Franklin H. Littell: A Christian Pioneer of Holocaust Studies

In Memoriam

May 2009 saw the loss of Dr. Franklin H. Littell, who was at times referred to as the Father of Holocaust Studies, especially in the United States. He died at age 91 after a long illness. Along with Dr. Littell’s family, friends, and former students. his passing was mourned by many in the international community of Holocaust scholars.

Franklin Littell was a Methodist minister who dedicated his life to Holocaust research after spending nearly 10 years in postwar Germany as chief Protestant religious adviser in the U.S. high command. An undisputed groundbreaker in his field, he was the first American scholar to offer courses on Holocaust and genocide studies, beginning with a graduate seminar he set up in 1959 at Emory University in Atlanta. In 1970, with Dr. Hubert Locke, he set up annual scholarly conferences on the Holocaust, a forum that continues through to the present time.

In 1976 Dr. Littell established at Temple University the nation's first doctoral program on Holocaust studies and founded a national institute on the Holocaust. In 1998, he and his wife, Dr. Marcia Sachs-Littell, established the first interdisciplinary master’s degree program in Holocaust studies at the Richard Stockton College of New Jersey.

Franklin Littell authored more than two dozen books and 1,000 articles (he was apparently working most recently on his memoirs). The most well-known of his writings is the 1975 book, The Crucifixion of the Jews, which traces a direct connection between any church doctrine that teaches hatred of Jews and Judaism and the development of a worldview that allowed the Holocaust to happen. Dr. Littell’s challenge to the church to produce an in depth theological and ethical response to the Holocaust became a major thrust of his work for years to come. Pressing this point bore fruit. According to Holocaust scholar, John K. Roth, emeritus professor of philosophy at Claremont McKenna College, Dr. Littell “helped to turn the tide on the awareness of Christian complicity, shortcoming, indifference in the face of what was happening to Jews under Hitler.”

Dr. Littell impacted generations of future scholars and activists not only by the content of his writings and the higher education programs he established, but by their role in opening up development of Holocaust studies as a widely accepted field of scholarship. In the first decade or so following the end of World War II, there was little public discussion or study of the Holocaust. By the 1960s, however, the Eichmann trial and publication of books like Elie Wiesel’s “Night” and other survivor testimonies began to draw attention to the subject. “When Franklin Littell started his work,” said Dr. Roth, “it was almost the case that there was no such thing as Holocaust studies as a field.” That is no longer the case. Hundreds of colleges offer courses and programs on the Holocaust, and many public schools are required to teach about it.

In an essay eulogizing Dr. Littell, author JoAnn Magnuson, active for many years in Jewish-Christian relations and Holocaust studies expressed her gratitude for his “pioneering work in these fields.” She continued to explain. “In the 1950s, when I first began looking for information on the Holocaust, there was very little to be found. Even in the mid-1970s when I first discovered The Crucifixion of the Jews, it was quite possible for a serious student to have read most of the literature available on these topics. Today the bookshelves overflow and many colleges offer courses in Holocaust studies.”

The genesis of Franklin Littell’s passion for daring the world to respond to the Holocaust can be found in a defining moment in his life as a young man. It was 1939, and a 22-year-old Littell was traveling with other young co-religionists to a Christian youth conference in Amsterdam. They happen to pass through Nuremberg, Germany just in time to attend the great Nazi rally held there. Littell and his friends were horrified at the open racism and religious glorification of Aryans displayed there. When Adolf Hitler took the stage bathed with a god-like halo of lights and greeted with waves of adulation, they were so repulsed that they stood up and left. This reaction would come to typify Franklin Littell. He didn’t just write and teach – he acted. "He believed you could not hide behind the ivory tower of academia or the sanctity of the church," said Marcia Littell, currently professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies at Richard Stockton College. "You must be actively involved in all that you do."

A former student said of him, “He didn’t just have a front row seat to history; he was a part of history, and he brought that to every seminar. “

That inclination to stand up and act on his beliefs was also expressed in Dr. Littell’s enthusiastic support for the State of Israel, in part because he believed that its very existence refuted theologies that foresaw or favored the passing away of the Jewish people. He rejected any theology which teaches that the church has replaced the Jewish people in God’s plan, and wrote against what he called “traditional Christian myth about their [the Jews’] end in the historic process."

Shortly following the Six-Day War in 1967, Dr. Littell founded an organization called Christians Concerned for Israel, dedicated to promoting pro-Israel views in Roman Catholic and mainline Protestant churches. In 1978, along with Sister Rose Thering and Rev. David A. Lewis, Littell started the National Christian Leadership Conference for Israel (NCLCI), which lobbied against arms sales to Arab nations and campaigned against the United Nations “Zionism=racism” resolution, adopted in 1975 and since repealed.

Dr. Littell did not shy away from warning a too often indifferent Christian church on the dangers of theology that could lead to hatred of the Jews. "A rise of Antisemitism is often the first seismographic reading on a serious shifting and shearing along the fault lines of bedrock Christianity,” he wrote. “The fundamental fault line...is a line of false teaching about the Jewish people."

In a world in which the public discourse has grown increasingly violent and unmannered, Franklin Littell tried to caution the world about the result of such a trend. On the occasion of the 1995 assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin, Dr. Littell wrote of “the Language of Assault, which prepares the way and justifies physical violence. It can never be justified under a legitimate government.” This was a point he had already made with force and eloquence in his 1965 tome, Wild Tongues: A Handbook of Social Pathology. Now, thirty years later he once again warned that “words have consequences in action. And the immediate result of a crescendo of irresponsible verbal assault can be marked in the burial of a hero of war and of peace a few weeks ago in Jerusalem.”

Franklin Littell was an influential thinker about early warnings of totalitarianism and of genocide, as was reviewed and evidenced in his contribution on early warnings in The Encyclopedia of Genocide, published in 1991.

Dr. Franklin Littell will be greatly missed by the many individuals who knew him, were taught by him, and were affected by his writings. The following testimonials describe several aspects of Franklin Littel’s contributions:

Dr. Hubert Locke, Dr. Littell’s longtime friend and colleague, co-founder of the Annual Scholar’s Conference on the Holocaust, and Professor Emeritus, University of Washington announced Dr. Littell’s death as follows:

"And the king said to his servants, do you not know that . . .a great man has fallen this day in Israel?" II Samuel 3:38

With profound sorrow, we wish to inform you of the death on Saturday, May 22nd, of Dr. Franklin H. Littell, Professor Emeritus of Temple University and Founder of the Annual Scholars' Conference. Dr. Littell served on the staff of the U.S. High Commissioner in Germany after World War II, taught at Emory and Southern Methodist Universities, the Chicago Theological Seminary, and was President of Iowa Wesleyan University.

His death marks the passing of a generation of outstanding Christian scholars who were the first to term the Holocaust a "crisis of faith" for the Christian world. A memorial is tentatively planned for October at the 39th Annual Scholars' Conference. "May he rest in peace and may his memory be a blessing."

Dr. Abraham J. Peck, Director, Academic Council for Religion, Genocide and Human Rights:

Baruch Dayan Emet---Blessed is the true Judge. These are the words that Jews repeat upon hearing the sad news of someone's death. In that blessing, God is honored as the true and righteous judge. The blessing affirms that God, whose wisdom we praise when the Creator of heaven and earth provides acts of goodness, is the very same Creator who decides the time of death.

With Franklin's passing, those words are more than appropriate. Allowing us to be a part of Franklin's life, to observe what surely must have been an act of the Divine in empowering him with the voice of the Prophets--he with the flowing white mane, the anger at the world as a bystander, the charge against the teaching of Christian contempt towards Judaism--was a privilege that could have only come from God. Hearing of his death tells us that his earthly work in repairing the world-- a task that he may not have finished, but that he undertook with a conviction and a purpose few have ever possessed--is no more.

I wrote the following words on the occasion of Frank's 80th birthday:

I have often wondered what if one, a hundred or a thousand Franklin Littells could have stood on the pulpits of churches in Europe and America in the 19th and 20 centuries. Would we have then had an end to the teaching of contempt?

Would Jewish identity and memory not have to be predicated to such a degree on the politics of victimization? Would my 14 murdered uncles and aunts, and their spouses and children, who died in the Holocaust, been a part of something only others know as an extended family?

But I quickly interrupt my daydream to bring myself back to reality. You are the only Franklin Littell and if I have to dream it is that your ministry will help to secure the future of my Jewish children and grandchildren.

Rest in peace, dear Frank, you have caused a revolution, you have helped to change the mind and path of Christianity, you have changed the world

Dr. Israel Charny, writing to Dr. Littell’s widow, Marcie:

In June 1982 Franklin Littell agreed to be the Keynote Speaker for our beleaguered First International Conference on the Holocaust and Genocide in Tel Aviv. Elie Wiesel had resigned as President of the Conference. What's his name President of American Jewish Congress had agreed to keynote and pulled out at the last moment. Yad Vashem, where we were supposed to open the Congress canceled and literally closed the gates without a proper announcement to people arriving from overseas --we moved the Congress to the Hilton in Tel Aviv.

Franklin didn't hesitate. When he had convictions he acted on their behalf and didn't fold to totalitarian pressures. He gave a pre-Congress workshop: "Teaching the Holocaust and Genocide." He delivered the dramatic Opening Plenary: "The Holocaust as a Watershed Historical Event." He chaired a session -- so did you another session, Marcie. He ran a several-session "Track Session: Teaching about Genocide to One's Own People and to Other Peoples" (in which you too presented, Marcie). He chaired another Plenary. He chaired another session, "The Holocaust and God" (who else would confront the latter, I add?). And more and more up to and including participation in the Conference Summation Panel.

His contribution was enormous and unforgettable.

Personally, in addition to the Congress, and especially in my earlier more youthful years, I gained so very much from Franklin of basic ideas, inspiration, and encouragement. It was always a pleasure to see him and speak with him. He was as free of posturing and academic manipulativeness as they come-- a mensch.

Marcie, please accept my personal condolences, as I too join a whole world of Holocaust and genocide scholars in honoring and loving Franklin.

Selected Writing by Franklin H. Littell

Littell, Franklin H. (1969). Wild Tongues: A Handbook of Social Pathology. New York: Macmillan.

Littell, Franklin H. (1975). The Crucifixion of the Jews. New York: Harper and Row.

Littell, Franklin H. (1988). Early warning. Holocaust and Genocide Studies, 3(4), 483-490.

Littell, Franklin H. (1999). Early Warning System (EWS). In Charny, Israel W. (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Genocide. Boulder, CO: ABC-Clio, pp. 261-265.

Read full text......

Sudanese President Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir's Travel Days Aren't Over

Sudanese President Omer Hassan al-Bashir cancelled plans to attend an economic conference in Uganda on July 26-28 after statements from Ugandan officials suggested that Bashir might be arrested if he stepped on Ugandan soil.

Bashir's attendance at the Smart Partnership Dialogue in Kampala would have presented the Ugandan government with a dilemma. The Ugandan government is obligated to arrest Bashir if he comes to Uganda, as per the arrest warrant issued last March by the International Criminal Court (ICC). Last July, however, Uganda voted with the African Union states to disregard the warrant.

The ICC has charged Bashir with genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity (although as of this writing the warrant for his arrest doesn’t include any genocide charges). The warrant names Bashir as criminally responsible for intentionally directing attacks of murder, extermination, rape, torture, plunder and forced transfer of a significant portion of the civilian population of Darfur, Sudan, According to the charges, Bashir "masterminded and implemented a plan to destroy in substantial part" three tribal groups in Darfur on the basis of their ethnicity.

The UN says that the conflict in Darfur has displaced an estimated 2.7 million people and resulted in up to 300,000 deaths in the region. .Sudan's government disputes the figures, saying 10,000 people have been killed.

Uganda Responds to Pressure

According to the Rome Statute, which established the ICC, nation states, and not the ICC itself are responsible for bringing those accused of war crimes, genocide and other charges to justice. Uganda is party to the Rome Statute.

On July 13, ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo told journalists in Kampala that Bashir "should know the obligation of Uganda is to arrest him. He should know that before he comes."

In answer to Ocampo's statement, Ugandan International Relations Ministry Okello Oryem affirmed his country's commitment to the Rome Statute and indicated that the Solicitor General's office had already received the arrest warrant for Bashir. "If and when Bashir arrives in Uganda, it is up to the Inspector General of Police to take action," Oryem said.

Khartoum responded angrily, demanding Oryem's dismissal. Although Sudanese official news report that Ugandan President Yoweri Musievini apologized to Bashir for Oryem's comments and provided written assurances that he will not be arrested in Uganda, there was also a veiled threat in the Ugandan president's statement about the incident. “When I want to fight you,” Musievini told reporters, “I insult you, I don’t invite you, I tell you beforehand. We don’t believe in surprise attacks.” The president added, “If there are any other issues, I will tell you ‘Please don’t come here because I cannot guarantee your safety’.”

Apparently Musievini's warning was heeded, and a Sudanese official attended the conference instead of Bashir.

Behind the ICC's Strategy

The Ugandan government's dilemma came against the backdrop of the earliest efforts of an international body to use legal means to combat war crimes and genocide. President Bashir is the first sitting head of government to be charged with war crimes. Initially, it was hoped that issuing a warrant for his arrest would in effect make him a prisoner of his own country, thus deterring other potential world leaders from committing the same crimes.

Back in July 2008, Payam Akhavan, a professor of international law at McGill University in Montreal and a former war crimes prosecutor told CBC News that eventually the Sudanese government might be convinced to deliver al-Bashir to the ICC — just as the Yugoslavian government handed over former president Slobodan Milosevic in 2001 in response to "sustained international pressure."

The Yugoslavian comparison has not held up so far. Although Bashir did cancel his plans to attend the July 2008 Smart Partnership Dialogue (while claiming that the cancellation was unrelated to the ICC charges) and backed out of attending South African President Jacob Zuma's inauguration in May 2009, since March of this year he has traveled abroad seven times, with no repercussions.

However, it is notable that Bashir has only traveled to countries which are not party to the Rome Statute, such as Eritrea, Egypt, Libya, Qatar, Ethiopia and Saudi Arabia. The aborted trip to Uganda would have been the Sudanese president's first to a country that is obligated to comply with the ICC warrant.

The American Factor

The impact of Uganda's apparent decision to abide by the Rome Statute may be lessened if other nations do not follow suit. Not only African nations have sent mixed signals regarding implementation of the ICC ruling.

On July 9, U.S. Special Envoy to Sudan Scott Gration set off on a trip that would include stops in Darfur and and Khartoum. “Right now President Al-Bashir is the president of the country and we have to work with him," Gration told Agence France Presse (AFP) in an interview from the Oslo. He added, however, that Bashir still must "do what’s right in terms of facing the International Criminal Court and those charges.”

Some in the American government view a visit to the accused leader of Sudan as incompatible with President Obama's election promises to fight human rights abuses in Africa. A statement from US House representative Frank Wolf (R-VA) claimed that Obama "spoke of ‘ratcheting up sanctions.’ Now, almost six months into the administration, the State Department is still conducting a much vaunted ‘comprehensive review’ of U.S.-Sudan policy. Nothing concrete has emerged. The little that has leaked out in press reports is disturbing.”

Wolf referred to high-level disagreement in the State Department over whether genocide has even been committed in Darfur. "Furthermore, they [U.S. State Department officials] are making overtures to Khartoum which are, at best, naïve," Wolf said.

Those overtures include the possible lifting of sanctions against Sudan and removing that country from the list of states that support terrorism. The US embassy in the Sudanese capital has already announced that it will issue visas for Sudanese nationals after more than ten years of not permitting them.

Building on Small Steps of Progress

The attempt to prevent genocide and war crimes via international legal pressure is a slow and often frustrating process. The ICC has little leverage with leaders who are lauded by a solid group of other states when they choose to dismiss the court's authority. While the use of arrest warrants is meant to virtually imprison the accused, how effective is this method on those like President Bashir who are backed by at least 50 countries in Africa and the Middle East? The only “prison” in which the Sudanese leader finds himself today is one that is expansive and powerful 'prison', where he can bask in the approval of other like-minded international figures. Only when war criminals at large are prevented from going to a destination that they actually want to visit are they somewhat incarcerated.

If Uganda's threat to arrest Bashir is a significant crack in the mostly smooth wall of unified African rejection of the ICC, it bodes well for future success in impacting – and perhaps deterring – perpetrators of war crimes and genocide. This is especially true if Western countries like the US carry through with their commitment to sanction human rights offenders.

On the other hand, Uganda may be a unique case, in that its government has its own reasons for bolstering the authority of the ICC. Uganda was the first country to refer a conflict to the ICC when it successfully obtained indictments for Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) rebel leader Joseph Kony and his top lieutenants. Having made use of those indictments to pressure LRA rebels to attend peace talks in 2008, Uganda can hardly dismiss the ICC's indictments of Bashir.

ICC prosecutors have not given up. In early July, they appealed the ICC tribunal's decision to exclude actual charges of genocide from Bashir's warrant. As the effort to bring the accused criminal to trial continues, hope remains that the gravity of his crimes will not be ignored by the family of nations.

Sources: Al Jazeera English, Al Arabiya, Reuters, Huffington Post, ArabNews.com, EarthTimes, Al Ahram Weekly, The Tripoli Post, France24, Sudan Tribune, CNS News, International News, Dayton Daily News, Zimbabwe Guardian

Read full text......

Al Qaeda Prepared To Use Nuclear Weapons Against U.S.A.

On June 21, 2009 Mustafa Abul-Yazeed, al-Qaeda's leader in Afghanistan, told Al Jazeera that the group would use Pakistan's nuclear weapons against the US if it gained access to them.

"By God's will, the Americans will not seize the Muslims' nuclear weapons and we pray that the Muslims will have these weapons and they will be used against the Americans," Abul-Yazeed said in an exclusive interview that aired on the Al-Jazeera network.

Source: English al Jazeera News

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......

Sufi Fighters Cooperate with Somali Government

On June 13 2009, officials from the Somali interim government and a Muslim Sufi group, Ahlu Sunnah Wal Jamee'a met for the first time in Mogadishu and discussed national security issues and threats posed by Islamist hardliners. The government urged the Sufi group to fight in support of the government and not just for their own political gain. Sheikh Omar, who spoke for Ahlu Sunnah militia via telephone, seemed to be in agreement.

"Our agenda is to help the government restore national security after 18 years of war," Sheikh Omar was quoted as saying by local media. He stated that Ahlu Sunnah has "no political interests or agendas."

Since 1991, Somalia has been without a functioning central government, and fighting over the last two years has left at least 17,000 civilians dead and more than one million have fled their homes. Aid workers say Somalia’s humanitarian crisis — in which a third of the 10 million population needs food aid — is the worst in the world. In a country where the fight over whether extremist Islamic law should be enforced has had such a heavy human toll, should Sufi “moderates” be hailed as the great Somali hope?

Some would have Western nations rely on the Sufis to repel more hard-core Islamists in Somalia, and possibly form a moderate Islamic government. Critics say that in an environment where demagogues use religion to conceal their true political and material ambitions, establishing another official, "preferred" theological ideology won't diminish their influence.

Initial Reluctance and Denial

The term “Sufi fighters” should be an oxymoron. Sufi Muslims are usually peaceful and avoid combat. Their form of Islam is known to stress tolerance, mysticism and a personal relationship with God, not violent jihad. In the past year, however, events in Somalia caused one group of Sufis to pick up arms.

In November and December of 2008 the Shabaab, (a hardline offshoot of the ICU which opposes the government) shot dead several Sufi students and tore apart Sufi shrines. Shortly afterwards, reports indicated that the Sufi group Ahlu Sunnah Wal Jamee'a had successfully battled the Shabaab in Guri El. Guri El is a fairly substantial commercial town in the Galbadud region, which borders Ethiopia. One week after the battle, however, the lead spokesman for Ahlu Sunnah Wal Jamee’a told reporters that the group was not involved in any fighting.

"The fighting in Guri El was between brothers, and Ahlu Sunnah Wal Jamee'a was not involved," Sheikh Abdulkadir Somow said.

Striking a conciliatory tone, Sheikh Somow called on Islamist groups to "stop fighting each other," and appealed to then Somali President Abdullahi Yusuf and Prime Minister Nur Adde to "resolve differences."

By January 2009, however, the Sufi leaders were acknowledging their victory in battles against the Shabaab insurgents in Galgadud. "We killed dozens of the attackers, including their commander, we have also seized most of their weapons that they abandoned in fear," said Sheikh Abdullahi Abu Yusuf, spokesman for Ahlu Sunnah Wal Jamee'a.

Local Heroes

At the same time, self-proclaimed “insiders” accused Ahlu Sunnah Wal Jamee'a of being led by warlords funded and armed by Ethiopia. Perhaps these accusations were (unsuccessful) attempts to counter the local support that the Sufi group enjoys.

“We see the Sufis as part of us,” said Elmi Hersi Arab, an elder in the battered central Somalia town of Dusa Marreb, also in Galgadud. “They grew up here.”

In that town, the Ahlu Sunnah Wal Jamee'a have benefited from deep-seated anti-Shabaab sentiment. Dusa Marreb was under the control of the Shabaab for the better part of 2008, a period that residents describe as a reign of terror. They claim that the Shabaab assasinated more than a dozen village elders and even beheaded two women selling tea. When in December the Sufis managed to drive the Shabaab out of Dusa Marreb altogether, they became local heroes in the Galgadud region.

The Ahlu Sunnah continue to earn their reputation. In early June 2009, the group fought Shabaab forces along with allied fighters from the Hezb al-Islamiya group who tried to regain control of the village of Wahbo, near the Ethiopian border. Athough both sides suffered heavy losses, and it was reported that neither side controlled the contested village, the Ahlu Sunnah have not by any means admitted defeat. The government’s recent request for their alliance indicates that they are still a force to be reckoned with.

The rarity of Muslims rising up to fight fellow Muslims points to the relatively recent shift in the conflict in Somalia from regional or family to religious lines. One Sufi student of Islamic philosophy saw the persecution of Sufis by the more radical Shabaab as the crossing of line in the religious status quo. “We had never told the Shabaab how to worship,” he said. “But now we were under attack.”

In May 2009, a Somali named Hassan Farrah wrote an op-ed piece on Somali news site Wardheernews.com that denigrated the Shabaab. “Their myopic way of thinking lacks the basic understanding of comprehensive Al-Shari’ah. Do you really believe that Al-Shabab is willing and able to provide the above services to its subjects in Kismayo and other cities in Southern Somalia? The answer is clearly no! They are indeed cowards who are afraid of tackling economic challenges and other major humanitarian problems facing the inhabitants under their jurisdiction. Therefore, it is easy for them to chop the hands of poor people and to call this an implementation of the Al-Shari’ah.”

There is little precedent for more moderate Muslims fighting radical Muslims, and no one seems sure where it will lead. “We’re on terra incognito,” said Rashid Abdi, an analyst at the International Crisis Group, a nonprofit group that tries to prevent deadly conflicts. “Before, everything was clan. Now we are beginning to see the contours of an ideological, sectarian war in Somalia for the first time, and that scares me.”

Looking for Solutions that Suit Somalia

After so many years of conflict, Somalians long for peace, normalcy, and some kind of rule of law. Yet, like the Western leaders who try to aid one side or another, they do not agree on how to achieve those goals. Some hope that a Sufi-led government would be moderate in its application of Islam, since Sufism, in their opinion, is more congruent with Somali traditions than the Wahhabi Islam espoused by the Shabaab. Wahhabism (also know as Salafism) calls for strict application of sharia law, including separation of the sexes and harsh punishments like amputations and stonings. (In June 2009, Shabaab henchmen chopped off the right hand and left foot of four thieves in front of a crowd of 200 people in Mogadishu.)

For centuries, Somalis have practiced a traditional, elder-mediated form of justice called xeer, which, though very different from Western norms, is much milder than the Wahhabi form of sharia. In xeer, each member of a clan’s diyah or lineage group is responsible for the crimes committed by anyone else from his group. Although its origins are probably pre-Islamic, xeer upholds the basic tenets of Islamic law. Despite its imperfections and partial ineffectiveness, xeer is still seen by many as preferable to strict sharia. "Xeer will never stop being used," said Dahir Mohamed Grasi, an elder in the town of Garowe for the past 46 years.

Centrism is a Relative Concept

While some turn to traditional solutions, many Somalis have put their hope in the current government. On January 31, 2009 Islamist leader Sheikh Sharif Ahmed was elected Somalia's president, leaving him in charge of a fragile peace process aimed at ending 18 years of civil conflict.

"Very soon, I will form a government which represents the people of Somalia," he said at the time.

Sheikh Sharif, who chairs the Islamic Courts Union (ICU), was once considered a radical Muslim by the Ethiopian forces who ousted him and essentially defeated the ICU in January 2007, with the help of the US. In two short years, the situation has completely turned on its head. Ethiopian troops achieved little progress and eventually had to pull out of Somalia, according to the terms of the UN-sponsored accord of October 2008. In their absence, more radical Islamic groups, such as the Shabaab have prospered in Somalia, so much so that Sharif, once called a radical, is now seen as a centrist.

Where does this leave Somali civilians? Neither traditional structures nor any current political entity can claim to exercise established authority over the entire nation. Upon being elected, Sheikh Sharif vowed to reach out to the former transitional government as well as to the Shabaab. But the Shabaab rejected the new president’s olive branch and refused to enter into talks with the government. Now Sheikh Sharif he has asked the Sufi fighters to throw in their lot with the government, hoping that they will prove an effective ally. Yet their alliance, and the use of one Islamic group against another is sure to draw even more fire from all those who oppose the government.

Ominous Signs

In April 2009, Islamist opposition leader Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys returned to Somalia from Eritrea after two years in exile. Speaking to supporters in Mogadishu, Sheikh Aweys described the government of his former friend and ally President Sharif as being appointed by the enemies of Somalia. One of the founders of the ICU, Sheikh Aweys sees Sharif’s inclusiveness as a form of betrayal.

“Mr Sharif’s government was not elected by the Somali people and it is not representing the interests the Somali people,” he said. While the US labels Sheikh Aweys a terrorist, many in Somalia consider him to be the spiritual leader of all Islamist groups, and he is counted a major powerbroker in the nation. So who he chooses to align himself with matters for the future of Somalia and the fate of Somali civilians.

It does not bode well that Sheikh Aweys bitterly opposes the presence of African Union Mission (AMISOM) peacekeeping troops in Somalia. The AMISOM peacekeepers were sent in when Ethiopian troops withdrew back in the end of 2008. Aweys described the troops as “bacteria” who should leave or he would fight them. Local news agency, Garoweonline, reports that Islamist rebels have vowed to continue attacks until all foreign troops withdraw from the country and Islamic law is restored across Somalia. Such battles could prove terribly costly to non-combatant Somalis, as well.

Who will wrest control of Somalia? Will it be the hard-line proponents of sharia law, the Sufi moderates, or some foreign proxy? While Ethiopian troops wait on the borders and formerly peaceful Sufis wield arms, the lives of over eight million Somali civilians hang in the balance.

Sources: New York Times, AFP, Garowe Online, Sufi News & Sufism World Report, Al Jazeera English, Awdal News Network, Christian Science Monitor, Legal Affairs.org, Al Arabiya, Free Press International

Read full text......