Armenian Genocide News
Another letter to the Times:
Sir,
The picture that all was fine for Armenians in Ottoman Turkey before
1894 is a false one (article, March 7). Ten years earlier, the
British Ambassador, Lord Dufferin, had commissioned a series of
reports from his consuls on the condition of Armenians in the
Ottoman provinces. His covering note declared, 'These documents
repeat the same tale of wrong, misery, corrupt and incapable
administration.' One consul described the local police as 'the
scourge of the country; they live on the people'. Another could not
understand how those Armenians who remained managed to stay put.
The oppression of Armenians was extreme, and developed into a series
of pogroms in 1895, which were notable for rousing the elderly
Gladstone to make speeches in Chester and Liverpool.
The point about the Ottoman killings of Armenians in 1915 was that
they were organized by the party machine of the Committee of Union
and Progress, and set in motion by local party members, who had
almost total authority. There was no civil war, since there was no
'other side', just an oppressed populace trying to stay alive. The
Muslims who died were mostly Kurds, not Turks, and their deaths were
caused by the diseases spread by the large number of unburied
Armenian bodies found throughout the region. All Armenians of
Anatolia were targeted, including women and children (who were not
included in the events of 1895); the preferred methods were
shooting, or long death marches where the end came through
exhaustion or starvation. It would be hard to find a clearer case
of genocide.
Faithfully,
Christopher J. Walker
The picture that all was fine for Armenians in Ottoman Turkey before
1894 is a false one (article, March 7). Ten years earlier, the
British Ambassador, Lord Dufferin, had commissioned a series of
reports from his consuls on the condition of Armenians in the
Ottoman provinces. His covering note declared, 'These documents
repeat the same tale of wrong, misery, corrupt and incapable
administration.' One consul described the local police as 'the
scourge of the country; they live on the people'. Another could not
understand how those Armenians who remained managed to stay put.
The oppression of Armenians was extreme, and developed into a series
of pogroms in 1895, which were notable for rousing the elderly
Gladstone to make speeches in Chester and Liverpool.
The point about the Ottoman killings of Armenians in 1915 was that
they were organized by the party machine of the Committee of Union
and Progress, and set in motion by local party members, who had
almost total authority. There was no civil war, since there was no
'other side', just an oppressed populace trying to stay alive. The
Muslims who died were mostly Kurds, not Turks, and their deaths were
caused by the diseases spread by the large number of unburied
Armenian bodies found throughout the region. All Armenians of
Anatolia were targeted, including women and children (who were not
included in the events of 1895); the preferred methods were
shooting, or long death marches where the end came through
exhaustion or starvation. It would be hard to find a clearer case
of genocide.
Faithfully,
Christopher J. Walker
Taraf, Turkey
Genocide
06.03.2010
Ahmet Altan
Everyone is in front of their tv, watching in excitement as if it's a
national football game. What is going on? A commission of the US
Congress is voting on the `Armenian Genocide' resolution. We lose the
`game' 23-22 as a result of various lobbying activities.
And all hell breaks loose.
Comments, discussions, spewing fury at the US , questions of `will the
Incirlik base be closed down?' directed at the minister of foreign
affairs. Amongst all this hoolabaloo, my favorite comment comes from a
speaker who denounces this decision: ` Turkey is no longer a country
that can easily be humiliated.'
When a commission of the US Congress votes for `genocide', we are
`humiliated'. Do you know what humiliation is?
Humiliation is millions of people holding their breaths for the
outcome of a few votes in somebody else's parliament. That is
humiliation.
Humiliation is to find the result of that commission's vote of vital
importance, to feel defeated because of the vote of one
man. Humiliation is the conviction that the whole of one's national
identity depends on the decision of one commission=3B humiliation is
to have to wait the outcome of a vote in some other country's
parliament, biting one's fingernails.
Turkey is not humiliated because that commission approved that
resolution with a difference of one vote. Turkey is humiliated because
it itself cannot shed light on its own history, has to delegate this
matter into other hands, is frightened like hell from its own past,
has to squirm like mad in order to cover up truths.
The real issue is this:
Why is the `Armenian Genocide' a matter of discussion in American,
French and Swiss parliaments and not in the parliament of the Turkish
Republic ? Why can we, ourselves, not discuss a matter that we deem so
vital that we perceive the difference of one vote as a source of
humiliation?
If you cannot discuss your own problems, you deserve to be
humiliated. If you keep silent in a matter that you find so important,
you deserve to be humiliated. If you try to shut others up, you are
humiliated even more. The whole world interprets the killing of so
manyArmenians, -a number we cannot even estimate properly- as
`genocide'.
Genocide is a legal term. The massacre carried out by the Unionist
largely conforms to the description of that legal term. For Turks and
Armenians, the word `genocide' has become an obession. The Turks
insist that `it never was genocide' and the Armenians call anyone who
says it was not genocide `liars'.
Both sides spend millions of dollars to convince the world that their
viewpoint is the valid viewpoint. It is almost as if their mutual
efforts have created a `genocide sector'. Why then, can we not speak
about this incident in detail?
How many hundreds of thousands of Armenians did the Unionists kill?
Why? We claim `Armenians attacked us, that's why we killed
them'. Fine, but the `attacking' Armenian gangs were on the Eastern
border, what crime did hundreds of thousands of Armenians living
elsewhere in Anatolia commit, other than being Armenian?
Can someone be punished purely because of his ethnic origin?
What do you call punishing someone not because they `committed a
crime' but because they `belong to the same ethnic group as someone
who you say committed a crime'?
This is murder. And to tell the truth, hundreds of thousands of
murders targeting the same ethnic group does fall into the category of
`genocide'. Unionists committed heinous murders=3B the cruelty they
subjected Armenians to is beyond imagination. Why are we trying to
cover up this horrible crime, why are we trying to defend the
murderers, to disguise their crimes, why are we squirming to keep
truth buried, even at the risk of being humiliated?
The history of every society is tainted with crime and blood. We
cannot undo what has been done but we can show the courage to face the
truths, to discuss the reality. We can give up trying to silence the
world out of concern for incriminating the founders of the republic.
We can ask questions.
And the first question would be `how come we never read about an
incident that involves the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people
in our history lessons?' Even this reality makes the situation
`suspicious'. If you are not brave enough to face a truth that
happened ninety-five years ago, you deserve to be humiliated. If you
struggle to hide an incident that happened a century ago and base how
seventy million people relate to the world at large on a `lie', you
deserve to be humiliated.
No one dares humiliate brave people who are not afraid of the
truth. If you feel humiliated, you should take a hard look at yourself
and what you hide.
06.03.2010
Ahmet Altan
Everyone is in front of their tv, watching in excitement as if it's a
national football game. What is going on? A commission of the US
Congress is voting on the `Armenian Genocide' resolution. We lose the
`game' 23-22 as a result of various lobbying activities.
And all hell breaks loose.
Comments, discussions, spewing fury at the US , questions of `will the
Incirlik base be closed down?' directed at the minister of foreign
affairs. Amongst all this hoolabaloo, my favorite comment comes from a
speaker who denounces this decision: ` Turkey is no longer a country
that can easily be humiliated.'
When a commission of the US Congress votes for `genocide', we are
`humiliated'. Do you know what humiliation is?
Humiliation is millions of people holding their breaths for the
outcome of a few votes in somebody else's parliament. That is
humiliation.
Humiliation is to find the result of that commission's vote of vital
importance, to feel defeated because of the vote of one
man. Humiliation is the conviction that the whole of one's national
identity depends on the decision of one commission=3B humiliation is
to have to wait the outcome of a vote in some other country's
parliament, biting one's fingernails.
Turkey is not humiliated because that commission approved that
resolution with a difference of one vote. Turkey is humiliated because
it itself cannot shed light on its own history, has to delegate this
matter into other hands, is frightened like hell from its own past,
has to squirm like mad in order to cover up truths.
The real issue is this:
Why is the `Armenian Genocide' a matter of discussion in American,
French and Swiss parliaments and not in the parliament of the Turkish
Republic ? Why can we, ourselves, not discuss a matter that we deem so
vital that we perceive the difference of one vote as a source of
humiliation?
If you cannot discuss your own problems, you deserve to be
humiliated. If you keep silent in a matter that you find so important,
you deserve to be humiliated. If you try to shut others up, you are
humiliated even more. The whole world interprets the killing of so
manyArmenians, -a number we cannot even estimate properly- as
`genocide'.
Genocide is a legal term. The massacre carried out by the Unionist
largely conforms to the description of that legal term. For Turks and
Armenians, the word `genocide' has become an obession. The Turks
insist that `it never was genocide' and the Armenians call anyone who
says it was not genocide `liars'.
Both sides spend millions of dollars to convince the world that their
viewpoint is the valid viewpoint. It is almost as if their mutual
efforts have created a `genocide sector'. Why then, can we not speak
about this incident in detail?
How many hundreds of thousands of Armenians did the Unionists kill?
Why? We claim `Armenians attacked us, that's why we killed
them'. Fine, but the `attacking' Armenian gangs were on the Eastern
border, what crime did hundreds of thousands of Armenians living
elsewhere in Anatolia commit, other than being Armenian?
Can someone be punished purely because of his ethnic origin?
What do you call punishing someone not because they `committed a
crime' but because they `belong to the same ethnic group as someone
who you say committed a crime'?
This is murder. And to tell the truth, hundreds of thousands of
murders targeting the same ethnic group does fall into the category of
`genocide'. Unionists committed heinous murders=3B the cruelty they
subjected Armenians to is beyond imagination. Why are we trying to
cover up this horrible crime, why are we trying to defend the
murderers, to disguise their crimes, why are we squirming to keep
truth buried, even at the risk of being humiliated?
The history of every society is tainted with crime and blood. We
cannot undo what has been done but we can show the courage to face the
truths, to discuss the reality. We can give up trying to silence the
world out of concern for incriminating the founders of the republic.
We can ask questions.
And the first question would be `how come we never read about an
incident that involves the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people
in our history lessons?' Even this reality makes the situation
`suspicious'. If you are not brave enough to face a truth that
happened ninety-five years ago, you deserve to be humiliated. If you
struggle to hide an incident that happened a century ago and base how
seventy million people relate to the world at large on a `lie', you
deserve to be humiliated.
No one dares humiliate brave people who are not afraid of the
truth. If you feel humiliated, you should take a hard look at yourself
and what you hide.
BILL ON RECOGNITION OF ARMENIAN GENOCIDE SUBMITTED
TO SPANISH PARLIAMENT
Noyan Tapan
March 9, 2010
MADRID, MARCH 9, NOYAN TAPAN. A bill on recognition of the Armenian
Genocide has been submitted to the parliament of Spain. The bill's
authors are three MPs representing the Republican Left of Catalonia
and the Union of Greens. Haylur program of the Public Television
Company of Armenia reported that these MPs also proposed including
a clause in the bill, by which the Spanish state shall support the
Armenian-Turkish normalization and call on the European Union to
assist the dialog between Yerevan and Ankara.
Noyan Tapan
March 9, 2010
MADRID, MARCH 9, NOYAN TAPAN. A bill on recognition of the Armenian
Genocide has been submitted to the parliament of Spain. The bill's
authors are three MPs representing the Republican Left of Catalonia
and the Union of Greens. Haylur program of the Public Television
Company of Armenia reported that these MPs also proposed including
a clause in the bill, by which the Spanish state shall support the
Armenian-Turkish normalization and call on the European Union to
assist the dialog between Yerevan and Ankara.
THE PAST IS DISTANCING ANKARA FROM EUROPE
by Vittorio Emanuele Parsi
La Stampa
March 6 2010
Italia
It was easy to predict that the Turkish Government would come up with
an extremely tough response to a vote taken by the US Congress' Foreign
Affairs Committee urging Turkey to acknowledge that the slaughter of
hundreds of thousands of Armenians in the course of World War I was
full fledged genocide, similar in every way to the Sho'ah that the
Nazi regime was to perpetrate a few decades later. But how come the
authorities in Ankara still adopt such an inflexible stance almost 100
years after those tragic events which, what is more, were perpetrated
by an institutional player (the Ottoman Empire) that is not the same
as today's Turkish Republic? The answer is that the Armenian people's
genocide is the most embarrassing thread linking the collapse of the
Ottoman Empire with the birth of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk's Republic.
The genocide reflected a plan to "Turanize" ("Turkify" - La Stampa
editor's note) the empire, replacing people's previous and now obsolete
loyalty to the sultan with a new and vigorous loyalty to a national
Turkish homeland which had yet to be built, to be "invented," as was
the case with other countries that took shape in the course of the
century. The plan intersected and partly rerouted the last desperate
attempt to reform the empire made by young Turks from the mid-19th
century on.
The reforming movement's nationalistic slide finally prevailed after
the Balkan wars of 1912 and 1913, and it was fuelled by the massacres
and enforced expulsions of the Muslim populace in the European
provinces that the empire had owned until that moment - massacres
perpetrated by Greeks, Serbs, and Bulgarians. The Turks responded
to those atrocities, which had not spared the Jews in Thessaloniki
either, with the first expulsions and massacres of Armenians and
Greeks in Anatolia.
Ethnic cleansing rose to new heights in World War I, reaching a peak
with the events of 1915. This cleansing operation was as ethnic and
it was religious, and it was explicitly and lucidly pursued by the
empire's new leadership class, a large part of which was to then
transfer to the new Republic established by Mustafa Kemal after the
victorious war against Greece and against the other occupying powers.
Even Kemal Ataturk himself, a renowned "nonconfessional," actually felt
that equating the concept of "a real Turk" with "a Sunnite Muslim"
served his cause perfectly. In fact, it is no mere coincidence that
he was hostile to all other religious faiths (including other branches
of Islam), or that he accorded Sunni Islam special treatment with the
Ministry of Religion, in accordance with a vision of the relationship
between "church and state" that bore a far greater resemblance to
King Henry VIII's English model than it did to the French republican
model with which it is often mistakenly compared.
In defending the Republic's origins from an embarrassing original sin,
Ankara's new overlords have shown that, albeit from a far more "pious"
standpoint, they continue to feel that Turkey's national identity is de
facto inseparable from its Islamic and Sunnite identity. In so doing,
they are taking another step that distances Turkey from the European
haven which they still formally claim to want to reach.
by Vittorio Emanuele Parsi
La Stampa
March 6 2010
Italia
It was easy to predict that the Turkish Government would come up with
an extremely tough response to a vote taken by the US Congress' Foreign
Affairs Committee urging Turkey to acknowledge that the slaughter of
hundreds of thousands of Armenians in the course of World War I was
full fledged genocide, similar in every way to the Sho'ah that the
Nazi regime was to perpetrate a few decades later. But how come the
authorities in Ankara still adopt such an inflexible stance almost 100
years after those tragic events which, what is more, were perpetrated
by an institutional player (the Ottoman Empire) that is not the same
as today's Turkish Republic? The answer is that the Armenian people's
genocide is the most embarrassing thread linking the collapse of the
Ottoman Empire with the birth of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk's Republic.
The genocide reflected a plan to "Turanize" ("Turkify" - La Stampa
editor's note) the empire, replacing people's previous and now obsolete
loyalty to the sultan with a new and vigorous loyalty to a national
Turkish homeland which had yet to be built, to be "invented," as was
the case with other countries that took shape in the course of the
century. The plan intersected and partly rerouted the last desperate
attempt to reform the empire made by young Turks from the mid-19th
century on.
The reforming movement's nationalistic slide finally prevailed after
the Balkan wars of 1912 and 1913, and it was fuelled by the massacres
and enforced expulsions of the Muslim populace in the European
provinces that the empire had owned until that moment - massacres
perpetrated by Greeks, Serbs, and Bulgarians. The Turks responded
to those atrocities, which had not spared the Jews in Thessaloniki
either, with the first expulsions and massacres of Armenians and
Greeks in Anatolia.
Ethnic cleansing rose to new heights in World War I, reaching a peak
with the events of 1915. This cleansing operation was as ethnic and
it was religious, and it was explicitly and lucidly pursued by the
empire's new leadership class, a large part of which was to then
transfer to the new Republic established by Mustafa Kemal after the
victorious war against Greece and against the other occupying powers.
Even Kemal Ataturk himself, a renowned "nonconfessional," actually felt
that equating the concept of "a real Turk" with "a Sunnite Muslim"
served his cause perfectly. In fact, it is no mere coincidence that
he was hostile to all other religious faiths (including other branches
of Islam), or that he accorded Sunni Islam special treatment with the
Ministry of Religion, in accordance with a vision of the relationship
between "church and state" that bore a far greater resemblance to
King Henry VIII's English model than it did to the French republican
model with which it is often mistakenly compared.
In defending the Republic's origins from an embarrassing original sin,
Ankara's new overlords have shown that, albeit from a far more "pious"
standpoint, they continue to feel that Turkey's national identity is de
facto inseparable from its Islamic and Sunnite identity. In so doing,
they are taking another step that distances Turkey from the European
haven which they still formally claim to want to reach.
FORMER UK AMBASSADOR TO ARMENIA: "I DON'T THINK TURKS
WILL DARE TO RUPTURE RELATIONS WITH U.S."
news.am
March 9 2010
Armenia
"While UK-Turkey relations are based on economic, political and
military interests, Armenian Genocide recognition by the country
will not be on agenda," said Former British Ambassador to Armenia
David Miller at the discussion of Armenian Genocide held last week
in London School of Economics.
According to RFE/RL, the discussion followed a presentation of
"Blue book" documentary as well as adoption of Armenian Genocide
Resolution by the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs. British
diplomat reckons that it will not affect significantly Armenia-Turkey
relations. "I admire the Congress decision resisting the pressure from
Turkey and U.S. Presidential administration. Despite the assertions
of Secretary Clinton that Genocide recognition will entail negative
consequences for Armenia-Turkey relations, I don't think so,"
Miller stated adding that Turks as ever will raise a big dust. Same
as it was during the Genocide recognition by France lasting only few
weeks. "I don't think Turks will dare to rupture relations with U.S.,
while Armenia-Turkey relations will undergo no changes," he declared.
Being well-aware of the UK's foreign policy, Miller openly said that
Armenian issue will hardly be on the agenda of the British Government
or Parliament in the near future.
In his turn, lord of UK Parliament Eric Avebury noted: "We need
concise and brief materials for enlightening parliamentarians on
the matter. There is a small British-Armenian parliamentary group
in the UK Parliament. We have elections pending shortly, and it's a
good chance for sending candidates letters and take their opinions
on Armenian Genocide."
news.am
March 9 2010
Armenia
"While UK-Turkey relations are based on economic, political and
military interests, Armenian Genocide recognition by the country
will not be on agenda," said Former British Ambassador to Armenia
David Miller at the discussion of Armenian Genocide held last week
in London School of Economics.
According to RFE/RL, the discussion followed a presentation of
"Blue book" documentary as well as adoption of Armenian Genocide
Resolution by the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs. British
diplomat reckons that it will not affect significantly Armenia-Turkey
relations. "I admire the Congress decision resisting the pressure from
Turkey and U.S. Presidential administration. Despite the assertions
of Secretary Clinton that Genocide recognition will entail negative
consequences for Armenia-Turkey relations, I don't think so,"
Miller stated adding that Turks as ever will raise a big dust. Same
as it was during the Genocide recognition by France lasting only few
weeks. "I don't think Turks will dare to rupture relations with U.S.,
while Armenia-Turkey relations will undergo no changes," he declared.
Being well-aware of the UK's foreign policy, Miller openly said that
Armenian issue will hardly be on the agenda of the British Government
or Parliament in the near future.
In his turn, lord of UK Parliament Eric Avebury noted: "We need
concise and brief materials for enlightening parliamentarians on
the matter. There is a small British-Armenian parliamentary group
in the UK Parliament. We have elections pending shortly, and it's a
good chance for sending candidates letters and take their opinions
on Armenian Genocide."
No comments:
Post a Comment