks. There was a civil war in Turkey, right in the middle of World War I.

SPIEGEL: The interior minister at that time, Talat Pascha, told the then US ambassador, Henry Morgenthau, that the “physical extermination” of the Amernians was a necessary goal of the war.

Bagis: According to McCarthy, this quote isn’t entirely accurate. But I am not a historian. I wasn’t there, you weren’t there. Why don’t we leave this question to a mutual commission of historians comprised of Armenians and Turks?

SPIEGEL: There was a time when Turkey seemed further along the road toward confronting its past. In 1919, the three men mainly responsible for the Armenian genocide — Talat Pasha, Enver Pasha and Cemal Pasha — were all sentenced to death in absentia. Atatürk wanted nothing to do with them. Nevertheless, there are still three large, magnificent tombstones for these men in Istanbul.

Bagis: It is traditional in our culture to commemorate the dead. Like all of us, these men surely did some good and some bad things in their lives and for their country.

SPIEGEL: Is Turkey worried the Armenians will demand reparations?

Bagis: You know, there are an estimated 100,000 illegal Armenian immigrants in our country, who work here providing care for the elderly and children. For me, this shows that there is no hate between our people. On the contrary: We are attempting to achieve rapprochement, there is a peace process between our countries …

SPIEGEL: … which is stagnating at the moment.

Bagis: That is not our fault. We have attempted to bridge our differences; we want to open all archives. But when you see that the other side is blocking all your attempts, it makes you skeptical.

SPIEGEL: This issue represents one of the few on which the AKP government, the military and the secular elite are all on the same page. Doesn’t that bother you?

Bagis: No. My government focuses on solving problems. We want good neighborly relations, also with Armenia.

SPIEGEL: Turkey’s new foreign policy earned considerable praise, but the country’s domestic policies have been enigmatic for some people in the West. Isn’t your government overplaying its hand in its power struggle with the army? You are no longer arresting only potential putschists, but also critics of the government.

Bagis: The investigations in the so-called Ergenekon case, where men are suspected of having planned a putsch against the government, are an issue for the judiciary. In the latest progress report, the European Union assesses the investigation as an opportunity for Turkey to further democratize itself.SPIEGEL: Others see signs of continuing Islamization. Restaurants are losing their alcohol licenses, young people are being harassed for holding hands in public and Family Minister Aliye Kavaf has described homosexuality as a “disease.”

Bagis: I do not agree with her, I do not consider homosexuality to be a disease. But I am neither a historian nor a doctor. Besides, I really don’t think that Turkey has become more conservative. It just so happens that the conservatives are a lot more visible today than they were previously.

Interview conducted by Bernhard Zand and Daniel Steinvorth
https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/turkish-eu-minister-on-the-armenian-genocide-controversy-we-are-very-sensitive-about-this-issue-a-683701.html

__._,_.___

April 12, 2010