H106: Independent Pre-eminent International Scholars voice their views‏

NO PLACE FOR DENIAL
October 5, 2007
International Association of Genocide Scholars Letter on Armenian
Genocide Resolution

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GENOCIDE SCHOLARS

The Honorable Tom Lantos, Chairman
The Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Ranking Member
House Foreign Affairs Committee
US House of Representatives

Dear Chairman Lantos and Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen:

We write to you as the leading international organization of scholars
who study genocide. We strongly urge you to pass H. Res. 106.

In passing this resolution the US Congress would not be adjudicating
history but instead would be affirming the truth about a genocide that
has been overwhelmingly established by decades of documentation and
scholarship.

Truth of the Scholarly Record

It is disingenuous of the government of Turkey to use the red herring
of a "historians' commission," half of whose members would be
appointed by the Turkish government, to "study" the facts of what
occurred in 1915. As we have made clear in our Open Letters to Prime
Minister Erdogan (6/13/05 and 6/12/06), the historical record on the
Armenian Genocide is unambiguous. It is proven by foreign office
records of the United States, France, Great Britain, Russia, and
perhaps most importantly, of Turkey's World War I allies, Germany and
Austria-Hungary, as well as by the records of the Ottoman
Courts-Martial of 1918-1920, and by decades of scholarship. A
"commission of historians" would only serve the interests of Turkish
genocide deniers.

The abundance of scholarly evidence led to the unanimous resolution of
the International Association of Genocide Scholars that the Turkish
massacres of over one million Armenians from 1915 to 1918 was a crime
of genocide.

America's Own Record

The Joint Congressional Resolution recognizing and commemorating the
Armenian Genocide will honor America's extraordinary Foreign Service
Officers (among them Leslie A. Davis, Jesse B. Jackson, and Oscar
Heizer) who often risked their lives rescuing Armenian citizens in
1915. They and others left behind some forty thousand pages of
reports, now in the National Archives, that document that what
happened to the Armenian people was government-planned, systematic
extermination - what Raphael Lemkin (the man who coined the word
genocide) used in creating the definition.

By passing this resolution, the U.S. Congress would also pay tribute
to America's first international human rights movement. The Foreign
Service Officers and prominent individuals such as Theodore Roosevelt,
Ambassador Henry Morgenthau, and Cleveland Dodge, who did so much to
help the Armenians, exemplify America's legacy of moral leadership.

The parliaments of many countries have affirmed the fact of the
Armenian Genocide in unequivocal terms, yet H. Res. 106, a
commemorative, non-binding resolution, has faced opposition from those
who fear it would undermine US relations with Turkey. It is worth
noting that, notwithstanding France's Armenian Genocide legislation,
France and Turkey are engaged in more bilateral trade than ever
before. We would not expect the US government to be intimidated by an
unreliable ally with a deeply disturbing human rights record,
graphically documented in the State Department's 2007 International
Religious Freedom Report on Turkey. We would expect the United States
to express its moral and intellectual views, not to compromise its own
principles.

The Armenian Genocide is not a controversial issue outside of Turkey.
Just as it would be unethical for Germany to interfere with the
historical memory of the Holocaust, we feel it is equally unethical
for Turkey to interfere with the memory of the Armenian Genocide. Elie
Wiesel has repeatedly called Turkey's denial a double killing, as it
strives to kill the memory of the event. We believe the US government
should not be party to efforts to kill the memory of a historical fact
as profound and important as the genocide of the Armenians, which
Hitler used as an example in his plan to exterminate the Jews.

We also believe that security and historical truth are not in
conflict, and it is in the interest of the United States to support
the principles of human rights that are at the core of American
democracy.

Sincerely,

Dr. Gregory H. Stanton
President
International Association of Genocide Scholars


EXECUTIVE BOARD:

President,
Gregory Stanton
Genocide Watch

First Vice-President,
Steven Leonard Jacobs
University of Alabama

Second Vice-President
Alex Hinton
Rutgers University

Secretary,
Marc I. Sherman
Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide, Jerusalem, Israel

Treasurer,
Jack Nusan Porter, Newton, MA


ADVISORY COUNCIL:

Joyce Apsel
New York University, USA

Peter Balakian, USA
Colgate University, USA

Ben Kiernan, USA
Yale University, USA

Daniel Feierstein
U. of Buenos Aires, Argentina

Charli Carpenter
University of Pittsburgh, USA

Henry Theriault
Wellesley College, USA

Immediate Past President:
Israel W. Charny
Institute on Holocaust & Genocide, Jerusalem, Israel

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Scholars from “Global Conference

on the Prevention of Genocide” urge

U.S. Congress to recognize Armenian Genocide

Montreal, QC, Canada-A group among the world’s foremost scholars and academics of genocide studies urged the U.S. Congress to recognize the Armenian Genocide through a petition signed and prepared at McGill University during the Global Conference on Genocide Prevention this past week-end.

“The 20^th century has been described as the Century of Genocide. It opened in 1915 with the mass killing of almost 1.5 million Armenians by the Ottoman Empire,” Payam Akhavan, S.J.D., chair of the symposium, noted in his opening remarks.

The petition, which asks members of the U.S. Congress to approve a vote for H. Resolution 106 calling on the White House administration to recognize the genocide, was signed by the likes of Dr. Akhavam, Faculty of Law, McGill University, Professor Frank Chalk, Director, Montreal Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies, and Professor of History, Concordia University, Senator Roméo Dallaire, former commander of UN peacekeeping forces in Rwanda, Professor Yehuda Bauer, Holocaust historian and scholar, Yad Vashem and Hebrew University, Dr. Irwin Cotler M.P., Former Minister of Justice & Former Attorney-General of Canada,, Dr. Gregory Stanton, President of Genocide Watch, and many others.

“The scholars’ reaffirmation of the Armenian Genocide’s historical reality and their commitment to justice once more show how Turkey’s claims that ‘history should be left to the historians’ is a cheap political ruse,” remarked Dr. Girair Basmadjian, president of the Armenian National Committee of Canada (ANCC). “Everybody on that petition, as well as Turkey, know that the true historians have already passed their verdict. We hope the U.S. Congress will now do the same, and thank the symposium’s organizers and participants for their hard work,” he concluded. “I cannot help but feel pride as a Canadian for the moral stance that the Canadian Senate, Parliament and especially the Government have taken in affirming and reaffirming the historical fact of the genocide.”

Funded by the Penny and Gordon Echenberg Family Foundation, The Global Conference on Genocide Prevention at McGill University took place between October 11-13.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

INTERVIEW WITH ELIE WIESEL
Charles Smolover
Philadelphia Jewish Voice, PA
Oct 28 2007

Elie Wiesel is a Romanian-born French-Jewish novelist, political
activist, Nobel Laureate, Holocaust survivor and outspoken advocate
for justice. He is the author of over 40 books, the best known of
which is Night, a memoir that describes his experiences during the
Holocaust. He is attending the AIPAC Summit in Philadelphia at the
end of October and spoke recently with the Philadelphia Jewish Voice.

PJV: You will be in Philadelphia next week for the AIPAC Summit and
you are no doubt aware of The Israel Lobby, the critical book about
AIPAC by Walt and Mearsheimer. Setting aside the many factual errors
in the book, is it possible that there is a kernel of truth to their
argument, that AIPAC's power hinders United States politicians from
offering legitimate criticisms of Israeli policies?

I have not read the book, but I have read about it and read some
excepts. The people who have criticized it are responsible people and
I have confidence in their judgment. Nevertheless, I cannot really
comment having not read it myself. As to the general question you
ask, as to AIPAC itself, I think AIPAC is a useful, important and
vocal organization. I think the Jewish community needs it and I think
Israel needs it. Does it mean that because of AIPAC some statesmen
or politicians feel threatened? I don't believe that. We live in
a democracy. Nobody is afraid to speak up. This is not Stalinist
Russia. AIPAC is good be cause it mobilizes all those Jews who
love the Jewish state and the Jewish people, but I don't think it
represents a threat to those who disagree with the policies of the
Israeli government.

PJV: The subject of the Armenian Genocide has been in the news. The
U.S. Congress has been debating whether to officially recognize the
events in question as genocide, and the Turks, to no one's surprise,
are not pleased. Some in the Jewish community are reluctant to touch
this issue for fear of damaging Turkey's relationship with Israel.

What is your take on this issue?

I have been fighting for the right of the Armenian people to remember
for years and years. How could I, who has fought all my life for Jewish
remembrance, tell the Armenians they have no right to remember? But
I understand the administration's view. Fortunately, as a private
citizen I don't have to worry about Turkey's response. But I do
feel that had there been the word "genocide" in those days, what
happened to the Armenians would have been called genocide. Everyone
agrees there was mass murder, but the word came later. I believe the
Armenians are the victims and, as a Jew, I should be on their side.

PJV: If the Armenians have a right to remember, don't the Turks have
an obligation to take some responsibility?

No one is asking for the Turks to take responsibility. All the
Armenians want is the right to remember. Seven generations separate
us from the events that happened in World War I and nobody in his
right mind would say that today's Turks are responsible for what
happened. The Armenians don't want reparations, they don't even want
an apology. They want the right to remember. The Turks would gain a
lot if they simply acknowledged the reality of what happened. I have
spoke with Turkish leaders at the highest level and their attitude
about this issue is totally irrational except for one thing which I do
understand. They don't want to be compared to Hitler. But of course,
nobody does.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Commentary
Wiesel is Right on Genocide Recognition; Wrong on Armenians' Quest for Justice
By Harut Sassounian
Publisher, The California Courier

The Philadelphia Jewish Voice published on October 28 an important interview
with Nobel Laureate and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel. Reporter Charles
Smolover asked him to comment on the fact that "some in the Jewish community are
reluctant to touch this issue [congressional resolution on the Armenian
Genocide] for fear of damaging Turkey's relationship with Israel."
Mr. Wiesel's response: "I have been fighting for the right of the Armenian
people to remember for years and years. How could I, who has fought all my life
for Jewish remembrance, tell the Armenians they have no right to remember? But
I understand the [Bush] administration's view. Fortunately, as a private
citizen I don't have to worry about Turkey's response. But I do feel that had
there been the word "genocide" in those days, what happened to the Armenians would
have been called genocide. Everyone agrees there was mass murder, but the
word came later. I believe the Armenians are the victims and, as a Jew, I should
be on their side."
This is a very important and straightforward answer from someone of Mr.
Wiesel's moral stature. As an internationally-acclaimed personality, his
pronouncements carry great weight. Despite the fact that the reporter's question linked
the recognition of the Armenian Genocide to possible damage to Israel's
relations with Turkey, Mr. Wiesel remained steadfast on the side of the truth.
Mr. Wiesel, however, was not as forceful back in 1982 when the Israeli
Foreign Ministry, under pressure from the Turkish government, asked him to exclude
Armenian scholars from an international conference on the Holocaust and
Genocide that was to be held in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. Faced with the dilemma of not
wanting to eliminate Armenian participation or acceding to Israeli
government's demands, Mr. Wiesel resigned as president of the conference. He explained
that he chose to remove himself rather than challenge the Israeli government's
demands, because he had to be mindful of the threat to Jewish lives in Turkey.
In recent years, Mr. Wiesel has been much more resolute in defense of the
Armenian Genocide. In his introduction to the 1986 French edition of Franz
Werfel's Forty Days of Musa Dagh, he described the brutalities committed bythe
Ottoman Empire against the Armenian minority as "mass murders aimed at the
extermination of a people in its entirety," and called the brutal killings "the first
genocide of the 20th century."
On March 7, 2000, he joined 126 Holocaust scholars in signing a joint
statement affirming that the Armenian Genocide was an incontestable historical fact
and called on Western governments to likewise recognize it as such.
Earlier this year, he joined more than 50 other Nobel Laureates in signing a
statement that recognized the Armenian Genocide.
On August 21, 2007 Abraham Foxman, the National Director of the
Anti-Defamation League, said he consulted Elie Wiesel before issuing a statement
acknowledging for the first time that "the consequences" of the Armenian atrocities were
"indeed tantamount to genocide. If the word genocide had existed then, they
would have called it genocide."
Mr. Wiesel, however, leaves a lot to be desired in answering Philadelphia
Jewish Voice reporter's second question on whether "the Turks have an obligation
to take some responsibility" for the Armenian Genocide?
Mr. Wiesel responded by saying: "No one is asking for the Turks to take
responsibility. All the Armenians want is the right to remember. Seven generations
separate us from the events that happened in World War I and nobody in his
right mind would say that today's Turks are responsible for what happened. The
Armenians don't want reparations; they don't even want an apology. They want the
right to remember. The Turks would gain a lot if they simply acknowledged the
reality of what happened. I have spoken with Turkish leaders at the highest
level and their attitude about this issue is totally irrational except for one
thing, which I do understand. They don't want to be compared to Hitler. Butof
course, nobody does."
Just about every single statement contained in the above paragraph is
inaccurate. Contrary to Mr. Wiesel' assertions, Armenians do not need anyone's
permission to remember or mourn their dead. Their right to remember has never been
in question. It is also untrue that "seven generations separate us" from the
era of the genocide. There are still surviving eyewitnesses of the Armenian
Genocide. This writer is the grandson (third generation) of genocide survivors.
Regarding Turkish responsibility, while Armenians do not blame today's Turks
for the killings, they do hold the Turkish state responsible for falsifying
and denying the facts of the Armenian Genocide. Furthermore, Mr. Wiesel is wrong
in asserting that "Armenians don¢' want reparations, they don' even want an
apology. They want the right to remember." The fact is that Armenians do not
really care whether Turks apologize for the killings or not. Armenians do
insist, however, on obtaining adequate restitution for the enormous damagesthey
suffered. Why is it that the victims of the Holocaust are entitled to reparations
and Armenians are not? In contrast to the Jews, Armenians were uprooted from
their ancestral homeland losing their property, cultural heritage as well as
their lives. One has to agree, however, with Mr. Wiesel's assertion that "the
Turks would gain a lot if they simply acknowledged the reality of what
happened." Yet, contrary to Mr. Wiesel's expectations, and probably that ofthe
Turkish government, there can be no reconciliation between Armenians and Turks
without justice, which requires the return of the occupied lands and looted
properties, and restitution for the 1.5 million murders.
Since the Philadelphia Jewish Voice describes Mr. Wiesel as an "outspoken
advocate for justice," it is hoped that he would live up to that reputationin
both the Jewish and Armenian cases. While Mr. Wiesel may not choose to be an
advocate for Armenian demands, he should not misrepresent Armenians' quest for
justice!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

THE U.S. AND TURKEY: HONESTY IS THE BEST POLICY
By Samantha Power
TIME
Oct 18 2007

Ninety-Two Years Ago, The "Young Turk" Regime Ordered The Executions
Of Armenian Civic Leaders And Intellectuals, And Turkish Soldiers And
Militia Forced The Armenian Population To March Into The Desert, Where
More Than A Million Died By Bayonet Or Starvation. That Horror Helped
Galvanize Raphael Lemkin, A Polish Jew, To Invent The Word Genocide,
Which Was Defined Not As The Extermination Of An Entire Group But
Rather As A Systematic Effort To Destroy A Group. Lemkin Wanted The
Term - And The International Legal Convention That Grew Out Of It -
To Encompass Ethnic Cleansing And The Murdering Of A Substantial Part
Of A Group. Otherwise, He Feared, The World Would Wait Until An Entire
Group Had Been Wiped Out Before Taking Any Action.

But this month in Washington these historical truths - about events
carried out on another continent, in another century - are igniting
controversy among politicians as if the harms were unsubstantiated,
local and recent. At stake, of course, is the question of whether
the U.S. House of Representatives should offend Turkey by passing a
resolution condemning the "Armenian genocide" of 1915.

All actors in the debate are playing the roles they have played for
decades. Turkish General Yasar Buyukanit warned that if the House
proceeds with a vote, "our military ties with the U.S. will never
be the same again." Having recognized the genocide while campaigning
for the White House, President George W. Bush nevertheless followed
in the footsteps of his Oval Office predecessors, bemoaning the
euphemistic "tragic suffering" of Armenians and wheeling out men and
women of diplomatic and military rank to argue that the resolution
would harm the indispensable U.S.-Turkish relationship. In Congress,
Representatives in districts populated by Armenians generally support
the measure, while those well cudgeled or coddled by the President
or Pentagon don't. Official pressure has led many sponsors of the
resolution to withdraw their support.

One feature of the decades-old script is new: the Turkish threats have
greater credibility today than in the past. Mainly this is because
the U.S. war in Iraq has dramatically increased Turkish leverage over
Washington. Some 70% of U.S. air cargo en route to Iraq passes through
Turkey, as does about one-third of the fuel used by the U.S. military
there. While Turkey may react negatively in the short term, recognition
of the genocide is warranted for four reasons. First, the House
resolution tells the truth, and the U.S. would be the 24th country
to officially acknowledge it. In arguing against the resolution,
Bush hasn't dared dispute the facts. An Administration that has shown
little regard for the truth is openly urging Congress to join it in
avoiding honesty. It is inconceivable that even back in the days when
the U.S. prized West Germany as a bulwark against the Soviet Union,
Washington would have refrained from condemning the Holocaust at
Germany's behest.

Second, the passage of time is only going to increase the size of
the thorn in the side of what is indeed a valuable relationship with
Turkey. Many a U.S. official (and even the occasional senior Turkish
official) admits in private to wishing the U.S. had recognized the
genocide years ago. Armenian survivors are passing away, but their
descendants have vowed to continue the struggle. The vehemence
of the Armenian diaspora is increasing, not diminishing. Third,
America's leverage over Turkey is far greater than Turkey's over
the U.S. The U.S. brought Turkey into NATO, built up its military
and backed its membership in the European Union. Washington granted
most-favored-nation trading status to Turkey, resulting in some $7
billion in annual trade between the two countries and $2 billion
in U.S. investments there. Only Israel and Egypt outrank Turkey
as recipients of U.S. foreign assistance. And fourth, for all the
help Turkey has given the U.S. concerning Iraq, Ankara turned down
Washington's request to use Turkish bases to launch the Iraq invasion,
and it ignored Washington's protests by massing 60,000 troops at
the Iraq border this month as a prelude to a widely expected attack
in Iraqi Kurdistan. In other words, while Turkey may invoke the
genocide resolution as grounds for ignoring U.S. wishes, it has a
longer history of snubbing Washington when it wants to.

Back in 1915, when Henry Morgenthau, the U.S. ambassador to Turkey,
protested the atrocities to the Turkish Minister of the Interior,
the Turk was puzzled. "Why are you so interested in the Armenians
anyway?" Mehmed Talaat asked. "We treat the Americans all right."

While it is essential to ensure that Turkey continues to "treat the
Americans all right," a stable, fruitful, 21st century relationship
cannot be built on a lie.