Turks Hit PKK with Chemical Weapons

German politicians called for an international investigation into the reported use of chemical weapons by the Turkish military. The weapons were used against members of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), according to the online edition of the German weekly magazine Der Spiegel.

A Reuters report said that "German experts have confirmed the authenticity of photographs that purport to show PKK fighters killed by chemical weapons."

A German expert on photo forgeries has confirmed the authenticity of the photos, and a forensics report released by the Hamburg University Hospital has backed the initial suspicion, saying that it is highly probable that the eight Kurds died "due to the use of chemical substances."

Reuters stated "The evidence puts increasing pressure on the Turkish government which has long been suspected of using such weapons against Kurdish rebels. German politicians are demanding an investigation."

Reuters added "It would be difficult to exceed the horror shown in the photos, which feature burned, maimed and scorched body parts. The victims are scarcely even recognizable as human beings. Turkish-Kurdish human rights activists believe the people in the photos are eight members of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) underground movement, who are thought to have been killed in September 2009."

According to the Jerusalem Post, "The bodies in the photos were severely deformed and torn to pieces; the photos formed the basis for the forensic report. Hans Baumann, a German expert on the authenticity of photos, confirmed that photos had not been doctored. The 31 photos, according to German media, are so disturbing that news organizations have been reluctant to publish them."

A Chicago blogger, Warner Todd Houston, commented, "Interestingly few European news sources seem very much interested in discussing this story much. Israeli news outlets, though, are covering this story heavily. This is interesting because if Turkey really is using chemical weapons against its internal, political enemies, this fact will cause immeasurable difficulties between the relations of members of the EU and the increasingly Islamized Turkish nation."

Der Spiegel reported: "Turkey has been suspected of using chemical weapons for years, points out Gisela Penteker, a Turkey expert with the international medical organization International Physicians for the Pevention of Nuclear War. 'Local people have said that again and again,' she explained. Finding proof is difficult, however, she said, because bodies were often released so late that it was hardly possible to carry out a thorough autopsy.

Der Spiegel continued: "In Turkey, human rights advocates have long demanded an investigation. The army, however, has refused to comment on the issue. Similarly, the government of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has been stubbornly silent or tried to portray the accusations of war crimes as 'PKK propaganda.'"

According to the Berlin daily newspaper, Die Tageszeitung, the Turkish Foreign Ministry has rejected the accusations. Turkey is a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention, and its armed forces do not possess any biological or chemical weapons, the Ministry reportedly said.

The newspaper also reports that in the meantime it has obtained additional, shocking pictures supposedly autopsy photographs of six other killed Kurds. These images too have now been submitted to the Hamburg-based experts.

Sources:
Weinthal, Benjamin (August 12, 2010). Turks hit PKK with chemical weapons. Jerusalem Post. http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=184612

Asbarez.com Armenian News (August 13, 2010). Turkey accused of using chemical weapons against PKK. http://asbarez.com/84156/turkey-accused-of-using-chemical-weapons-against-pkk/

Huston, Warner Todd (August 14, 2010). Did Turkey bomb Kurds with chemical weapons in 2009? Publius Forum Gateway Pundit. http://www.publiusforum.com/index.php?s=Did+Turkey+Bomb+Kurds

Steinvorth, Daniel and Musharbash, Yassin (August 12, 2010). Turkey accused of using chemical weapons against PKK. Der Spiegel. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,711536,00.html

Read full text......

Sassounian: Advice to Prime Minister Erdogan: Continue Denying the Genocide

"Harut Sassounian's Column"
March 18, 2010

It is a well-known fact that Turkish leaders are exceptional diplomats. However, as soon as they hear the words Armenian Genocide, Greece, Cyprus, or Kurdistan, these diplomats lose their “cool” and resort to emotional outbursts and undiplomatic actions that harm their own interests.

Realizing that this is the 95th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, Turkish officials have been nervously preparing themselves for the upcoming tsunami of commemorations that would remind the international community of the crimes against humanity committed by the Ottoman Turks.

The first unexpected shot was fired on Feb. 26 by the Parliament of the Autonomous Government of Catalonia, Spain, when it unanimously recognized the Armenian Genocide. Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu immediately contacted his Spanish counterpart and Catalonian officials to vent his anger and demand an apology.

Two days later, an expose of the Armenian Genocide was aired by CBS’s “60 Minutes” showing bones of Armenian victims still protruding from Syrian desert sands, almost a century later. The Turks were livid, accusing Armenians of unduly influencing the CBS network and questioning, as usual, the authenticity of the bones and the sand.

Four days later, the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee adopted a resolution acknowledging the Armenian Genocide. Turkey lost despite:

1. Pressuring the Obama Administration to oppose the resolution;
2. Hiring multi-million-dollar lobbying firms;
3. Sending teams of Turkish parliamentarians to Washington;
4. Email campaigns by Turkish and Azeri Americans; and
5. Threatening to boycott U.S. defense contractors if they did not oppose the resolution.

Immediately after losing that vote, Turkey recalled its ambassador from Washington, indicating that he may be kept in Ankara until after April 24. State Minister Zafer Caglayan postponed his U.S. visit intended to develop economic ties “until the United States corrects its mistake.” A scheduled trip by the executive board of the Turkish Industrialists’ and Businessmen’s Association to Washington on March 16 and 17 was also canceled, and anti-American protests were held in Turkish cities. More importantly, Prime Minister Erdogan indicated that he might cancel his planned participation in the global summit on nuclear security to be held in Washington next month.

Before Turkish passions had cooled down, the Swedish Parliament dealt a second devastating blow to Ankara on March 11, by reaffirming the genocide of Armenians, Assyrians, and Greeks by a vote of 131-130. Once again, Turkey recalled its ambassador, and Erdogan canceled his upcoming trip to Stockholm, which was to be accompanied by a large trade delegation. And, anti-Swedish demonstrations were held in several Turkish cities.

These overly dramatic reactions prompted Turkish and foreign commentators to have a field day, speculating that if more countries recognize the Armenian Genocide, Turkey won’t have ambassadors left anywhere in the world, and Turkish officials won’t have to visit other countries, having to cancel their overseas trips. Furthermore, Turkey would be left without any imported goods and a weakened military, having canceled all purchases from the outside world. Turkey’s isolation is a just retribution for its denialist policy. By trying to punish others, Turkey is simply punishing itself.

Vahe Magarian of Cincinnati, Ohio sent a pointed letter to the New York Times last week, suggesting that Turkey’s recalled ambassadors “rather than flying home, should be made to march home on foot. Forced marches were the preferred means of travel during the dying days of the Ottoman Empire.”

Prominent Turkish commentator Can Dundar wrote in Haber1 an article titled “Are we going to recall all our Ambassadors?” He stated that, at this rate, by the time the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide rolls around in 2015, there won’t be a single country left not accusing Turkey of genocide. Isn’t it about time that we search out what dirty work our fathers did 95 years ago? Shouldn’t we ask what did we do wrong, Dundar implored.

The main reason why Turkish officials panic every time the Armenian Genocide is acknowledged by yet another country is their fear of being asked to pay compensation for Armenian losses and return the occupied lands. Erdogan and his colleagues don’t seem to understand that genocide recognition by itself does not lead to legal claims. How many inches of land have Armenians managed to liberate from Turkey as a result of such recognition by more than 20 countries? If Turkish leaders would only understand that parliamentary resolutions have no legal effect, maybe they would not get so excited over them.

Nevertheless, there should be no doubt that Armenians still demand the return of their ancestral lands located in eastern Turkey. Such claims have to be pursued in various courts, unless an unexpected cataclysmic event occurs first, causing the collapse or dismemberment of the Turkish state.

In the meantime, we advise Erdogan to continue denying the genocide at every opportunity in order to encourage Armenians to persist in their efforts to expose Ankara’s lies. Were it not for Turkish officials’ vehement denials, there would not have been a worldwide outcry to reaffirm the facts of the Armenian Genocide by airing TV documentaries and adopting genocide resolutions.

Mr. Erdogan, please keep up the good work. Armenians need your kind assistance to pursue their cause until justice is done.

Harut Sassounian is the publisher of the California Courier.

Read full text......

European Court of Human Rights Finds Turkey Guilty in Murder of Journalist Hrant Dink

The European Court of Human Rights found Turkey guilty of failing "in their duty to protect the life and freedom of expression" of Hrant Dink. The court ruled that Turkey should pay damages of 100,000 euros to Dink's wife and his children. An additional 5000-euros were awarded to Dink's brother and the court ordered Turkey to pay 28,595 euros to the applicants for costs and expenses. The Court unanimously found that Turkey had committed two violations of Article 2 (right to life - lack of an effective investigation), a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) and a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in conjunction with Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Turkish Foreign Ministry announced that it would not appeal the case at the European court. In its statement, the ministry said precautions would be taken to prevent similar breaches of rights in the future. Turkey's defense at the European court attracted widespread criticism after it drew parallel's between neo-Nazism and Dink's perspectives. The defense also said Dink did not ask for personal protection, a fact it suggested meant he was not under threat. The court decided that since Turkey's highest criminal court had upheld a ruling that Dink had denigrated Turkish identity shortly before his death, it made him a target for extreme nationalists and Turkey failed to protect him.

Dink was shot dead by an ultra-nationalist teenager outside the offices of the Agos newspaper in Istanbul in January 2007. The investigation into his murder has stalled as the suspected perpetrator and his immediate accomplices have been put on trial, but those who masterminded the plot to kill him have yet to be revealed.

Fethiye Cetin, a lawyer representing the family of Hrant Dink, has said the European Court of Human Rights' (ECHR) ruling is proof that Dink did not insult Turkishness. Cetin said "that if the Dink murder had been solved 'dark forces within the state" would have come to light." "The state's black box will be opened. We have an opportunity from now on to restart the investigations and continue to work to find Dink's murderer."

Rober Koptas, the new editor-in-chief of Agos, pointed out that Dink would be 56 years old on Sept. 15 if he were alive. "The ECHR's ruling is the result of Dink's application to the court eight days before he died because he had exhausted all legal channels in Turkey. He was trying to clear the stain that claimed 'he insulted Turkishness.' This was very important for him. Unfortunately, the Turkish courts wouldn't do what was necessary and ruled in a way that resulted in Dink being targeted," he said.

Sources:
California Courier (September 23, 2010). Turkey found guilty by European court.

Comert, Yesim (September 16, 2010). Top European court fines Turkey in journalists death. CNN.com http://articles.cnn.com/2010-09-14/world/turkey.court.fine_1_turkish-identity-turkey-turkish-armenian-journalist-hrant?_s=PM:WORLD

Today's Zaman
http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=221708

Read full text......

A Great Hoax about a Turkish Ambassador

Editor's Introduction

A successful con job and a rare "joke" in the world of genocide information. The "news" of Turkey's recall of its ambassador to Sierra Leone, because the ambassador supported a resolution in the Sierra Leone Parliament to recognize the Armenian genocide was widely reported. For example, GPN's editor first read this unusual news in the International Herald Tribune without any suspicions. The story turned out to be an enormous hoax. Turkey does not even have an embassy in Sierra Leone.

The story was amazing, but perhaps believable. There are, after all, an increasing number of Turkish professionals who are recognizing the Armenian Genocide -- some going all the way to call it "genocide" and others by recognizing the facts of the mass murders but asking, at least for now, not to call the event "genocide." Sometimes, some diplomats do take a principled stand to tell a truth their governments do not wish to expose -- thus see the principled stand of past US Ambassador to Armenia, John Evans, who did recognize the Armenian Genocide and was fired by the U.S. State Department for his actions or the story in this issue of the former U.K. ambassador to Armenia who now says there is no doubt about the Armenian Genocide. Finally, the picture of a lonely long term diplomat who has been forgotten in a long-forgotten post in an area of the world that routinely is given little attention, did make some kind of sense.

So maybe it happened after all.

But it didn't.

Did Turkey's Ambassador Really Lobby for Passage of Genocide Resolution?

"Harut Sassounian's Column"
Thousands of articles are posted on the internet every day. But, very few make us fall off our chairs!Last week I came across a shocking news item posted by the Turkish Forum — the largest website for Turkish news. It was titled: “Forgotten Ambassador in Sierra Leone Uses Armenian Genocide Resolution to solve his Problem.” Here is the summary in translation of that incredible article:

“In recent years, parliaments of several countries have adopted resolutions on the Armenian Genocide. In retaliation, Turkey has recalled its ambassadors from these countries. It has been revealed that some opportunistic ambassadors exploited this situation, by abusing their position.

“According to a Foreign Ministry announcement this morning, Orhan Emin Turkone, Turkey ’s Ambassador in Sierra Leone for the past 12 years, has been fired for having lobbied for the passage of the Armenian Genocide bill in that country’s Parliament.

“During a press conference this morning, the Foreign Ministry’s Undersecretary Ersin Ozbukey explained: ‘Recently, it came to our attention that the so-called Armenian Genocide bill was placed on the agenda of the Parliaments of Chad, Eritrea , and Djibouti . But, when we saw that this bill was unanimously adopted by the Parliament of Sierra Leone, we started suspecting that something had gone terribly wrong.’ Ozbukey added: ‘We formed an investigative committee that uncovered some interesting, but disturbing information.’

“’We confirmed that Amb. Turkone had carried out lobbying activities in favor of the Armenian Genocide bill,’ Ozbukey stated. ‘Of course, this can’t be excused, but the Ministry also has its fault in this affair. This man was abandoned and forgotten in a far away country. He got that idea, after [Turkish] Ambassadors were recalled following the adoption of the genocide resolution by other countries. Twelve years is a long time,’ Ozbukey admitted.

“Ozbukey then provided the details of Amb. Turkone unbelievable actions in publicizing the Armenian Genocide in Sierra Leone . Ozbukey said that whenever the Ambassador visited a bar, he would write on facebook: ‘We massacred the Armenians in such a nasty way.’ He told bartenders: ‘My grandfather alone killed 100-150 Armenians whose bones are in the basement of our home.’ The Ambassador made up such falsehoods and lies. He basically said whatever came to his head. Sierra Leone is a small place. Word spreads quickly. No one had ever heard of either Armenia or Turkey . But, within a month, everyone in the whole country was agitated over this issue. People were dancing in the streets when they learned that the genocide was recognized. This shouldn’t have happened, but unfortunately, it did!

“Ozbukey explained that after this revelation, the Turkish government started paying more attention to the agenda of various parliaments. In order to avoid such situations in the future, instead of recalling ambassadors, ‘we are now considering the possibility of cutting off trade relations, until the resolution is removed from the Parliament’s agenda,’”

Even though this article sounded too good to be true, the amount of detail and specific names mentioned in it led dozens of Turkish websites to post it, without realizing that it was a hoax! After learning that Turkey did not have an embassy in Sierra Leone , the Turkish Forum deleted the fake news from its website. It was also not true that Armenian Genocide resolutions were being considered by parliaments of Chad , Djibouti and Eritrea in recent months.

It is not known who concocted this elaborate hoax. Given the extensive amount of criticism directed at Prime Minister Erdogan within Turkey in recent weeks, the author could well be a disgruntled Turk with a sense of humor who decided to take a sarcastic swipe at his Don Quixotic leader. The article was accompanied by an authentic looking photo of three African officials along with a non-African individual at a signing ceremony. The photo gave the false impression that the latter was the Turkish Ambassador to Sierra Leone .

It is not at all surprising that several Turkish websites fell for this ruse, as the government of Turkey has made a practice of recalling its ambassadors from France, Canada, the United States, and other countries for having recognized the Armenian Genocide.

Namik Tan, the newly appointed Turkish ambassador to Washington , was recalled on March 4 after the House Foreign Affairs Committee approved the Armenian Genocide resolution. It was reported that he might stay in Ankara until after April 24. This is great news for Armenian-American activists, as they can lobby Congress without facing any opposition from the Turkish Ambassador during the crucial weeks leading to April 24, when he needs to be in Washington trying to block the Genocide Resolution in the House and persuade Pres. Obama not to refer to the Armenian Genocide in his annual statement!

To the best of our knowledge, Ambassador Tan did not lobby Congress for passage of the Armenian Genocide resolution, as did the fictional ambassador in Sierre Leone, in order take an extended vacation with family and friends back home. However, judging from Prime Minister Erdogan’s recent self-defeating statements, sometimes truth is indeed stranger than fiction!
Source: Reprinted with permission from the California Courier, March 25, 2010.

Read full text......

An Intriguing Conference in Turkey on Turkish-Armenian Relations is Followed by Publication of a Conference Book

Introduction

In 2008 Istanbul University published a book of the proceedings of an unusual conference that took place in Istanbul in March 2006 containing presentations variously in Turkish and English.

In the present issue of GPN GENOCIDE PREVENTION NOW, we are first publishing "Istanbul report," a report of the conference by Israel Charny and then the extraordinary paper given by Yair Auron in which he affirmed assertively the authenticity of the Armenian Genocide before a largely silent Turkish audience in Istanbul.

Yair Auron is a professor at the Open University of Israel where he has founded and directs a very significant program of genocide studies that is devoted to the genocides of all peoples, the only such program in an Israeli college or university at this time. Auron is also an Associate Director of the Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide in Jerusalem, the publishers of GPN. What makes Auron’s paper highly unusual is that he opened the conference heroically with an explicit statement about the Armenian Genocide, and this was after we had seen in the actual conference program that the Turkish text did not use the word genocide that Yair Auron had submitted in his English text. Moreover, amazingly, Auron’s statement was featured prominently and accurately the next day in the Turkish press – we saw these reports with our own eyes.

This was an extraordinary conference in which for several days the large majority of paper delivered fulfilled the Turkish government line that there had been no Armenian Genocide, but even so several invited speakers from overseas represented and presented in different ways the historicity of the Armenian Genocide.

We genocide scholars who clearly affirm the historical truth of the Armenian genocide were overwhelmingly outnumbered, in no small part because a large number of invited scholars from overseas rejected the invitation of the Turkish university, but a few of us -- including the undersigned and Yair Auron --accepted after weighing carefully whether our participation could possibly contribute to Turkish denials of the Armenian Genocide. I personally explored my decision to participate with a good number of my Armenian colleagues, including outstanding leaders of the Armenian community, and came to the hopeful conclusion that participation might advance us in our battles against denials of the Armenian Genocide rather than, heaven forbid, contribute to the deniers’ strength.

To the credit of our Turkish hosts, we were fully protected and given full rights to speak as we intended. Following the conference the host university also put together a printed volume of the proceedings, and here too to their credit they reproduced our statements about the validity of the Armenian Genocide. It should be remembered that in Turkey such statements can land a person in jail in Turkey for violations of Article 301 of the Penal Code that outlaws all statements that are defined as dishonoring the Turkish Republic, and we are all aware and in some cases personally connected to persons who have sat out painful jail sentences under this law.

We were in all 5 scholars who explicitly represented the validity of the Armenian Genocide: Yair Auron of Israel – who as noted opened the conference so heroically; Levon Zekiyan from Venice, who had pioneered a conference including Turkish scholars – but non-deniers—in Venice a year earlier; Hilmar Kaiser from Germany—who has spent a great deal of time researching in the Archives in Istanbul (from which he had been ejected years ago); Ara Srafian from London – who was invited to appear on a lengthy major TV show in the course of the conference; and myself. Intriguingly, the Turkish Armenian publisher, Hrant Dink, was also expected to participate in our team, but he never showed up and we never heard from him. The same Hrant Dink was later murdered in Istanbul and there are many who attribute his murder to the government.

The report that follows is the report that I sent out to colleagues and to the International Association of Genocide Scholars on my return from Istanbul, presented here now with two important modifications.

First of all, based on a steady stream of newly published researches over the last few years, I have enlarged the list of additional victim peoples alongside the Armenians when I make the point that all our peoples should grow towards an ability to recognize and honor ALL victims alongside of our own people, without feeling that such recognition reduces the significance of our fates as victims or even as primary victims who were at the center of the genocidal thrust, as the Armenians were for the Turks and then the Jews were for the Nazis. Second, I have now included remarks that I had included in my earliest report on Istanbul to my closest colleagues but dropped in subsequent public reports out of a concern at the time that we might not be ready to look at the very painful issue of victim peoples themselves also appearing in history at times as perpetrators. Slowly but surely, however, I believe that we need to move towards becoming a totally honest and committed community of genocide scholars who stand without hesitation against all genocidal killing including by our own peoples/otherwise victim peoples.

I also add now that events in the last year reduce the optimistic hopes I expressed in the report. Turkey under Erdogan has continued and even intensified its duplicity and strong arm insistence in denials of the genocides of the Armenians and other non-Turkish peoples.

The report in PDF format is the text of the paper delivered in Istanbul and published in the conference book by Yair Auron. In the next issue of GPN we will also present the text of my paper at the conference on denials of genocides. Please click here to see the PDF of the full presentation by Prof. Yair Auron in Istanbul as published by the university in Istanbul.

The following is the full text of my "Istanbul Report":

Istanbul Report
A remarkable conference took place at Istanbul University in Istanbul on the 15-17 March 2006. As I told CNN (Turkish edition), as well as the conference attendees in the round table that closed the conference, the title of the conference, "New Approaches to Turkish-Armenian Relations," necessarily bespeaks a quest for a new peace and reconciliation between the Turkish and Armenian peoples – such a title could not possibly refer to a renewal of hatred or destruction. The conference was remarkable because in a land where it is still illegal to use the phrase "Armenian Genocide" for fear of criminal prosecution for violating law 301 which deals with inciting or doing injury to the State of Turkey, the conference was true to its promise that those who referred, indirectly or even directly, to the Armenian Genocide were in no way harassed or under legal risk. When I first received my invitation from Istanbul University, I wrote promptly to say, "As you undoubtedly knew when you invited me…I am as I have been for many years very convinced of the historical authenticity of the Armenian Genocide," and indeed the organizers remained true to the response which they sent in which they said that Istanbul University is an academic institution and there are no limitations on expression of views.

My overall sense of the conference is that it is a Turkish government message to the Armenian people, the rest of the free world and especially the European Union which Turkey so desires to join that they are prepared to initiate a corrective cultural process which could, slowly but surely, lead to their acknowledgment of the genocidal killings of the Armenians in WWI.

Yet this does not mean that such a process will take place overnight, nor are there guarantees that the process will go as far and as clearly as most of us in the West would wish. There are now several Turkish scholars, some of whom even live and work in Turkey, although several do not, who have acknowledged fully the facts of the Armenian Genocide but who nonetheless propose that we grant Turkish society a reprieve, at least for some years, as to the use of the word genocide which has become so identified for that society with humiliation, and perhaps also demands for capital restitution which they are far from ready to consider after so many years of an adamant mythology that (a) they did not murder Armenians in any collective fashion; (b) there were killings of Armenians only in response to suppressing Armenian riots against Turkey and joining Russia, Turkey's war foe in the complex panorama of the region in WWI; and (c) besides the only thing that matters is that in the course of fighting against the Turks it was the Armenians who committed acts of genocide against the Turkish population.

It is very hard to come down from a policy of extensive denial propaganda after so many years. But I am impressed from my experience in Turkey now that this is what some influential leaders in the Turkish government and cultural leadership wish to achieve. Not that the corrective process was done elegantly at this conference. The overwhelming majority of papers and statements in my judgment were (a) one-sided rehashes of Turkish denial propaganda; (b) a basic intellectual failure since they did not even mention or refer to or in any way acknowledge any of the voluminous documentation and evidences of the Armenian Genocide that are now part of world culture; and (c) a great number were emotional diatribes rather than "scientific" or properly scholarly contributions.

Nonetheless, this was a conference in Turkey where my dear colleague from Israel, Professor Yair Auron, opened the conference with the first paper in which he stated in a strong resonant voice that there was no question but that the Armenians had suffered genocide at the hands of the Turks; where intrepid Armenian researcher Ara Sarafian who is based in London did the same on another day; where Yair Auron's remarks were featured prominently and amazingly accurately in the English language and Turkish language press the next day -- in Turkey!; and where Sarafian was invited to an extensive television appearance on a very popular show in prime Turkish television time!

It was striking to me that when Yair Auron concluded his sterling confirmation of the Armenian Genocide, I did not see a single participating scholar or diplomat in the ranks of the participants who were sitting up front next to the stage clapping for Auron, not even a token clapping which would acknowledge his right to speak as he did. It was eerie. There was a small ripple of mild applause from a few rows in the back of the hall. And yet, as I have emphasized, Professor Auron did get to say what he said and was quoted accurately and prominently in several Turkish ewspapers. I think we should be grateful for these large small miracles.

I would not be carried away with anger at the shoddy and bigoted presentations that dominated the conference and miss expressing the appreciation and respect that the breakthroughs in this conference and the media events surrounding it represent. It was in this spirit that I spoke in my presentation and my participation in the closing summary session (about which one Armenian colleague-friend said to me that he felt so sorry for me for having to sit on stage for so many hours as the only representative of the history of the Armenian Genocide among those who had been invited to sum up the conference). It seems to me that to wish that a culture that has invested so heavily in the denial of the facts make a total and complete turnabout overnight is a child's wish for a perfect world -- which I too still have in my heart, but also know that it cannot be; and that mature efforts at progress call for much greater patience, diplomacy and wisdom, without abandoning our principles.

The day after the conference was concluded, a BBC reporter, who had interviewed me some time ago in Venice at a conference on Turks and Armenians that was not sponsored by the Turks, asked me on live-air time what had happened to the tough resolute statements I had made about deniers in Venice. She said that now in Istanbul I spoke with much more gentleness and understanding. I explained that I believe there is a potential path forward opening up if we develop it properly.

What I told the closing session of the conference was that I believe that contributions to such conferences should be screened on the basis of a model that includes three principles:

(1) whatever the position taken by a presenter, there should be respectful acknowledgment of other differing positions by scholars and interpreters of the historical event;
(2) there should be a demonstrated openness to information that is critical of the errors of one's own national, ethnic or religious group (is there any nation or religion that has not failed to be decent or human at various times?);
(3) the scholarship needs to be rooted in a clear-cut commitment to nonviolence and peace.

I said, quietly, to the audience that the majority of presentations at the conference did not satisfy the above combined criteria. But I also said to them that I celebrated the fact that even many papers which expressed polarized points of view that were unacceptable to me made a strong point that I believe should be regarded as largely sincere that the goal of both nations today has to be peace between Turks and Armenians. "Peace in the world. No more hatreds," said a speaker emphatically who otherwise justified the "measures" taken by the Turkish government against the Armenians as a military necessity. "The past should not darken our present and future. We need to create peace between the Armenian and Turkish peoples," said a former Turkish ambassador to the United States who is well known to many of us as having pushed for suppression of academic works on the Armenian Genocide and whose paper at the present conference continued the same kind of folly on how a classical British report of the Armenian Genocide, no less than by Lord Bryce and historian Arnold Toynbee, was a forgery.

I came away from the conference believing that exchanges directly between Turks and Armenians are valuable insofar as they expose people to one another as people and by dispelling the totalitarian Turkish censorship and criminalization of studies about the Armenian Genocide. But I propose that the next steps of progress might best be created by international commissions or conferences sponsored and led by outstanding cultural academic authorities from other countries, which of course include Turks and Armenians but are under the leadership of scholars from other nationalities, where all presentations are pre-evaluated for their satisfying the model I gave earlier, and where participants would agree in advance to authorize a panel of "scholar-judges" who would preside as experts with the right to remove any statements that are in open violation of established statements of world history, are racist or prejudiced, or are legitimating or inciting of violences. I would begin such a brave and ambitious process on a small scale and see if we participating humans are up to it. A Turkish speaker at the present conference who gave an excellent presentation on the social psychology of collective beliefs called on all of us in the future to strive for a combination of "cooperative politics, fact-based history, and empathy memory rather than traditional collective memory." I couldn't agree more.

What was my personal experience like?

Participation at the Istanbul Conference was for me a difficult "ride" between relief at not being harassed either by Turkish legal officials or by the public, great pleasure at what I have described of the unheard-of progress of our very presence and in our contributions being heard in Turkey, and distinct sadness, discomfort and anger at the shallowness and intellectual as well as ethnic bigotry of so many presentations. I have never been treated to so many different looks going through me as if I were a piece of glass. I found the prevailing discourse so stilted, blocked and rigid with denials that I literally decided not to hand out publicly flyers I had brought for the Encyclopedia of Genocide -- which presents a great deal of information about the Armenian Genocide, or membership forms for our International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) -- which in the past has issued a unanimous resolution confirming the authenticity of the Armenian Genocide (but I did give these materials to selected individuals who were a pleasure to meet).

I met the two kinds of deniers about which I have written so much in the professional literature on denial. The first group of deniers are those whose use of denial is a patent expression of their hatred, prejudice and bigotry. They are fascists who celebrate violence and want more of it. The second are what I have dared to call in the literature in several extensive papers "innocent deniers," and these include people whose conscious intentions and even much of their unconscious intentions make them spokesmen and advocates of peace between peoples. I hated the former, and liked several of the latter – even as I disciplined myself against letting the liking seduce me away from the dangerously wrong position these people take.

Personally, I also have proposals for our side about strengthening the integrity of our positions on genocide even as we fight hard against the deniers. I know that many of my colleagues will reject or at least be uncomfortable with this proposal out of a concern that it might weaken the case for the Armenian Genocide, but I don't think so. Note that this is the same proposal that I advance insistently for my own Jewish people. My proposal is that we give full information about all victims of a genocide without in any way compromising or reducing the basic position that our people were the predominant victims of the era of the genocide in question.

Thus, I believe that the Jews must recognize a considerable number of other victims of the Holocaust who died along with them such as the Romani who shared the concentration camps and gas chambers with them; and Russian POWs of whom it is said one million were killed by Germany, and who at times literally went through the same extermination gas chambers that the Jews did; and mentally and physically defective people; and some number of homosexuals -- by every standard also human beings. It is intriguing but also saddening how resolutely so many Jews have fought against recognition of other victims who perished alongside them, as if the full power of the Jewish protest at the terrible fate of the Jews in the Holocaust would be lessened by recognizing other victims. In the case of the Armenian Genocide, I believe sincerely that Armenians will only gain a new measure of dignity and power by acknowledging and indeed working at documenting at length the murders of other minorities, especially fellow Christians such as the Assyrians and the Greeks, but also non-Christians such as the Yzedis, and even Kurds –who otherwise were involved in killing Armenians but in some areas were also exterminated by the Turks, all the victims being defined as non-Turkish peoples. In doing so, Armenians will be demonstrating the kind of growth to a higher level of integrity that peoples too can make.

My second proposal is that when any of our peoples stumble into our own ugly human sides of us too being responsible for some degree of massacre of others, I believe that our integrity requires us to stand up to the truth. So I think that if Armenian scholars are willing to enter with the Turks into joint examinations of events (as Ara Sarafian agreed in Istanbul), including situations where the Turks claim they were the victims of genocidal massacres, it might open a door to relieving the total sense of humiliation and disgrace that I believe Turks feel at being charged with the worst crimes human beings can commit. I believe that many people in Turkey really want to be far more European and to be valued and honored by Europe. But it has to be totally clear that no examination of a possible massacre is to take away from the clear-cut responsibility of the Ottomans for a coordinated full-blown program of genocide of the Armenian people.

Personally, I have published research and spoken many times about us Jews accepting full responsibility for cases of genocidal massacres we have committed, such as at Kfar Kassem, and at Deir Yassin and at Lod in the War of Independence. I give as an analogy a recent article in the New York Times which surveyed the history of genocide in the Former Yugoslavia and said clearly that "90%" of the genocidal killing was done by the Serbs, but that an additional 10% was executed by Bosnian Muslims and Croats.

What a step forward for civilization for all of us to commit ourselves to telling all of the truth. What an advance for civilization to recognize that the flame of doing harm to other human beings is present in all peoples and groups. We do not give up our resolute claims and proofs of the overwhelming responsibility of the perpetrator for the genocide of our people even when we acknowledge some of our own human failings.

What I want out of it all is a world where there is wholehearted memorial of past losses of all innocent lives and a basic quest and commitment to overcome the genocidal impulse that can be found in all peoples in our human civilization. By being exemplary in our own integrity as victim peoples, we become stronger, not weaker; and we contribute meaningfully to the possible evolution of other peoples as well.

Conclusion

My bottom line judgment, and certainly hope, is that what the Turkish cultural process cannot do all at once on its own, namely to arrive at an acknowledgment of the genocide of the Armenians, it will rise to do in the course of the next 15 years as Turkey moves closer and closer to its deep desire to be part of the European Union. I came away from Turkey impressed that the Turks have a very strong desire to come out of their marginal kind of status of being neither 'full' Europeans nor a part of the fundamentalist Islamic world. I think this is the doorway through which real though not perfect progress can be made, and I recommend that we redefine ourselves as helping Turkey make this step.

- Israel W. Charny, Executive Director, Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide in Jerusalem, and Editor-in-Chief, Encyclopedia of Genocide

Read full text......

Jewish Evidences and Eye Witness Accounts: About the Genocide of the Armenians during The First World War

Yair Auron
The Open University of Israel

The special significance of the attitude of the Yishuv (the Jewish Community in Palestine, before the constitution of Israel in 1948), toward the Armenian calamity is mentioned and even emphasized, as well as the attitudes of the Zionist Movement, and the State of Israel. These attitudes have not been researched and discussed systematically until this study. The present study refers to documents and eye witness accounts from the period of the First World War that have never before been published, and reveals chapters in the history of the Zionist Movement that have been overlooked -- even though Hebrew literature does include a few reminders of a supportive and empathic identification of the Nili Group with the Armenian tragedy.

The present study includes among others an analysis of the diary of Mordecai Ben-Hillel Hacohen, the memoirs of Moshe Smilansky, and the eye witness accounts of the member of the Nili group: Levi Yitzchak Schneorson, Avshalom Feinberg, Alexander Aaronsohn, Sara Aaronsohn, Eitan Belkind, and Nili's leader Aaron Aaronsohn.

Yair Auron is a professor in the field of genocide and contemporary Judaism at the Open University of Israel and the Kibbutzim College of Education.

Professor Auron has published numerous books and essays, mainly on genocide and on Jewish identity in Israel and Europe. He is the author of books in Hebrew such as Between Paris and Jerusalem (Selected Passages of Contemporary Jewish Thought in France); Jewish-Israeli Identity; Sensitivity to World Suffering: Genocide in the 20th Century; and We Are All German Jews: Jewish Radicals in France During the 60s and 70s (also in French). His book The Banality of Indifference: Zionism and the Armenian Genocide was published in both Hebrew and English (Transaction Publishers, 2000). His book, The Banality of Denial: Israel and the Armenian Genocide was published in Hebrew and English (Transaction Publishers 2003).

Most recently, Auron is co-author of A Perfect Injustice: Genocide and the Theft of Armenian Wealth (Transaction Publishers, 2009) with Hrayr S. Karagueuzian. He is currently editing for the Open University a series of twelve books in Hebrew entitled Genocide, which includes theoretical volumes concerning the phenomenon of genocide as well as an analysis of case studies such as the Holocaust, the genocide of the Gypsies, the Armenian genocide and other historical and contemporary genocides such as Rwanda, Tibet and Indian population of the Americas. In this series, he published in 2009 Reflections on the Inconceivable: Theoretical Aspects of Genocide Studies, and in 2007 The Armenian Genocide: Forgetting and Denying. In 2006, his book Genocide: So That I Will Not Be among the Silent, was also published in this series. His book Israeli Identities: Jews and Arabs Facing Mirror and the Other in 2010 is published in Israel by Resling and in a few months will be published in English in the United States by Berghahn Books.

Please click here for full report.

Read full text......

Turkish Parliament Will Not Discuss Armenia Protocols, Turkish MP Says

Ankara - The protocols signed between Ankara and Yerevan, will not be discussed in the Turkish Parliamant, Turkey's Grand National Assembly Commission for Foreign Relations chairman Murat Mercan said.

"The Turkish parliament will not discuss the protocols signed between Ankara and Yerevan till the Armenian forces are withdrawn from all occupied territories of Azerbaijan," Mercan said.

While some people see no connection between the normalization of relations between Turkey and Armenia and resolving the Nagorno-Karabagh problem, this process is directly related to the settlement of the conflict, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said earlier in an interview after his official visit to Moscow.

Mercan said relations between Turkey and Azerbaijan, based on the principles of friendship and brotherhood, have significance for Ankara.

"So, it is impossible to ratify these protocols in the Turkish parliament without solving the Armenian-Azerbaijani problem," Mercan said.

Sources:
News.am (April 12, 2010). Protocols ratification in Turkish Parliament is almost impossible:Zamen. Retrieved from http://news.am/en/news/18855.html
Albarez.com (March 11, 2010). Almost impossible to ratify protocols says Turkish leader. Retrieved from http://asbarez.com/78200/%E2%80%98almost-impossible%E2%80%99-to-ratify-protocols-says-turkish-leader/

Read full text......

Now You Remembered?

Yossi Sarid

The defense minister paid a visit to Turkey this week. They say it was a success. If so, it is possible to renew the conspiracy of silence and the silencing.

This is what happened a few months ago after Recep Tayyip Erdogan once again poured bitter words upon us. An important Israeli personality telephoned me and said the following: "Now you have to hit back at the Turks, to denounce them for the crimes they committed against the Armenians. You, Yossi, have the right to do so. Today you are a private citizen, but even when you were a public figure you did not hold yourself back. You expressed yourself often, in writing and orally, against the way they shirked responsibility for the genocide."

I was filled with revulsion and my soul wanted to throw up. The person who telephoned me was an example of the ugly Israeli who had disgracefully been at the forefront of those who denied the Armenian Holocaust.

He was the one who had joined those who lashed out at the education minister at the time, who visited a church in Jerusalem ten years ago and told those gathered there: "The value of a human life, no matter who the human is - Jew, Arab, Armenian, Gypsy, Bosnian, Albanian, Rwandan - this is the value I want to inculcate all our pupils with. In the new history curriculum I want to include a central chapter on genocide, and as part of that, a broad reference to the Armenian Genocide. This is our duty to you, this is our duty to ourselves."

The country was astir, and ministers began to sweat. Ehud Barak and Shimon Peres were the first to express reservations. This declaration, they quickly announced, was not made at the government's initiative; it was the initiative solely of the education minister and was his responsibility. I was ashamed.

New tunes have recently been heard in Jerusalem: "The Turks are the last ones who have the right to teach us ethics." It would be interesting to know who the first ones are. There obviously are not any when referring to the "most moral" state and army "in the world." If the Turks try to teach us, we shall slap them - and hard.

I never understood why young Turkey, which had no hand in that bloodshed, insists on defending the blood of its forefathers. Would too deep an exploration of the past reveal signs of the present? When someone tries forcibly to erase history, that history will usually insist on being rewritten, and in blood.

But it is not only the politicians. Experts in public and political affairs are also clamoring to take the skeletons out of the Turkish closet, more than one million skeletons, to be exact.

Those who never wasted a word on the first genocide of the 20th century have suddenly remembered it. This is the genocide that Henry Morgenthau, Sr. defined as "the greatest crime in modern history." He was the American ambassador to Ankara during those black years, and he was a Jew.

I shall reveal to you what my response was to the agitated caller. "Now you remembered? Only now, when they attribute crimes to you as if you were Turks? I do not believe in a firing squad, so deal with Erdogan yourselves; you deserve him. How sad it is that you conceded a moral position for other interests that are brought about by time and finished also by time."

And now I have an addendum to that response of mine: Let us assume that Turkey will renew its ties with Israel to what they were in the past. Then what? What then? Will we also renew our contribution to the denial of the Armenian Holocaust?

Source: Yossi Sarid (Sunday, 24 January 2010). Haaretz.com. Reprinted with permission of Yossi Sarid.

Yossi Sarid, today a columnist for Haaretz, was Israel's Minister of Education a few years ago when he officially recognized the Armenian Genocide. Sarid was the second minister in Israel's history to do so - the first was Yossi Beilin, then Deputy Foreign Minister. In both cases, the government of Israel disowned its ministers and assured Turkey that the minister had acted individually and not as a representative of the government. In April 2006, Yossi Sarid was one of a four-person delegation from Israel to lay a wreath at the Armenian Genocide Memorial in Yerevan, Armenia. With Sarid was Professor Yehuda Bauer, a world-renowned Holocaust scholar at Yad Vashem, Professor Yair Auron, who directs Israel's only university program of genocide studies at the Open University, and Professor Israel Charny, Executive Director of the Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide in Jerusalem and a past president of the International Assciation of Genocide Scholars.

Read full text......

The Show is Over ... The Protocols are Dead

"Harut Sassounian's Column"

The show is finally over! The international community is no longer buying the endless Turkish excuses for refusing to ratify the Protocols. Armenian officials, who naively believed that Turkey would open its border and establish diplomatic relations with Armenia, are beginning to question the Turks' sincerity and contemplating the possibility of the Protocols' collapse.

Now the blame game starts! Whose fault is it that the Protocols are not being ratified? In my view, the Turks are the ones to be blamed for deceiving the international community all along. It was never the intention of the Turkish leaders to carry out their publicly stated plans to normalize relations with Armenia. They were simply engaged in a ploy to obstruct what they believed to be Pres. Obama's solemn pledge to recognize the Armenian Genocide, and to facilitate Turkey's admission to the European Union (EU), since open borders are one of the key prerequisites for EU membership.

Without taking a single positive step, Turkey created the false impression of reconciling with Armenia, thereby dissuading Pres. Obama from using the term "Genocide" in his April 24 statement. Turkish leaders also succeeded in exploiting the Protocols to generate favorable worldwide publicity for their country.
During long and difficult negotiations, Turkey demanded that in return for opening the border and establishing diplomatic relations, Armenia withdraw from Karabagh (Artsakh), set up an international commission to study the facts of the Genocide, and acknowledge the territorial integrity of Turkey.

After Russia, the United States, and Europe applied intense pressure on both sides, Armenia and Turkey made a series of compromises. Armenia reluctantly agreed to establish an ambiguous "historical commission," which was not explicitly linked to the Genocide. Armenia also had to accept a reference in the Protocols to prior international treaties that confirmed Armenian territorial concessions to Turkey, but did not specifically mention the capitulatory Treaty of Kars. Furthermore, the Protocols included a clause that called for non-intervention in the internal affairs of other states, implying that Armenia could no longer support Artsakh, because that would be construed as interference in Azerbaijan's domestic issues.
Since the Protocols signed on October 10 did not fulfill all of Turkey's demands, its leaders started threatening not to ratify the Protocols or open the border with Armenia until the Artsakh conflict is resolved in Azerbaijan's favor. In other words, Turkey was trying to make up for any deficiencies in the Protocols by holding their ratification hostage to its precondition on Artsakh.

The ratification of the Protocols became even more complicated when Azerbaijan began to threaten its "Big Brother" Turkey for considering the opening of the border with its archenemy -- Armenia. The Azeris wanted the Turkish blockade to continue until Armenia is forced to acknowledge Azerbaijan's jurisdiction over Artsakh. The Azeri threat of raising natural gas prices to Turkey and redirecting some of its oil to Russia made Turkish leaders even more reticent to consummate their agreement with Armenia.

To appease Azerbaijan, Turkey demanded that Russia, Europe and the United States pressure Armenia into making concessions on Artsakh. This Turkish request, however, fell on deaf ears. The international community realized that the attempt to simultaneously resolve two thorny issues -- the Artsakh conflict and Armenia-Turkey Protocols -- would lead to solving neither one!

Realizing that hardly anyone outside Turkey and Azerbaijan was supporting their demands on Artsakh, Turkish leaders set their sights on another convenient scapegoat: The Constitutional Court of Armenia. Although the Court decided on January 12 that the obligations stipulated in the Protocols complied with the constitution, it also issued several clarifications and limitations that restricted the Turkish government's loose interpretation of the Protocols.

Prime Minister Erdogan and Foreign Minister Davutoglu brazenly threatened to abandon the Protocols outright, unless the Armenian Constitutional Court "corrected" its decision -- an impossible task under Armenian laws! The State Dept. quickly sided with Armenia, rejecting the Turkish claim that the Constitutional Court's ruling contradicted the "letter and spirit" of the agreement Of course, the State Department's true intent was to forestall the Armenian Parliament from adding any reservations on the Protocols at the time of ratification.

Since the Chairman of the Armenian Parliament had already announced that he would not take any action until the Turkish Parliament ratified the Protocols first, the ball is now in Turkey's court. The Protocols have been collecting dust in Ankara ever since they were submitted to the Parliament on October 21, 2009. The Foreign Ministers of Armenia and Turkey had stated in their joint announcement of last August that the Protocols should be ratified "within a reasonable timeframe." Armenian officials recently reminded Turkey of that loose deadline, adding that Armenia would be forced to take unspecified counter-actions should Turkey not ratify the Protocols by February or March, at the latest!

At this juncture, neither Armenia nor Turkey is willing to back down from its recalcitrant position. Should Turkey's leaders remove Artsakh and the Constitutional Court as preconditions, they would risk not only losing Azerbaijan as an ally, but seriously jeopardize their party's majority in next year's parliamentary election. Similarly, Armenia's leaders can neither give up Artsakh nor "correct" the ruling of the Constitutional Court. No amount of outside pressure can therefore force the two governments to reverse course. That is why I believe the Protocols cannot be resuscitated!

Turkey came very close to deceiving Armenia and the rest of the world with these infamous Protocols. Fortunately, they failed before causing lasting damage to Armenia's national interests.

Reprinted from the California Courier, January 28, 2010.

Armenia-Diaspora Unity Must be Preserved at All Cost

In recent months, as heated debates raged on the Armenia-Turkey protocols, Diaspora Armenians reacted with frustration and anger at the damage these agreements would have caused to Armenian national interests.

While Armenia’s leaders have the right to take decisions on behalf of the country’s 3 million inhabitants, they also have an obligation to take into account the interests of all 10 million Armenians worldwide on pan-Armenian issues, such as the genocide, the Artsakh (Karabagh) conflict, and demands from Turkey.

In negotiating the Armenia-Turkey protocols, Armenian officials should have shown more sensitivity to critical national issues. By signing the contested agreements with Turkey, they alarmed and deeply hurt Armenians worldwide. Thousands of angry demonstrators reacted by hurling vitriolic epithets at President Sarkisian during his October tour of the Diaspora to promote the protocols. Such confrontations, unprecedented during earlier presidential visits, reflected negatively on the authorities as well as the protesting public.

A small land-locked state faced with blockade, war, economic hardships, and enemies on both sides, can ill afford internal divisions and conflicts with its diaspora. Such discord can only please Turkish leaders who have made no secret of their scheme to split Armenia from “the radical diaspora,” thus making it easier for them to extract concessions on Artsakh, genocide recognition, and demands for restitution.

What lessons Armenians must now draw from the disheartening experience of infighting over the protocols?

1) Armenia’s leaders should exercise greater caution and sensitivity by engaging in private consultations with diasporan leaders prior to conducting negotiations and signing agreements on issues that impact the entire Armenian nation.

2) A diaspora-wide leadership must be elected to reflect properly the views of the majority of Armenians on crucial issues. Such a mechanism would facilitate the transmission of credible feedback from the diaspora to Armenia’s leaders and to governments and international organizations. Further details will be presented on this important topic in a future column.

3) Diaspora Armenians should not let disagreements with Armenia’s leadership discourage them from extending aid to the needy, making investments in the country’s economy, and visiting the homeland.

4) In addition to avoiding a split between the diaspora and Armenia, it is equally important to prevent serious divisions among diaspora organizations without stifling the healthy exchange of views and disagreements.

5) The Armenian president needs to receive expert advice on critical economic and political issues which necessitates the creation of a Council of Economic Advisors and a Council on Foreign Relations, consisting of internationally recognized experts. Furthermore, a team of international lawyers should be assembled to advise the president prior to signing international agreements in order to avoid fundamental mistakes which subsequently may have to be corrected by the Constitutional Court.

6) The Armenian government should have assigned the Diaspora Ministry to serve as an unfettered channel of communication between Armenia and the diaspora during the debates on the protocols. The Ministry could have been the mechanism through which the concerns and complaints of Armenians worldwide were relayed to the Foreign Ministry and the president’s office. After all, the Diaspora Ministry is supposed to be a bridge between the two segments of the Armenian nation. While it is true that the diaspora minister accompanied the president during his tour of several countries last October, the Ministry would have gained far more credibility had it been allowed to play a more independent role.

7) Armenian officials must realize that Turkey, given its size and strategic location, has a greater opportunity to get its views publicized through the international media than it is possible for Armenia. Therefore, any issue on which Armenians and Turks have conflicting interpretations, the Turkish version will prevail by being more widely disseminated than the Armenian point of view. That is one of the reasons why agreeing to establish a “historical commission” was not a good idea. According to Turkish officials, the commission was to review the facts of the Armenian Genocide, while the Armenian leaders stated that its objective was to assess the consequences of the genocide. Had the protocols been ratified, the Turks would have proceeded to deny the facts of the genocide and would have succeeded in blaming Armenians for undermining “the good work” of the commission.

8) The protocols, rather than helping to normalize relations between Armenia and Turkey, have in fact greatly damaged the prospects of such reconciliation. Future attempts must begin with the preliminary steps of opening the border and establishing diplomatic relations rather than cramming dozens of unrelated issues and preconditions into a single agreement. True reconciliation has to be based on truth and justice, not lies and cover ups.

Reprinted with permission from the California Courier, February 2, 2010.

Read full text......

An Open Letter to the President of Turkey and Israel

February 4, 2010

Dear Mr. Gul and Mr. Peres,

We too were embarrassed by the “Chair Episode” embarrassing, in which Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon sought to humiliate the Turkish Deputy Ambassador —and are relieved that our government has apologized for his inappropriate insulting behavior. Such behavior brought shame and embarrassment to Israel.

But this unfortunate episode should not detract attention from the substance of our alarm concerning the Turkish TV serial Valley of the Wolves, representing Mossad agents engaged in baby snatching. The details on this program are readily available from many sources. This presentation, and a previous one on the Farewell Program several months ago, apparently depicting Israeli soldiers shooting at a child followed by an image of blood spattering on a glass, recycled dangerously old blood libels used to incite to anti-Semitism. Such blood libels over the centuries have triggered pogroms causing the loss of much Jewish life. They were examples of state-sanctioned demonization and disinformation.

As scholars concerned with the protection and promotion of health and the prediction and prevention of genocide and genocidal terror, we recognize that --

(1) State sanctioned demonization and disinformation concerning members of a group defined by their national, racial, religious and ethnic origin are early warning signs, precursors, initiators, catalysts and promoters of genocidal agendas.

(2) Such demonization and disinformation, along with the use of dehumanizing language, have been precursors of genocidal mass atrocities in the Mid-East and Near-East, resulting in the deaths of 1.2 million Armenians, as well as tens of thousands Pontine and Assyrian Christians and Yezedis, nearly a century ago. At that time, Jews too were probably earmarked and a beginning expulsion of them from the Tel Aviv area in Palestine had begun but was canceled by international pressure. Turkey, unlike Germany, has yet to internalize the lessons from these past genocidal horrors and make amends for their occurrence.

(3) Currently there has been a frightening resurgence of Jihadist Genocidal antisemitism In the Muslim world. Its architects, notably the current Iranian Government, but also various Arab regimes, use dehumanization, delegitimization, defamation, disinformation, denial of past genocide and apply double standards to propagate their message, with disastrous effects—for everyone, including their own citizens.

(4) In the Mideast, political leaders often exploit the motifs of genocidal anti-Semitism—now repackaged as anti-Zionism, to gain power by positioning themselves as leaders of this wave. Such postures are in violation of all norms of respect for life and human dignity.

(5) Turkey will be playing with fire by participating in the spread of these motifs and its government should repudiate them immediately and not recycle them. Turkey today should not allow itself to be drawn into the orbit of Jihadist genocidal anti-Semitism.

Genocide --the willful and intentional destruction of life—results from human choices. Turkey should reject demonization, delegitimization, defamation, hate and incitement. It should choose respect for life and dignity, and work to promote life and respect for human life for all in the region.

We propose a positive approach. We suggest that Turkey show leadership in two lines of activity to advance core values of respect for human life and dignity.

The first line of activity is to promote regional cooperation in earthquake prediction, prevention and emergency response. Earthquake emergency response is a major priority issue in our region. Israel these past two weeks rushed aid to help the victims of the Haitian earthquake, and Turkey sent an aid group as well. In the past Israel aided Turkey and Armenia during their earthquakes in the same way that it aided Haiti.

The second line of activity is to promote a region wide approach to meeting the water needs in the mid and Near East. Turkey’s water surplus dwarfs the total demands of water-depleted countries in the region, and can be part of the solution to win-win solutions in the region. Turkey and Israel, together with other countries concerned with promoting life and well being, have much to do to advance cooperation on these existentially important problems.

We suggest moving on to a more positive approach to asserting our national identities and core values.

Respectfully,

Professor Elihu D Richter, MD, MPH
Head, Genocide Prevention Program
Hebrew University-Hadassah School of Public Health and Community Medicine
Jerusalem Israel
Associate Director, Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide
Director, World Genocide Situation Room, GPN GENOCIDE PREVENTION NOW
e-mail: elihur@ekmd.huji.ac.il

Professor Israel Charny, PhD
Executive Director, Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide, Jerusalem
Editor-in-Chief, GPN GENOCIDE PREVENTION NOW
Editor-in-Chief, ENCYCLOPEDIA OF GENOCIDE
Past President and Co-Founder, International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS)

Professor Yair Auron, PhD
Director, Genocide Studies Program, Open University of Israel
Associate Director, Institute on Holocaust and Genocide, Jerusalem

Read full text......

Sweden Recognizes Assyrian, Greek and Armenian Genocide, and Turkey of course Recalls its Ambassador to Sweden

The Swedish parliament (the Riksdagen) has adopted a resolution referring to the World War I-era killings of 2.75 million Armenians, Assyrians (also known as Chaldeans and Syriacs) and Pontic Greeks by the Ottomans as a genocide.

The Assyrian International News Agency noted, "Turkey is regarded legally and politically as the successor state of the Ottoman Empire but vehemently rejects calling the killing genocide according to the U.N. definition adopted in 1948, insisting that those killed were victims of war and uprising. The genocide claimed the lives of 750,000 Assyrians (75%), 500,000 Greeks and 1.5 million Armenians."

The resolution passed by a single vote after some members of Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt's ruling centre-right coalition broke ranks and voted with the red-green opposition. Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt is cited by Swedish radio news saying that he regretted the Parliament's decision and feared it could "be used" by reform critics in Turkey and that it "will unfortunately not have a positive effect on the ongoing normalization process between Turkey and Armenia."

In contrast the Left Party's foreign policy spokesperson, Hans Linde, said that the time had come for Sweden to take a stand on the issue. "First, to learn from history and stop it from repeating and second, to encourage the development of democracy in Turkey, which includes dealing with its own history. The third reason," added Linde, "is to redress the wrongs committed against the victims and their relatives."

The Washington Post cited Gulan Avci, a Liberal Party lawmaker saying that, "After 95 years it is time for people who have suffered so long to obtain redress." Avci is a Kurdish immigrant from Turkey. She broke with her party's line and voted to recognize the resolution.

Sweden's resolution is also noteworthy in that it refers also to Assyrians and Pontic Greeks whose genocidal suffering during the World War I has been largely ignored for decades. After intense deliberations and controversy, in December 2007 the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) voted by a large majority to recognize the genocides of the Assyrian and Greek populations of the Ottoman Empire between 1914 and 1923.

The Assyrian International News Agency noted, "For the Assyrians in Sweden, the recognition of the genocide, called Seyfo (sword) in Assyrian, is a milestone in their effort for political acknowledgment. More than 80,000 Assyrians live in Sweden, and they closely followed the debate in the parliament." The Assyria Times in Sweden noted, "The Swedish parliament is the first in the world to acknowledge the Turkish genocide."

Needless to say, Turkey condemned the decision of the Swedish Parliament, Turkey recalled its ambassador to Sweden for consultations and said Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan also cancelled his planned visit to Sweden.

As reported elsewhere in this issue of GPN, in March the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs also approved a resolution recognizing the Armenian Genocide in the U.S. that would send the measure to the full House of Representatives and minutes after the vote, Turkey withdrew its ambassador to the U.S. A year ago, Turkey recalled its ambassador to Canada after Prime Minister Stephen Harper referred to the killings as genocide.

A good number of commentators around the world -- including in Israel, the U.S., and a newspaper columnist in Turkey itself -- have commented critically and/or humorously -- that Turkey needed to take care not to find that she has recalled half of her diplomatic corps back home.

Sources:

This story is adapted largely from the following sources with some additional observations, including about the resolution of IAGS, by GPN staff:

Abdulmesih BarAbrahem (March 12, 2010). Sweden recognizes Assyrian, Greek and Armenian Genocide. Assyrian International News Agency.
Hurriyet (Turkey) (March 12, 2010). Swedish Parliament adopts bill on "genocide" allegations.
Milliyet (March 12, 2010). Sweden accepts "genocide" too.
Assyria Times (Sweden) (Retrieved March 18, 2010). Swedish Parliament recognizes Assyrian Genocide.

Read full text......

Historic and Controversial Armenia-Turkey Protocols Signed

On October 10, 2009, Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian and Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu signed landmark protocols that could pave the way to normalization of relations between the two countries.

The stated goals of the protocols are “to establish good neighborly relations and to develop bilateral cooperation in the political, economic, cultural and other fields for the benefit of their peoples” and for Turkey to open its borders with Armenia and establish diplomatic ties.

Both Turkey’s and Armenia’s parliaments must ratify the protocols in order form them to be implemented.

Armenia gained independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. Turkey unilaterally blockaded Armenia in 1993, closing the border between the countries as a result of the Karabagh conflict. Armenia and Turkey announced in late summer 2009 that they would hold diplomatic talks in order to take a major step toward reconciliation. Switzerland has been the main mediator in the talks. Both the United States and Russia have been deeply involved in putting pressure on Armenia to accept the protocols.

The signing ceremony was stalled for three hours due to last-minute disagreements on both sides. The reason for the deal was due to Armenia’s objection to remarks that the Turkish delegation was going to read at the conclusion of the signing. It was thought that the Turkish delegation was going to make remarks casting doubt on the Armenian Genocide. United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton engaged in intense discussion between the two sides in order for them to complete the signing ceremony. Once the protocols were signed, neither Armenia nor Turkey made any statements, and according to an on-site correspondent, this silence was one of the compromises arranged by United States officials.

The protocols that have been signed by Armenia and Turkey have raised an enormous wave of criticism and protest in Armenian communities around the world, in particular in the Armenian communities outside Armenia proper. After the signing, protests by Armenians took place in Armenia, France, Lebanon, and the United States. The factor that instigated the most protest was the claim that by failing to include in the protocols a recognition of the Armenian Genocide, Turkey was continuing its decades-long policy of denial of the basic historical facts of the genocide, and that it would humiliate and weaken the Armenian people to be party to an agreement that would imply confirmation of the denial. Furthermore, the protocols called for the establishment of an historical commission, to determine “what really happened” in the Armenian Genocide, and it is felt that calls for such commissions are a long-standing tactic of Turkish denial which should not be honored. On the other hand, the protocols do indeed open the borders between Armenia and Turkey, thus providing a lifeline for renewed development of Armenia and conveying a new level of recognition of the Armenia state.

A second clause in the protocols addresses the “inviolability” of borders and seeks ratification of existing international borders. This is widely viewed by Armenians as an attempt to have Armenia ratify the 1921 Treaty of Kars, which would result in permanently ceding territory taken from Armenia by Turkey.

The editor of The California Courier, Harut Sassounian, who is also President of the United Armenian Fund, has been adamant in his opposition to the protocols. Nonetheless, alongside of his own editorial column in the issue of the Courier in which story of the ratification of the protocols appeared, Sassounian also published a critical evaluation of the protocols by another writer, Michael Hachigian, examining both the “advantages and the disadvantages on either side of…the dilemma” of the protocols. The author concludes, “It is a difficult decision no matter which side you are on.”

Dashnaks Plan More Protests Against Turkish Armenia Deal

Adding to the opposition to the Armenia-Turkey Protocols, the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnaktsutyun) launched a new campaign of street protests aimed at scuttling the implementation of the Turkish-Armenian agreements signed in October, 2009. The federation had already held a series of demonstrations in Yerevan this fall in protest against the Turkish-Armenian protocols, which it considers a sell-out. The nationalist party is particularly unhappy with Yerevan’s formal recognition of the existing Turkish-Armenian border and its acceptance of a Turkish proposal to set up a joint commission of historians.

Armenia-Turkey Protocols Ruled Constitutional by Armenian Court

On January 12, 2010, Armenia’s Constitutional Court upheld the legality of the controversial normalization agreement Armenian signed with Turkey last October, while groups opposed to the deal to continued to stage protests. The ruling read out by the court chairman, Gagik Harutiunian, concluded that the provisions of the two Turkish-Armenian protocols “conform to the constitution of the Republic of Armenia.”

The widely anticipated verdict paved the way for the agreements’ ratification by the Armenian parliament. The National Assembly is not expected, however, to start debating the two protocols before their endorsement by Turkey’s parliament.

“Eduard Sharmazanov, the chief spokesman for President Sarkisian’s Republican Party of Armenia (HHK) insisted that the Western-backed agreements provide for an unconditional normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations. “The Turkish side must be the first to ratify them because it’s the Turkish side that has always talked in the language of preconditions and ultimatums,” he said.

Based on reports from The California Courier, December 24, 2009; and the December 2009 issue of Hye Sharzhoom, the newspaper of the Fresno State Armenian Students Organization and the Armenian Studies Program at California State University, Fresno; and Asbarez.com.

Read full text......

Turkish Officials Admit to Playing Games With Protocols

"Harut Sassounian's Column"

Harut Sassounian
Publisher, The California Courier

With each passing day, the games Turkish officials have been playing with the Protocols are becoming more obvious and ridiculous!

Throughout the long months of negotiations, I repeatedly warned that Turkish officials were not sincere in their announced intention of opening the border with Armenia and establishing diplomatic relations. By acting as if they were seeking reconciliation with Armenia, Turkish leaders simply wanted to prevent further acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide by third countries, extract maximum concessions from Armenia on Artsakh (Karabagh), and block future territorial demands from Turkey.

Turkey first dragged out the negotiations until right before April 24 to preclude Pres. Obama from keeping his promise on recognizing the Armenian Genocide. The Protocols were finally signed on October 10, to ensure that Pres. Sargsyan does go to Turkey to attend the soccer match between the national teams of the two countries.

Meanwhile, Turkey’s leaders were repeatedly announcing that they would not open the border and their Parliament would not ratify the Protocols until Armenia returned Artsakh to Azerbaijan -- even though there is no such requirement in the signed documents. More than a month has now passed since the signing of the Protocols in Zurich, but there are no signs that the Turkish Parliament would ratify them anytime soon.

Just before signing the Protocols, Turkey’s President Abdullah Gul and Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu traveled to Azerbaijan to pledge once again that they had no intention of opening the border with Armenia until Artsakh was returned to Azerbaijan.

As if these outrageous pre-conditions were not sufficient to shake Armenians’ confidence in the Protocols, Turkish officials made no attempt to hide their deceptive designs.

The October 5th issue of the Turkish newspaper Hurriyet quoted Foreign Ministry officials in Ankara as stating: “The formation of a joint history commission and re-opening the border are included in the documents. However, they can be put into effect only after a solution is found to the Karabakh issue. Without a solution to the Karabakh conflict, these protocols cannot be transferred to Parliament. Even then, Parliament would not adopt it. So, relax.”

To convince the Azerbaijanis that Turkey had no plans to ratify the Protocols, Turkish Foreign Ministry officials boasted about their success in deceiving Europeans on another agreement: “Turkey had to sign a protocol with the European Union on the Cyprus issue. What happened? Did Turkey open its seaports and airports to Cypriot vessels and airplanes, after four years?”

We now have solid evidence that these Turkish officials were not making an idle boast when they indicated that signing an agreement means nothing to them. In the Oct. 25 issue of “Today’s Zaman,” commentator Ercan Yavuz cited dozens of examples of agreements signed by Turkey, but not ratified, after the passage of many years! At present, there are 146 agreements with 95 countries, including Argentina, Azerbaijan, Libya, Slovenia, Sweden, and Syria, awaiting the approval of the Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Commission. The oldest -- an agreement signed 26 years ago between Iraq and Turkey -- is still pending ratification by the Turkish Parliament. Many other important agreements have been signed since 2004, but still not ratified!

Given the Turkish record of not taking seriously commitments made on behalf of their country, it should not come as a surprise to anyone that the Turkish Parliament would not ratify the Armenia-Turkey Protocols anytime soon. Of course, by not ratifying the Protocols, Turkey would be breaking its written pledge of August 31, to ratify the Protocols in a “timely” manner.

Interestingly, Armenia’s Foreign Minster Edward Nalbandian, in a recent interview with Reuters, asked: “Why sign the Protocols, if they are not going to be ratified?” The answer is obvious: The Turkish government is interested in creating a positive image for itself in front of the international community by appearing to want “good neighborly relations” with Armenia, without actually taking any concrete steps to do so.

Armenia’s officials are sadly mistaken if they believe that Turkey would come under intense international pressure, should it not ratify the protocols. Time and again, Turkey has proven its immunity from pressures applied by other countries, including the United States, as was the case on the eve of the Iraq war when Turkey refused to allow U.S. Troops to cross its borders to enter Iraq.

If pressured from outside, Turkish leaders would simply blame Armenia, by pointing out that it has not made any concessions on Artsakh, thereby making it impossible for the Turkish Parliament to ratify the Protocols.

Armenian officials have repeatedly stated that the Artsakh negotiations are unrelated to the Protocols and that the Armenian Parliament would not ratify the Protocols before Turkey, adding that they would scrap the agreement, if Turkey failed to act in a “timely” manner.

It remains to be seen whether Armenia would keep its pledge of not making any territorial concessions on Artsakh; and should Turkey refuse to ratify the Protocols after the lapse of several months, would Armenia’s leaders have the courage to declare the signed Protocols null and void?

Read full text......

State Department Official Supports Turkey’s Proposed Historical Commission

WASHINGTON, DC – Assistant Secretary of State Phil Gordon last week indicated that the Obama Administration supports the establishment of an Armenia-Turkey historical commission, a controversial proposal long advanced by the Turkish government to cast doubt on the Armenian Genocide and undermine international progress toward the universal recognition of this crime against humanity, reported the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA).

Gordon, during testimony earlier this week before the Europe Subcommittee of the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee, fielded a question from the panel’s Chairman, Robert Wexler (D-FL) about how the Department of State intends to “navigate the course of the engagement between Turkey and Armenia so that Azerbaijan comes out a dinner.” In his response to this inquiry by the Turkish Caucus co-Chairman, Gordon voiced support for the Armenia-Turkey “roadmap,” a document publicly welcomed by the State Department on April 22nd, noting, in particular, a highly controversial, much discussed, but never before officially disclosed element of this agreement stipulating the establishment of a commission to examine historical issues between the two nations. His comments read, in part: “You have two parallel but separate tracks [Armenia-Turkey dialogue and the Nagorno Karabagh peace process] going on, a Turkey and Armenia normalization reconciliation process that we do think is quite potentially historic, where the two countries have agreed on a framework for normalizing their relations that would include opening the border, which has been closed for far too long, which would establish diplomatic relations and would provide commissions in key areas including history, and we encourage that process and we support it.”

The establishment of an Armenia-Turkey historical commission, a measure Turkey has long sought to cast a doubt over the overwhelming historical record of the Armenian Genocide, stands in stark contrast to President Obama’s statements during his campaign for the White House.

On several occasions throughout 200, including only days before the November election, he stressed his “firmly held conviction that the Armenian Genocide is not an allegation a personal opinion, or a point of view, but rather a widely documented fact supported by an overwhelming body of historical evidence. The facts are undeniable.”

The idea of a historical commission has been widely rejected as a denialist tactic including by the International Association of Genocide Scholars.

State Department Official Supports Turkey’s Proposed Historical Commission. The California Courier, June 25, 2009.

Read full text......

Gomidas Institute Takes Armenian Genocide Debate to Ankara

LONDON – On October 12, 2005, Lord Archer of Sandwell QC, Lord Biffen and Lord Avebury organized a meeting in Westminster for British parliamentarians to respond to a petition sent to members of the British Houses of Parliament by the Turkish Grand National Assembly (TGNA) contesting the veracity of the 1916 British Parliamentary Blue Book, The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, 1915-16.

According to the TGNA, the 1916 Blue Book was a wartime fabrication which harmed Turkish interests during World War I and continued to do so today. The central thesis of the Blue Book was the argument that starting in 1915 Armenians were subject to a policy of mass annihilation in the Ottoman Empire. The petition claimed that the Blue Book was the source of allegations that the massacres and deaths of Armenians during the forced deportations of 1916 constituted a genocide, which the petition said was untrue. The Turkish petition asserted that: (1) the 1916 report had no supporting documentation; (2) the report was contrived in essence; and (3) the main compiler and editor of the report admitted that the blue Book was simply a propaganda tool fabricated against Ottoman Turkey and its German ally.

The petition insisted that the core of the blue Book was a set of eyewitness accounts which were unreliable, and that the work was composed in such a way as to conceal the flawed character of these key reports. It maintained that withholding the names of some informants and locations, supposedly to safeguard sources still in the Ottoman Empire, was in reality, to conceal the weaknesses of the reports themselves.

However, a group of British MPs concluded from their own knowledge of the Blue Book and many contemporaneous accounts by eyewitnesses which have since been published, as well as a detailed report from the Gomidas Institute, that:

The blue Book was compiled from first-hand testimonies w2hich were scrupulously reported by the distinguished editor, Arnold Toynbee;

The supporting documentation has been readily accessible, a point overlooked in the letter from the TGNA;

Arnold Toynbee did not say that the Blue Book was flawed as claimed by the petition. The petition wrongly asserted that the War Propaganda Bureau was the sole source for all information regarding the situation in the Ottoman Empire – there were hundreds of neutral consular officials and missionaries;

The reports by neutrals have been reinforced and corroborated by other United States and German consular reports, now in the public domain, and by numerous accounts in the diaries and letters of survivors;

The sources of the 150 eyewitness accounts published in the Blue Book were not discovered recently in a War Propaganda Bureau document as claimed by the TGNA, but have been known and published for many years.

British MPs judged that the TGNA was not properly informed about the Blue Book. Consequently, on January 27, 2006, 33 MPs responded to the TGNA petition with a letter to the Speaker of the TGNA Bülent Arinç, inviting members of the TGNA to a face to face meeting with their British colleagues to discuss the Blue Book. Since there was no response to that letter, a second email communication was sent on September 1, 2006 to all individual members of the TGNA, inviting them to a face to face meeting. Again there was no response.

The British MPs finally concluded that most TBMM members were not aware of the actual content of the 1916 Blue Book, nor the archival trail associated with it. In order to facilitate better understanding and reflection, it was suggested that the Gomidas Institute should undertake the Turkish translation of their uncensored edition of the Blue Book, which was replete with discussion and full archival references. The Gomidas Institute was able to undertake such a major project with the help of the AGBU so that a whole new Turkish readership – not just members of the TGNA – could appraise the Blue Book issue in an informed and balanced manner.

The Turkish edition of the Blue Book will be released in Ankara by Lord Avebury and Ara Sarafian on June 26. The event sponsored by the Turkish Human Rights Association (Ankara) and the Freedom of Thought Association.

For more information please contact info@gomidas.org or visit www.gomidas.org.

Gomidas Institute Takes Armenian Genocide Debate to Ankara. The California Courier , June 25, 2009.

Read full text......