Press Release - Call for UK Recognition of the Armenian Genocide to further, 'Real' Human Rights in Turkey

Press Release

Armenia Solidarity

British-Armenian All-Party Parliamentary Group

& Nor Serount Publications

Call for UK Recognition of the Armenian Genocide to further real Human Rights in Turkey

Turkish and Kurdish democrats and human rights activists called for change in British Policy on the Armenian Genocide to promote Human Rights Reform in Turkey. At the invitation of Armenia Solidarity, the British-Armenian All-Party Parliamentary Group & Nor Serount Publications on Wednesday, 2nd of May 2007, in the House of Lords, in the UK parliament, they addressed a meeting on British recognition of the Genocide of the Armenians to wider Human Rights issues in Turkey. The meeting was sponsored, chaired and moderated by the Rt Hon Baroness Park of Monmouth.

Ragip Zarakoglu, Turkish author, human rights activist and publisher, characterised Turkey as a 'security state' despite essentially cosmetic changes to some legislation. Notwithstanding changes in names of the courts, the same mindsets in the legal processes were delivering unchanged judgements contrary to the long-term interests of the people in Turkey and their progress towards democratisation.

Recognition of the Armenian Genocide and respect for the Kurds are two important steps that would facilitate real changes needed within the country. Denying the realities of history was the rallying point for ultra-nationalists who were encouraged by the silence of the USA and Britain. This reflected badly on the standing of these countries as it demonstrated double standards compared to the way they approached other human rights issues. The number of Islamists in Turkey was relatively low but the policies of other countries was making them more influential, for example by allowing to attack democrats. The paradox is that Europe is apprehensive of ultra-nationalists yet creates conditions for them to thrive.

Murat Aktas, the Kurdish journalist and political sociologist, referred to the deep-rooted long-standing attitudes in Turkish society that had to be confronted. There is a culture of xenophobia against non-Muslims including Christians and Alevis, and tendency to humiliate anyone not of Turkish origin. Hrant Dink's assassination and other extra-judicial killings gave the message that the ultra-nationalists can kill when they want to in pursuit of their objectives. This is not just a Turkish problem but one that involves all humanity.

According to British author Desmond Fernandes, British parliamentarians should be clear that denial of the Armenian Genocide by Turkey is linked to the repression of non-Turkish minorities. Britain could not continue with its current attitudes of facilitating denial in the face of the unequivocal statements of the International Association of Genocide Scholars, and persuading Turkey to move on this would lead to true democratisation and relief from the current state oppression. Britain has a special role because of its contemporaneous judgement that there had been crimes against humanity*.

* May 24, 1915 Joint Declaration of Entente/Allied Powers -- Russia, France & Great Britain:

"In view of these new crimes of Turkey against humanity and civilization, the Allied governments announce publicly…that they will hold personally responsible…all members of the Ottoman government and those of their agents who are implicated in such massacres."

Guerre 1914-1918, Turquie, 887. Armenie, 1, (May 26, 1915).

FO 371/2488/51010 (May 28, 1915).

Armenia Solidarity - Tel 07876 561398 or 07718 982732, eilian@nant.wanadoo.co.uk, eilian@nantperis.wanadoo.co.uk

British-Armenian All-Party Parliamentary Group - Tel 01494 816 757, baappg.bazil@btinternet.com

Nor Serount Publications - Tel 020 8997 1200, norserount@btconnect.com

U.S. Jews enter debate on Armenian/Turkish history

By Ron Kampeas, Jewish Telegraphic Agency United States Jewish groups are caught in the middle of a growing political struggle between two of their traditional friends, Turks and Armenians.

Top Turkish officials and Turkish Jewish leaders in recent weeks have sought help from U.S. Jewish leaders to stave off an effort in the U.S. Congress to define World War I-era massacres of Armenians by Ottoman Turks as genocide.

Rep. Adam Schiff, a Jewish congressman whose district includes Burbank and Glendale and stretches to Temple City, represents a substantial Armenian constituency. He has tried multiple times to pass such a resolution and this time has garnered nearly 200 co-sponsors for his non-binding resolution (HR106), and believes he has the backing of Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), speaker of the House of Representatives. Pelosi has met with U.S. Armenian leaders.

"The fevered intensity of the lobbying shows they realize it has the strongest support in recent years," Schiff said.

Los Angeles-based Jewish World Watch (JWW) this year has also become involved in the issue; on Friday, April 27, the Jewish and Armenian communities will observe the 92nd anniversary of the Armenian genocide in a Shabbat dinner at Valley Beth Shalom in Encino, with His Eminence Archbishop Hovnan Derderian, Primate, Western Diocese, American Church of North America as the guest of honor. JWW is also actively urging Congress to support HR106.

The Turkish lobbying has had some effect. B'nai B'rith International, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the American Jewish Committee and the JewishInstitute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) are set to convey a letter from Turkish Jews who oppose the resolution to U.S. congressional leaders.

The ADL and JINSA have added their own statements opposing the bill.

"I don't think congressional action will help reconcile the issue," said ADL National Director Abraham Foxman. "The resolution takes a position; it comes to a judgment. "The Turks and Armenians need to revisit their past. The Jewish community shouldn't be the arbiter of that history, nor should the U.S. Congress."

Schiff says the resolution reflects the historical reality. He notes that Raphael Lemkin, a Jew who coined the term "genocide" in 1943 to describe Nazi actions against Jews, cited the Armenian massacres as a precedent.

The historical parallels between the two events help explain the Jewish community's reluctance to back the Turkish effort to stop Schiff's resolution.

Off the record, Jewish officials say a community struggling to stem the tide of Holocaust revisionism is hardly in a position to endorse efforts to deny what Lemkin and other Holocaust chroniclers have described as the Holocaust's antecedent.

Estimates of the number of Armenians killed in the massacres vary from 300,000 -- the official Turkish number -- to more than 1 million.

Additionally, Jewish and Armenian community leaders have a history of friendly relations. Armenians, who are Christians, have in the past let Israeli leaders know that if the Old City of Jerusalem is partitioned in a peace agreement with the Palestinians, they would prefer that the Armenian Quarter remain under Israeli control.

"I'm pleased Jewish organizations have resisted efforts by Turkey," Schiff said. "I would encourage them to go beyond resisting pressure to affirmative support to recognize this genocide."

That's not likely. Turkey is the closest Muslim ally to the United States and Israel, and participates in joint military exercises with both nations. Jews also appreciate the relatively safe existence Turkey's Jewish community has enjoyed for centuries.

Significantly, a Jewish community delegation, led by community president Silvyo Ovadya, was one of three delegations Turkey sent to Washington in recent months. The other two were Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul's entourage in February, and a multiparty delegation of six senior lawmakers that arrived this week. All three met with U.S. Jewish leaders, as well as
administration and congressional officials.

The Jewish delegation, whose visit coincided with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's annual policy forum in March, warned U.S. Jewish leaders that passage of the resolution would harm Turkey's Western tilt and could make things uncomfortable for the country's Jews.

The parliamentary delegation predicted no such backlash against the Jews, appreciating the Jewish decision to hold back and Israel's own reluctance to characterize the 1915 massacres as genocide.

"Turkey and Israel have a vested interest in each other's welfare and safety," said Sukru Mustafa Elekdag of the opposition Republican People's Party.

Instead, they warned of broader consequences for the U.S.-Turkish alliance.

"It will hurt the feelings of Turks," said Yasar Yakis, a founding member of the ruling Justice and Development Party and the delegation's leader. The delegates cited the experience of France, where the National Assembly last year recognized the massacres as genocide. Turkey has since rolled back some commercial ties with France.

"If it passes, I cannot exclude very important negative consequences on all aspects of relations, including defense relations," Yakis said.

If so, it would typify Turkey's behavior toward Israel. Turkey frequently issues harsh denunciations of Israeli policy toward the Palestinians, yet bristles and threatens consequences over the merest hint of Israeli criticism of Turkey.

Elekdag said the genocide resolution could become an issue in elections later this year. "Our public is extremely sensitive on these matters. Unwanted events could happen," he said.

Turks perceive the push as a show of Armenia's muscle, the lawmakers said. They believe the Armenian government wants to distract international attention from its treatment of its native Azerbaijanis. Turks feel close to Azerbaijanis, Muslims who speak a Turkic language.

The parliamentarians wondered why U.S. Jews were holding back from fully opposing the resolution, and speculated that it might have to do with the Turkish government's decision last year to meet with leaders of Hamas, the ruling party in the Palestinian Authority that rejects Israel's existence and embraces terrorism.

Onur Oymen, vice president of the opposition Republican People's Party, said Israel had moved on from the Hamas controversy, and so should U.S. Jews.

"The Jewish community should not change its position because of one moment," he said, noting that his party had vehemently opposed the meeting.

The Turkish Embassy in Washington ran a full-page ad in Monday's New York Times calling for a commission of historians from Armenia, Turkey and other nations to investigate the World War I-era events.

"Support efforts to examine history, not legislate it," the ad said.

Turkey would abide by whatever the commission concludes, the visiting delegations have said. Schiff ridiculed the idea. He likened it to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent conference to provide an "objective" opinion on the Holocaust, essentially an exercise in Holocaust denial.

"It's somewhat akin to Ahmadinejad hosting a conference on the Holocaust to invite people to deny it," he said. "The idea of a conference I find an offensive stratagem."

Turkey's refusal to recognize Genocide strains relations with West

U.S. Commission:

Turkey's continued refusal to address the Armenian Genocide remains a
source of tension between U.S. and other Western democracies and
Turkey, said the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom
(USCIRF) in its annual recommendations released on May 2.

USCIRF is a bi-partisan federal body created by Congress through the
International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 "to monitor the status of
freedom of thought, conscience, and religion or belief abroad, [...] and
to give independent policy recommendations to the President, the
Secretary of State, and the Congress."

In the Turkey portion of its 2007 report, USCIRF details formal
restrictions and other violations of freedom of religion for both
majority Muslims and minority Christian communities. It notes,
however, that "the consequences of some of Turkey's state policies
toward religion have been particularly detrimental for religious
minorities," such as Armenians.

"Built into the founding of Turkish identity was the implicit
understanding that citizens other than ethnic Turks residing in Turkey
are potentially suspect, since they allegedly harbor a secret desire
to secede from and hence, dismember the country," says the report.

"This fear of dismemberment, which has fueled a strain of virulent
nationalism in Turkey, continues to hold sway in some sectors of
society, resulting in state policies that actively undermine ethnic
and minority religious communities, and, in some cases, threaten
their very existence. The Commission learned in meetings that the
Greek Orthodox and Armenian Orthodox communities are focal
points for this perception and its resultant policies."

The report points to prosecution and subsequent murder Hrant Dink
over ""insulting" the Turkish state because of his use of the term
"Armenian genocide" in his public remarks and written publications" as
"just one example" of such policies.

The report says that even though "during the Commission's visit, the
issue of the Armenian genocide was not raised by any interlocutors,
the continued refusal of the Turkish government to recognize the event
continues to be a source of controversy in Turkey's relations with
other western countries, including the United States." Visit
http://www.uscirf.gov to read the full report.

RWANDA GENOCIDE EXHIBIT REVISES WORDS ON ARMENIANS

UNITED NATIONS, April 30 (Reuters) - An exhibit on the lessons of the
genocide in Rwanda opened on Monday, three weeks after Turkey forced
its delay because of references to the murders of Armenians during
World War One.

The language on the Armenians was changed to say "Ottoman Empire"
instead of "Turkey" and does not include the number of people killed
on panels in the exhibit that include photos, statements and video
testimonies.

There was no immediate reaction from Turkey but Armenian envoys and
sponsors of the exhibit, the British-based Aegis, said they were
satisfied with the compromise.

Originally, the lettering on a panel said: "Following World War One,
during which 1 million Armenians were murdered in Turkey, Polish
lawyer Raphael Lemkin urged the League of Nations to recognize crimes
of barbarity as international crimes," Smith said.

The new wording says: "In 1933, the lawyer Raphael Lemkin, a Polish
Jew, urged the League of Nations to recognize mass atrocities against
a particular group as an international crime. He cited mass killings
of Armenians in the Ottoman empire in World War I and other mass
killings in history. He was ignored."

Some 1.5 million Armenians perished at the hands of Ottoman Turks,
according to historians. Turkey, whose diplomats had protested the
exhibit, denies any systematic genocide, saying large numbers of
both Christian Armenians and Muslim Turks died in a partisan conflict
raging at that time.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon opened the exhibit in commemoration
of the 13th anniversary of the Rwanda genocide, in which 800,000
people, mainly Tutsis and moderate Hutus, were massacred by militant
Hutus in April 1994.

Ban recalled how he visited Rwanda last year and talk to "those
who had endured one of humankind's darkest chapters."

But Ban, in a gesture to Turkey, said the exhibit did not "attempt
to make historical judgments on other issues."

He said the United Nations "has taken no position on events"
that took place before World War Two "that led to the birth of the
organization."

Ban also said the post of special advisor on genocide, now held by
Juan Mendez of Argentina, would be elevated to a full-time rather
than a part-time position.

He said governments had agreed in principle of the "responsibility
to protect" civilians when their governments could or would not do so.

"Our challenge now is to give real meaning to the concept by taking
steps to make it operational," Ban said. "Only then will it truly give
hope to those facing genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity
and ethnic cleansing."

The exhibit was installed in the U.N. visitors lobby by the
British-based Aegis Trust. The trust campaigns for the prevention
of genocide and runs a center in Kigali, the Rwandan capital,
memorializing the victims of the massacres.

While Ban did not mention the deaths in Sudan's western region of
Darfur, Aegis made clear that Darfur was on its agenda and that
learning from the Holocaust or from Rwanda meant "had practical
implications for the world today."

"Genocide never happens by chance. It takes time to plan and
organize. The warning signs are always there," one of the panels in
the exhibit said.

Secularism v Democracy

A military coup was avoided, but an early election looms. Turkey's problems are postponed, not solved

ITS prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, said it was “a shot fired at democracy.” Others labelled it an “e-coup”. Whatever you call it, a threat to intervene against Turkey's mildly Islamist government posted on the general staff's website on April 27th has hurt democracy and deepened the chasm between the secular and the pious. A defiant Mr Erdogan has called for an early general election. It may take place in July, instead of the scheduled date, November 4th. Opinion polls suggest that his AK Party will again beat its secular rivals.

How would the army respond to that? Seasoned Turkey-watchers who once scoffed at the notion of another coup say that it now can't be ruled out. Many admit that the European Union is partly to blame. EU dithering over Turkish membership has dented enthusiasm: when Olli Rehn, the enlargement commissioner, scolded the army for its meddling, few paid attention.

The row began when Mr Erdogan nominated his foreign minister, Abdullah Gul, to replace President Ahmet Necdet Sezer, who steps down on May 16th. Mr Gul once flirted with political Islam; his wife wears a headscarf (as do 55% of Turkish women). That was deemed to pose an existential threat to the secular republic. Deniz Baykal, the leader of the main opposition Republican People's Party (CHP), succeeded in blocking Mr Gul's election in a first parliamentary vote on April 27th, claiming, dubiously, to the constitutional court that parliament lacked a quorum.

It was up to the court to decide if Mr Baykal was right. But the generals were taking no chances. In their ultimatum, delivered before the 11 judges gave their verdict on May 1st, the army listed examples of how the government was supposedly allowing the country to drift towards an Islamic theocracy. When the court then ruled in favour of the opposition, nobody was surprised.

Nearly a million secularist Turks gathered in Istanbul on April 29th, to stage their second mass protest against the government in a fortnight. That makes it hard for Mr Erdogan and his AK Party to dismiss the crisis as a brazen attempt by the army to reassert its influence. Chanting “no to coups” and “no to sharia” the demonstrators said their free-wheeling lifestyles were under threat. Many were women who say they are the most vulnerable of all. Some cited attempts by the AK to create “alcohol-free zones”, others a bid to outlaw adultery. Many declared that an AK president, prime minister and parliamentary speaker was more than they could bear.

Yet none was able to name a single law promoted by the party that directly challenged the secular tenets of the constitution—because there is none.

The deeper malaise felt by these urban secular “white Turks” is really rooted in the millions-strong migration from rural Anatolia to the big cities in past decades. Assertively pious and aggressively entrepreneurial, this new class, championed by Mr Erdogan, has been steadily chipping away at the economic and political power of the secular elite. “The white Turks see women with headscarves walking dogs [and] jogging in their neighbourhoods and it drives them mad,” says Baskin Oran, a liberal academic in Ankara. That shock may fade; in time it will become more difficult for the generals to turn secular hostility to Anatolian carpetbaggers into paranoia about creeping Islam, he reckons.

The secularists have weaknesses too. The CHP, founded by Turkey's republican hero, Kemal Ataturk, has been out of power for more than a decade. Kemalism once transformed Turkey, but has now failed to transform itself, says Mr Oran.

While the cocky Mr Baykal shows no signs of self-reproach, an unprecedented bout of soul-searching prompted by the cyber-coup is beginning to grip the AK. During four and a half years it has failed to assuage secular suspicions and to reach out to the opposition. The party should have realised that the country was not ready to have an AK president, a party chief concedes. The present rumpus could have been averted had Mr Erdogan picked a presidential candidate outside his party. Now the prime minister suggests changing the constitution to let the people choose the head of state themselves.

That might be a step forward, but sceptical liberals say Mr Erdogan's views on democracy are selective. “Where was he when Kurdish politicians were being arrested and beaten and Nokta [a dissident magazine] raided by police?” asks one.

The government's response to the army's ultimatum was unusually crisp. Cemil Cicek, the justice minister, called it “unacceptable” and reminded the generals that they were constitutionally bound to take their orders from the prime minister, not vice versa.

It is not just the army's taste for politics that is worrying. The top general recently said a military attack on Kurdish rebels based in northern Iraq was “necessary” and “useful”. Though he agreed that the constitution gave parliament authority over the armed forces, many fear that the army may decide to attack all the same. “They are itching to,” whispers a westerner who observes Turkish security. This may explain why America's response to the political crisis has been so lame. “The last thing they want is a quarrel with the Turkish military,” a European official observes. The nightmare for America is Turkish and American soldiers exchanging fire in Iraq. Based on the past week's events, nothing can be ruled out.

The Economist, (continues to be impressed by reforms) The Battle for Turkey's Soul

If Turks have to choose, democracy is more important than secularism

At a time when Muslim fundamentalism seems to be on the rise all around the world, the sight of somewhere between half a million and a million people marching through Istanbul in defence of secularism is a remarkable one. But then Turkey is a remarkable place. As a mainly Muslim country that practises full secular democracy, it is a working refutation of the widespread belief that Islam and democracy are incompatible.

That's not the only reason why Turkey matters. It is a big and strategically important country, has the largest army in NATO after America's, offers a crucial energy route into Europe that avoids Russia and is the source of much of the water in the Middle East. If the negotiations under way for its entry into the European Union succeed, it will be the EU's biggest country by population. But the reason that the world's eyes are fixed on it this week is the possibility that the army might intervene to limit Islam's role in government. For if Turkey cannot reconcile Islam and democracy, who can?

Cyber soldiers

Over the years Turkish democracy has shown itself to be vibrant yet fragile. A string of military coups and interventions stand as testimony to the army's self-appointed role as the guardian of Kemal Ataturk's secular republic. The most recent instance came a mere ten years ago—the so-called post-modern coup that led to the ousting of a previous moderate Islamist government.

On April 27th the army suggested that it might do the same again. Just before midnight, after a day of inconclusive parliamentary voting for a new president, the army's general staff posted a declaration on its website that attacked the nomination of Abdullah Gul, the foreign minister, for the presidency, and hinted none too subtly at a possible coup against the mildly Islamist Justice and Development (AK) government led by Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the prime minister who nominated Mr Gul. On May 1st the constitutional court annulled the first round of parliamentary voting for the president, saying not enough members were present. Mr Erdogan promptly said he would call a snap parliamentary election. Street protests, first in Ankara and then in Istanbul, have heightened tension. The cities' coffee houses are buzzing with conspiracy theories.

Given the fractious state of the main opposition parties, and his government's record over the past four years, pollsters expect Mr Erdogan to win another thumping majority. He may then choose to stick with Mr Gul for the presidency, or he may look for another candidate. But he is unlikely to pick one who meets the objections of the army and the secularists.

Turkey's secularists have always mistrusted the AK Party, which has Islamist roots and in government has sometimes toyed with moderate Islamist measures. They especially dislike Mr Gul and Mr Erdogan because their wives sport the Muslim headscarf, which in Ataturk's republic is banned in public buildings. They fret at the prospect of such people controlling not only the government and parliament, as now, but the presidency as well. They fear that once the AK Party has got that triple crown, it will show its true colours—and that they will be rather greener. Given that a fundamental reading of Islamic texts sees no distinction between religion and the state, and that fundamentalism is spreading in the Muslim world, it is understandable that people should entertain such fears.

Yet they do not justify a military intervention such as that of April 27th. However desirable it may be to preserve Ataturk's secular legacy, that cannot come at the expense of overriding the normal process of democracy—even if that process produces bad, ineffective, corrupt or mildly Islamist governments. Algeria, where 150,000 people died in a civil war after an election which Islamists won was annulled in 1992, holds a sharp lesson about what can happen when soldiers suppress popular will. Of course, Turkey is not Algeria; but armies everywhere should beware of subverting elections. It is up to voters, not soldiers, to punish governments—and they will now have the opportunity to do so in Turkey.

They may not want to. Mr Erdogan's government has been Turkey's most successful in half a century. After years of macroeconomic instability, growth has been steady and strong, inflation has been controlled and foreign investment has shot up. Even more impressive are the judicial and constitutional reforms that the AK government has pushed through. Corruption remains a blemish, but there is no sign of the government trying to overturn Turkey's secular order. The record amply justifies Mr Erdogan's biggest achievement: to persuade the EU to open membership talks, over 40 years after a much less impressive Turkey first expressed its wish to join.

Who cares what Europe thinks?

Unfortunately, the EU's enthusiasm for Turkish entry, never high, has visibly waned. Were Nicolas Sarkozy to win the French presidency on May 6th, that would be another setback to Turkey's ambitions: he is categorically against the notion of it ever joining the EU.

In practice there is no chance of Turkey actually signing on the dotted line for another decade. But the perception in the country that so many current members are against it matters, for it reduces the EU's influence. Were the prospects of EU membership obviously brighter, the army would not have intervened as brutally. As it is, the EU's mild condemnation was shrugged off in Ankara, especially when the Americans said nothing at all. Their influence in Turkey is also much diminished, mainly because the war in Iraq has inflamed anti-American feeling.

Given the West's declining influence on their country's actions, Turks themselves must resolve their political crisis. The best way to do that would be to reject the army's intervention by re-electing the AK Party. The secularists' fears of the creeping Islamisation are understandable; but the AK Party's record does not justify it, and military intervention is no way to avert it. For the sake of the state they are trying to protect, Turkey's soldiers should stay out of politics.

MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA

----------------------------------------------
PRESS AND INFORMATION DEPARTMENT
Government House # 2, Republic SquareYerevan 0010, Republic of Armenia
Telephone: +37410. 544041 ext 202
Fax: +37410. 562543
Email: press@mfa.am
www.armeniaforeignministry.am


Speech by H. E. Vartan Oskanian
Minister of Foreign Affairs
At a Commemorative Evening
Conservatoire Royal
Brussels, April 25, 2007

Thank you Mr. du Vivier, for sharing this evening with us and conveying
your message from the halls of Brussels. And thank you Sergey and
Lusine. Sergey graciously accepted my invitation to join us this evening,
because I knew well that Sergey's message will resonate in this
hall and stay with us as the context for an evening of commemoration.

This is an evening of commemoration, much like those that are being
held in nearly every major city around the world this week. It is a day
of remembrance much like those that have been held every year for
the last half century.

But over these years, and especially since independence, the nature
and the purpose of our remembering have changed.

I would like to speak with you today not just about our past, but about
our future. I want to set the record straight about what we want for our
people, our country and our neighborhood. And I want to do that here
in this European capital that is the symbol of unity and not divisiveness.

Today, I want to talk about what we remember, how we remember and
how the reasons for remembering have evolved, just as our communities,
our country and the world around us have evolved. We have had a difficult,
painful past that we will continue to remember and honor. But let me be
clear, we don't want to live in the past. We want to reconcile with the
past, as we forge a future.

In Aleppo, Syria, where I grew up, remembering rituals consisted mainly of
gathering to hear the stories of someone who had suffered things we could
not really imagine. Aleppo was the end of the road for those who were
deported and marched thru the deserts. This is where those with no hope
of returning to their homes set up ramshackle, flimsy refugee camps,
trying to cope with enormous loss, with wounds that refused to heal.

I think back now at our nave efforts to lessen the grief of the survivors
by encouraging them to forget and not to speak of their experiences. We
did not understand that their lives and outlooks, memories and
experiences were forever traumatized. That is how they lived, how they
raised their children, how they interacted with the societies and countries
in which they found refuge. This we learned years later, as we read about
Holocaust survivors trying to cope.

Only when solitary memories were transformed into formal, community-
wide tributes, did the survivors begin to feel that their own individual
histories of horror had significance beyond the personal. Remembering
became a shared activity, a commemoration. Decades later, programs
such as Remembering the Cambodian Genocide, and the Remembering
Rwanda Project served the same purpose.

For Armenians, commemorations became the outlet for the disbelief and
outrage at how this historical event deeply affected our way of being in
the world, our sense of personal and collective identity. This was a new
generation, no longer victims, a generation that had come to understand
that what had been done had been done not to 1.5 million individual
Armenians who comprised 2/3 of a nation, but to an entire people who
had been massacred, uprooted, deported and whose way of life, whose
culture and history, had forever been altered. And all this, by
government decree.

For a long time, we memorialized these events by ourselves.
We were left alone because there were two versions of history
the official and the alleged. The acknowledged and the denied.
The Ottoman Empire that fell was succeeded by a Republic
with an immaculate, almost divine, self-image. Such murderous
acts and their tolerance could not fit within this self-definition.
Therefore, a new history was invented in which these acts
never happened. The crimes were never committed. The records
of their own military tribunals were ignored, the eye-witness
reports of missionaries and diplomats were disputed.

Our history became the Oalleged truth. Their history was the official
truth. And since the official truth had the backing of the entire state
apparatus, ours became the forgotten genocide.

Occasionally, some would raise their voices against forgetting, and for
condemnation. In 1987, Mr. du Villier and others introduced a resolution
at the European Parliament, calling the events of 1915, Genocide. Since
then, a host of countries have joined us in recognition and in
commemoration.

These commemorations are very critical in the face of growing threat of
genocide in the world today from Bosnia to Rwanda to Darfur.

Commemoration is a way of countering the distortion of history,
countering the subversion of truth by power.

Commemoration is the victory of truth over expediency.

Commemoration is a condemnation of the violence.

Commemoration is a call to responsibility, and therefore to prevention.

Commemoration is an acknowledgement of the past, and even the
present, but not an obstacle to the future.

And herein lies the irony ,­ I don't want to say impasse in our relations
today, with Turkey.

We cannot build a future alone. But neither can we build a future
together with a neighbor that is disingenuous about the past, our
common past.

This Monday's International Herald Tribune carried an advert that
also ran in many major newspapers around the world. It is a perfect
distillation of Turkey's willful blindness to historical and political
processes surrounding it. Just as it succeeded in creating a new
history for itself, it wants the world and us to dismiss all other
histories not in line with its own.

Turkey calls for Armenians to agree to a historical commission
to study the genocide. Not because none have ever convened,
but because Turkey does not like their conclusions! Reputable
institutions such as the International Association of Genocide
Scholars, the International Center for Transitional Justice have
seriously studied these historic events, independent of political
pressures, and independently arrived at the conclusion that the
events of 1915 constituted Genocide.

Does Turkey want to go shopping for yet another commission,
hoping for different results? It has gagged its writers and
historians with a criminal code that punishes free speech.
What does it expect these historians to study? And with a
closed border between our two countries, how does it expect
these historians will meet to explore this topic? This is why we
wonder about the sincerity and usefulness of the historical
commission idea.

Despite these obvious obstacles to serious scholarly exchange, we have
agreed to an intergovernmental commission that can discuss everything,
so long as there are open borders between our two countries. If Turkey
need discussion, we are ready to cooperate. But we don't want
discussion for discussion's sake; we don't want discussion of the past to
replace today's vital political processes that are essential for us, for
Turkey, for the region. Yes, we want to explore and understand our
common past, together. But we don't want that past to be the sole
link between our peoples and our countries. We don't want that
past to condition the future.

We, the victims of Genocide, have not made Turkey's recognition
of that act conditional for our present or future relations. Turkey,
however, wants Armenians in and out of Armenia to renounce our
past, to understand their denial of our past, as a condition for
moving forward. Who is trapped in the past?

I welcome the words of a Turkish intellectual who has said, I am neither
guilty nor responsible for what was done 90 years ago. But I feel
responsible for what can be done now.

I, too, believe that we must distinguish between the Ottoman
Empire and today's government of Turkey. But I must say that
although that is possible to do when speaking of the events of
1915, it becomes increasingly difficult to do when speaking
about the denial of the Turkish state today.
As Elie Wiesel said, the denial of genocide is the continuation of
genocide So, how do we distinguish between the two states, if the
ideology that is put forth and defended is the same?. This policy of
denial is both intellectually and morally bankrupt. And it is costing us
all time. The later they get around to making a distinction between their
stand and that of their predecessors, the harder it will be to dissociate
the two regimes in people's minds.

It is absurd that 92 years later, Turkey can say, in public, that the
Armenian allegations of genocide have never been historically or
legally substantiated.

Dear Friends,

Armenians were one of the largest minorities of the Ottoman Empire.
Where did they go? Is it possible that all our grandmothers and
grandfathers colluded and created stories? Where are the descendants
of the Armenians who built the hundreds of churches and monasteries
whose ruins still stand today? What kind of open and honest discussion
is possible with a government that loudly and proudly announces its
renovation of the medieval Armenian jewel of a church, Akhtamar in
Lake Van, while it carefully, consistently, removes every reference to its
Armenianness from all literature and signs?
What is Turkey afraid of?

It is a political reality that Armenia is not a security threat to Turkey.
It is a political reality that both Turkey and Armenia exist today in the
international community with their current borders.

Today, as the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Armenia, as the
grandson of genocide survivors, I can only say that Armenia and
Turkey are neighbors who will remain neighbors. We share a border.
We can only move forward together.

There is no national history in a vacuum. It can neither be created nor
transcended in a vacuum. For France and Germany, England and
France, Poland and Germany, in order to transcend their histories of
conflict, they had to transcend the past together to transform their
future. That, too, can only be done together.

Not always does history give mankind a second chance. In this
neighborhood, with our neighbors, we have a second chance.
We can make history, again, by transcending boundaries and
opening the last closed border in Europe and moving forward,
together.

Europe ,­ the premise of Europe and the legacy of Europe is the
distinct promise of our age. Europe is where one takes from the
past whatever is necessary to move forward. Europe is where
former enemies and adversaries can dismiss and condemn
actions, policies and processes, but not peoples. Instead, people
in Europe move from remorse to reconciliation, and embrace
the future. This is precisely what we want to do in our region.
Thank you.