Articles mentioning the Armenian Genocide
Armenians may find that by April, Time?s 'Person of the Year', Obama,
will change his mind on the usage of the word 'genocide'
Independent.ie WebSearch
By Robert Fisk
Saturday December 27 2008
If reporting is, as I suspect, a record of mankind's folly, then the
end of 2008 is proving my point. Let's kick off with the man who is not
going to change the Middle East -- Barack Obama -- who last week, with
predictably, became 'Time's' "person of the year". But buried in a long
and immensely tedious interview inside the magazine, Obama devotes just
one sentence to the Arab-Israeli conflict: "And seeing if we can build
on some of the progress, at least in conversation, that's been made
around the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will be a priority."
"Building on progress?" What progress? On the verge of another civil
war between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, with Benjamin
Netanyahu a contender for Israeli prime minister, with Israel's
monstrous wall and its Jewish colonies still taking more Arab land, and
Palestinians still firing rockets at Sderot, and Obama thinks there's
"progress" to build on?
I suspect this nonsensical language comes from the mental mists of his
future Secretary of State. "At least in conversation" is pure Hillary
Clinton -- its meaning totally eludes me -- and the giveaway phrase
about progress being made "around" the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is
even weirder. Of course, if Obama had talked about an end to Jewish
settlement building on Arab land, relations with Hamas as well as the
Palestinian Authority, justice for both sides in the conflict, along
with security for Palestinians as well as Israelis, then he might
actually effect a little change.
An interesting test of Obama's gumption is going to come scarcely three
months after his inauguration when he will have a little promise to
honour. Yup, it's that dratted April 24 commemoration of the Armenian
genocide when Armenians remember the 1.5 million of their murdered
countrymen on the anniversary of the day in 1915 when the first
Armenian professors, artists and others were taken off for execution.
Bill Clinton promised Armenians he'd call it a "genocide" if they
helped to elect him. George Bush did the same. So did Obama. The first
two broke their word and resorted to "tragedy" rather than "genocide"
once they'd got the votes, because they were frightened of all those
bellowing Turkish generals, not to mention -- in Bush's case -- the US
military supply routes through Turkey, the "roads and so ," as Robert
Gates called them, in one of history's more gripping ironies -- these
being the same "roads and so on" upon which the Armenians were sent on
their death marches in 1915.
So I bet you that Obama is going to find that "genocide" is "tragedy"
by April 24.
I browsed through Turkish Airlines' in-flight magazine while cruising
into Istanbul earlier this month and found an article on the historical
Turkish region of Harput.
"Asia's natural garden", "a popular holiday resort", the article calls
Harput. And you have to shake your head to remember that Harput was the
centre of the Christian Armenian genocide, the city from which Leslie
Davis, the brave American consul in Harput, sent back his eyewitness
dispatches of the thousands of butchered Armenians. But I guess that
all would spoil the "natural garden" effect. It's a bit like inviting
tourists to the Polish town of Oswiecim -- without mentioning that its
German name is Auschwitz.
But these days, we can all rewrite history. Take Nicolas Sarkozy, who
not only toadies up to Bashar al-Assad of Syria but is now buttering up
awful Algerian head of state Abdelaziz Bouteflika who's just been
"modifying" the Algerian constitution to give himself a third term in
office. There was no parliamentary debate, just a show of hands -- 500
out of 529 -- and what was Sarko's response? "Better Bouteflika than
the Taliban!" Not least when former Algerian army officers revealed
undercover soldiers as well as the Algerian Islamists (Sarko's
"Taliban") were involved in the brutal village massacres of the 1990s.
Talking of "undercover", I was amazed to learn of the training system
adopted by the Met lads who put Jean Charles de Menezes to death on the
Tube. According to former police commander Brian Paddick, the Met's
secret rules for "dealing" with suicide bombers were drawn up "with the
help of Israeli experts". What? Who were these so-called "experts"
advising British policemen how to shoot civilians on the streets of
London? The same men who assassinate wanted Palestinians in the West
Bank and Gaza?
Not that our brave peace envoy, Lord Blair, would have much to say
about it. He's the man, remember, whose only proposed trip to Gaza was
called off when yet more "Israeli experts" advised him that his life
might be in danger. Anyway, he'd still rather be president of Europe,
something Sarko wants to award him. That, I suppose, is why Blair wrote
such a fawning article in the same issue of 'Time' which made Obama
"person" of the year. "There are times when Nicolas Sarkozy resembles a
force of nature," Blair grovels. will Blair now tell us he's going to
be involved in those "conversations" with Obama to "build on some of
the progress" in the Middle East?
Today's Zaman, Turkey
Dec 28 2008
The Armenian apology campaign and the Ottoman Ergenekon
by IHSAN YILMAZ
The apology regarding the terrible fate of the Armenians in 1915
sparked harsh debates in Turkey. The same sections that vehemently
opposed President Abdullah Gül's visit to Armenia are this time
blaming the signatories of the campaign. I will now simply repeat what
I had to write during the debates surrounding Gül's visit. I think we
have to keep reiterating that there are certain sections in the
country -- among them the Ergenekonian deep state -- that do not want
a solution to the problems with Armenia so that they can meddle with
Turkey's domestic and foreign politics. Any solution to the Armenian
issue will not make them happy.
This is a simple summary of modern Turkish history. Turkey is
surrounded by enemies and thus we need strong nationalist
authoritarian guardians to protect us. Now, as the Justice and
Development Party's (AK Party) "zero problems with neighbors policy"
has shown, we can enter into dialogue with our neighbors and talk
about our differences. I hope that we can succeed in doing this with
Armenia as well.
As far as I can see, an overwhelming majority of people do not have
any problem with entering into dialogue with Armenia. Even the
terrible incidents around 1915 and the Armenian Secret Army for the
Liberation of Armenia (ASALA) terror organization's assassinations of
our diplomats did not change Turks' positive feelings toward
Armenians. Generally speaking, the remaining Armenians did not face
any hostility from Turks. Yet the state's position is a completely
different story.
Even in the law, Armenians have not been treated as first-class
citizens. The Turkish state's definition of citizen has somehow --
unofficially and in practice -- been limited to Muslims. Non-Muslim
Turkish citizens could never get sensitive bureaucratic
positions. This is in full contrast to the Ottoman experience. In
terms of diversity and tolerance, the Republic of Turkey is light
years behind the Ottomans.
The state has always denied that there was any Armenian massacre
ordered by the state. I am not a historian and have not studied the
1915 incidents in detail. But whenever I -- as an ordinary Turk --
think about the issue, the Turkish state's treatment of its other
citizens instantly comes to mind and my mind starts drawing
parallels. I know very well that this is not a scientific technique or
instrument utilized by historians, but not every Turk has to be a
historian, and they still have feelings, ideas and opinions on certain
matters.
Yes, whenever I start thinking about the Armenian issue and the
incidents of 1915, the state's treatment of Kurds in southeastern
Turkey comes to mind. Banning their mother tongue is a prime
example. Could there be any bigger torture than that? Then I remember
thousands of young people -- leftist, rightist, Kurdish -- who were
continuously tortured in Turkish prisons just after the 1980
coup. Then I remember how Turkey had to pay many thousands of dollars
in compensation on many occasions to our citizens of Kurdish
background just because some of our soldiers made them eat cow dung.
Then I think that if some of our administrators and bureaucrats could
do all of these things to our citizens in this age and time, then
like-minded Ottoman politicians, administrators and bureaucrats would
find it suitable to react to Armenian hostilities -- encouraged by the
great powers and Russia -- by simply deciding to exile them to Syria
without taking enough precautions about health and safety
issues. Moreover, some "Ottoman Ergenekonians" could easily target
these civilians.
My conscience and my reading of modern Turkey, including the Ergenekon
case, convince me that the Ergenekonian-like ultra-patriots who
thought the country was in danger -- and it was indeed in danger --
could easily massacre Armenian civilians and that they would not
really need any legislation or document signed by a minister to do
that. I find it funny when our nationalist historians try to prove
that there are not any documents signed by the Ottoman authorities to
order the Armenian massacre. Did today's Ergenekonians need such a
document to make Kurdish villagers eat cow dung or to kill many
people?
THE "ARMENIAN APOLOGY" ISSUE
Turkish Daily News
Dec 26 2008
The "Apology to the Armenians" campaign that a group of well-known and
influential Turkish intellectuals have initiated has seriously divided
the nation. Judging by the angry reactions from various quarters
opposing this campaign it is clear that if some kind of a referendum
were held today, the majority would vote against such an apology.
The reason is because the people that know the least about the events
that lead to the tragedy of 1915 are contemporary Turks, who have
been raised on large doses of official history.
Official history in Turkey says that the Armenian rose up in arms,
collaborated with the enemy, and therefore were the self-initiators
of what befell them in a civil war that they lost.
The fact that a "genocide" was perpetrated, however, is vehemently
denied by the Turkish state, and a large portion of the population,
their explanation being that people killed and were killed on both
sides.
However the shroud on 1915 has been slowly lifting in recent years
in this country. There is today in Turkey an increasing body of
literature on the Armenian issue, both for and against as far as the
genocide debate is concerned.
Few who castigate Turkey for denying the freedom of expression on
the Armenian issue appear to be aware that you can even purchase the
famous "Blue Book" on the events of 1915, co-authored by historian
Arnold Toynbee, in bookshops.
The campaign by the intellectuals is just the latest and most forward
step in the direction of fully lifting this shroud over the Armenian
issue. More and more Turks are coming around to understanding that
"something very serious" happened a century ago in these lands.
The signatories to the apology petition, whose number has reached over
23,500 as of yesterday, include diplomats, academics, journalists,
actors, businessmen etc. The fact that they would be grossly
outnumbered were a referendum to be held is, ultimately, of little
consequence.
It is the intellectuals in a society who represent the "quality"
of that society, rather than the crowd that merely represents a
"quantity." Therefore one cannot dismiss the campaign by the
intellectuals as "irrelevant," as some in this country are doing.
What is not clear is how this campaign will be received on the Armenian
side. While some appear happy, the hard-core "Dashnak elements" are
wary, considering this to be "a new Turkish ploy to drag attention
away from the genocide, and the question of compensation."
One has to understand that for many Armenians the concept of "justice
for 1915" is synonymous with "vengeance for 1915." The reluctance on
the Armenian side to respond to the Turkish intellectuals with any
sign of empathy for the millions of Muslims that died during the same
period, in the same geography, is also noteworthy.
It is equally telling that no Armenian organization should have come
out and displayed even an iota of empathy for the large number of
Turkish diplomats and members of their families who died at the hands
of Armenian terrorists.
Had some Armenians done so, this would have strengthened the hand of
the "Apology to the Armenians" campaign. Instead an angry debate is
raging among Armenians about whether there should be a rapprochement
with the Turks at all.
The latest victim in this context appears to be Ara Sarafian, of the
London based Gomidas Institute, who is being attacked by some members
of the Armenian diaspora for "going Turk," due to some objective and
reconciliatory remarks he has been making.
The fact that the Turkish petition by the Turkish intellectuals
empathizes with the "Great Tragedy" of 1915, rather than using the
word "genocide," has also angered Armenians who refuse to see the
important development that this step represents for Turkey and for
Turkish-Armenian relations as far as for well-intentioned people on
both sides are concerned.
In fact, the campaign in question probably has more to do with the
"post-modern civil war" that is raging in Turkey between liberal and
democratic groups and the more atavistic and autocratic elements,
than it has with the Armenian issue.
In the meantime, the disgusting insinuation by Republican Peoples
Party, or CHP, deputy Canan Aritman, to the effect that President
Gul did not oppose the intellectuals campaign strongly because his
grandmother was a secret Armenian, also drove many to signing the
petition.
The simple fact is that the petition, which can be seen in
www.ozurdiliyoruz.com, has turned out to be a powerful devise for
people to avail of if they want the world to see which groups in this
country they do not identify with, or belong to, in any way.
This, of course, begs the question of whether I personally signed
the petition, as many of my friends have done. I did not, even if I
support the idea behind it, and explained my reasons why in my column
in Milliyet. These I will repeat here.
I completely agree with the first sentence of the petition. My
conscience too does not accept a denial or a belittling of the "Great
Tragedy" that befell the Armenian people in 1915. I stand opposed to
everything that prevents us from learning everything there is to know
about these events.
I support the carrying of the objective facts acquired about these
events to new generations so that "the lesson of history" may be
learned and such ugliness not be repeated, wishful thinking as this
may be.
I do not, however, agree with the second part of the petition
which wants me to come up "with my share of the apology" to the
Armenians. I see nothing in my family history that should make me
apologize personally, unlike of the signatories.
Neither do I believe in the concept of "collective guilt" on the
basis of race or religion, as this has dangerous connotations, and
is an idea that should not be toyed with in these dangerous times.
[does this not describe the rationale of the perpatrators of the Armenian Genocide?]
Besides, as one Western ambassador underlined very aptly recently,
what is expected on the Armenian side is not the "personal apologies"
of individual Turks, even if they act collectively.
What is expected is that the "Turkish state" apologizes to the
Armenians, the way Willy Brandt did to the Jews, in an act of "mea
culpa." This I simply do not see happening any time soon.
The campaign by the intellectuals, given the acrimonious debate it has
stirred in Turkey, has probably made the state even more reluctant
than ever not to come up with even a semblance of an apology, let
alone a bona fide apology.
It might arguably, therefore, have been more effective for the
intellectuals to call on the Turkish state to recognize the events of
"The Great Disaster of 1915," rather than perpetuating a policy of
total denial.
This does not mean, however, that this petition has been a useless
exercise. It has, to the contrary, been very useful in terms of
representing a fresh stepping stone in the process of Turkeys
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No comments:
Post a Comment