MJ

Depends on your location.

I doubt very much that is is an Armenian epic. Actually, I think it is a Persian Epic.

No it is not true. First of all, as far as the oil goes, even if ANWR has indeed 6 months supply in order that to serve the entire US, it means a huge reserve. Primarily, because it is not supposed to serve the entire US, but the nearby areas – primarily California, Oregon and Washington. Additionally, anybody who has ever studied Equilibrium Theory in Economics, would know that when the industry is operating at the limit of its capacity, it enters an unstable mode, which implies that very slight disruption of the equilibrium between supply and demand, especially under the conditions of limited storage, transportation capacity and production, may result in huge price variations. This is called “deficit,” in layman’s terms. Even if the supply in ANWR is what they claim to be, that supply would have huge impact in tranquilizing the prices, and prevent the Marginal Refineries (or the plants or Gas Companies) from pushing the prices up. Additionally, until explorations are done, nobody can tell how much oil is there. The current proposals on ANWR are not about oil extraction but of oil exploration. This is what the left opposes too – not to the extraction, since it is not on the agenda, yet, but to the explorations. Also, the presumed area to be designated for explorations is of a size of a metropolitan area airport, while ANWR is of the size of South Carolina. Additionally, people in Alaska, Republican or Democrat alike are overwhelmingly for the exploration. But the biggest lie of all is that ANWAR is not as much about oil as it is about natural gas. States like California are in a worse shape as far as the natural gas supply is concerned than the oil supply. It is known that while the oil resources in ANWR still need to be investigated, its natural gas resources are immense. Plus, there are already oil and gas exploration stations and pipelines in place on about 150 miles distance from the location subject to disputes. Plus, everybody knows that the explorations and the extractions in modern days may be done without any harm to the environment. There is a deficit of oil, natural gas and power in the US. If this deficit is not eliminated in a short period of time, it would lead to inflation, and other devastating for the global economy events. I have always thought that Bill Mahr is a complete idiot, and have found his humor very dull. The company that you mentioned (don’t know how qualified the Republican was), has no expertise in energy, whatsoever, no expertise in economics, and all represent the ultra-left of the political spectrum – bog mouths with no content – just a lot of rhetoric. The energy companies are not the enemies of the nation. They are the providers of the much critical infrastructures and are the nerve of the entire economy. Additionally, the energy companies are primarily owned by non-energy companies, that is commercial banks. Additionally, a very substantial percentage of the pension funds are the debt and equity holders in energy industry. Traditionally, the pensioners have found a safe investment heaven financing the energy companies through purchase of their corporate debt issues. Additionally, these companies are publicly traded ones, primarily, and anybody can own their shares. I have known environmentalists in Armenia and in the US. Somehow, interestingly enough, I have found that as a rule these people are incompetents and zealots. They raise issues, which they don’t understand, and they play on the emotions of the masses “these industrialists are poisoning our environment.” No environmentalist has ever done anything constructive, but to engage in poisoning of peoples minds alleging some “vast conspiracies.” One more thing. Over the very short run, conservation, as well as the tax subsidies would be the only available alternatives. But no conservation may resolve the existing problems in the strategic domain. Those who overemphasize conservation, have no idea on the scales that they are talking about, and for them, the economy is a snapshot at the current time. They don't see the dynamics of it. While every person with basic education in economics and finance, knows that money has time value, and so that to eliminate the approaching rampant problems in a decade, investments have to be made today. We all have or will have children, and we all breath the ear, or share the joy for the surrounding nature. None of us use special filters when inhaling. But some of us try to exercise reason and common sense, others find refuge in one or another form of extremism. The environmental zealots are no any difference. Just check their backgrounds. As a rule, their profession is subsidized by the society, i.e. they are not creators of national wealth, but consumers. That’s why most frequently, those “environmental outcries” go hand-to-hand with socialistic orientation, and if you look at it, they mostly align with socialistic forces. In conclusion, much along the same lines, Armenian environmentalists were advocating the shut down of the Armenian Nuclear Plant as environmentally questionable. It was a world trend to claim that Nuclear Plants are contaminating the air with radiation, even though there was no such evidence. In fact, the Nuclear Plants are the cleanest sources of power. OK, the Armenian Nuclear Plant was shot down, though for other reasons. What was the outcome – years of darkness and total demoralization of the population. This is the level of mentality of the environmentalists, in general. [ May 17, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

Wednesday May 16 5:16 PM ET Energy Glance By The Associated Press, Some recommendations expected to be in President Bush (news - web sites)'s energy task force report on Thursday: Production: -Ease restrictions on oil and gas development on public lands. -Open 8 percent of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. -Ease permit process for refinery expansion and construction. -Speed license procedures for hydroelectric dams and geothermal plants. Power Plants: -Streamline approval process for siting power plants. -Give government authority to take property through eminent domain for power lines. -Provide tax breaks for developing clean coal technologies. -Ease regulatory barriers, including clean air rules to make plants more efficient. Nuclear: -Adjust regulations to speed relicensing of reactors and licensing of new plants. -Speed up process to ensure disposal of nuclear waste. -Urge a national nuclear waste repository. -Give tax breaks for purchase of nuclear plants. -Reauthorize law that limits industry liability from a nuclear accident. Renewable Energy: -Provide tax credits to encourage development of energy plants that use organic waste, or biomass. -Continue tax credits for wind energy generation. -Give tax credit of 15 percent for homeowners who purchase solar panels. Conservation: -Give tax credit for purchase of high-mileage, hybrid gas-electric vehicles. -Provide tax benefits and regulatory relief for co-generation plants that produce both heat and electricity -Expand federal Energy Star program to include not only businesses but schools, homes and hospitals. Other: -Review policy of economic sanctions with Iran to foster energy development. -Spur U.S. participation in Caspian Sea oil and gas development. -Step up diplomatic efforts to expand oil production in Latin America, Asia and Caspian Sea nations such as Azerbaijan. -Review whether to increase flexibility in the web of regional ``boutique'' gasoline blends that industry says contributes to supply shortages and price spikes, while maintaining clean-air standards.

Foreign Businessmen To Arrive In Armenia To Study Economic Situation YEREVAN (Noyan Tapan)--Foreign businessmen who attended the recent Armenia Investors Forum held in New York were mainly interested in Armenia's information technologies and mining industry. The forum, held May 9-11, was sponsored by the World Bank and its affiliate, the International Finance Corporation (IFC), with additional support from the US Trade and Development Agency (USTDA). At a press conference on Tuesday, Minister of Industry and Trade Karen Chshmaritian announced that the first group of foreign businessmen will arrive in Yerevan this week to study the economic situation in Armenia and to hold business negotiations. A second group will arrive in June. Twenty-five business plans were submitted at the forum which was attended by 130 representatives of Armenian enterprises and organizations, 130 Armenians from the Diaspora and 100 foreign businessmen. According to Chshmaritian, nine of these proposals refer to industry and the food industry, five to tourism, three to energy and three to information technologies. Other business plans concern the development of the transport sphere and the production of building materials. The government itself submitted only two programs for development and investment possibilities in the mining industry and energy sector. The other programs were submitted by the country's private sector and international organizations. Chshmaritian stated that before the forum there were some concerns regarding the presentation of Armenia's investment sector. However, the World Bank and the IFC considered the material presented by the Armenian side as good as those of leading foreign companies. According to the minister, both the Armenian government and private entrepreneurs consider the available conditions for free competition and free trade with CIS countries to be positive factors for investments. Among the obstacles to economic development are high transportation rates and red tape. An Armenian-Russian business forum will be held in September to stimulate investments in various spheres of the Armenian economy.

Second Armenia-Diaspora Conference Postponed YEREVAN (Noyan Tapan)--The commission in charge of making preparations for the second Armenia-Diaspora conference issued a statement on May 16 announcing the postponement of this year's conference. The commission cited the fact that 2001 is already an eventful year for Armenia, with major events planned for the 1700th anniversary of Christianity in Armenia, the 10th anniversary of Armenia's independence, the Second Pan-Armenian Games scheduled for August and other events. Diaspora representatives have also proposed a postponement of the conference in light of these celebrations. Thus, the Commission decided to postpone the conference for 2002. The Armenian foreign ministry will announce specific dates for the conference at a later time.

Eurasianet Organization May 16 2001 Leaders Need Majority Support in Compromise to Win Favor for Nagorno-Artsax Peace Settlement - Expert Jessica O'Brien: 5/16/01 In an Open Forum at the Open Society Institute on May 11, a month since OSCE peace talks on Nagorno-Artsax were held in Key West, U.S. Minsk Group co-chairman Carey Cavanaugh said "significant, concrete progress was made in Florida" and the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan felt "closer to peace than ever before." According to Cavanaugh, the greatest obstacle to a peaceful settlement is no longer at the negotiating table. "The people will have to be brought farther along by their leaders to understand the need for a settlement and to be able to embrace the settlement that may emerge from the peace process," said Ambassador Cavanaugh. "I think that's the hardest challenge facing Presidents Aliyev and Kocharian." Years of negotiations have worn down the intransigent positions of Armenian President Robert Kocharian and Azerbaijan President Heidar Aliyev regarding Artsax, but the public has been isolated from the evolving phases of the discussions, negotiations and, now, peace talks between the presidents. As a result, says Cavanaugh of Aliyev and Kocharian, "I think that they, themselves, are mentally in a different place than their populations." Kocharian and Aliyev have evolved an understanding of the fact that great compromises are the essential and only means of diffusing a situation that, status quo, leaves great room for renewed hostility to develop and is of no benefit to either country. Still, with few people privy to the negotiations that have been ongoing over this frozen conflict, the loyalties of the people in Armenia and Azerbaijan are more closely connected to the unbending terms that sent these nations to war over Artsax in the first place. Cavanaugh asserts that the peoples' resistance to compromise is not an indication that they favor renewed conflict. "You tend to hear, in Armenia and Azerbaijan, strong support for the idea of peace," he said. Ambassador Cavanaugh surmises that these unbending attitudes toward compromise are at least a partial result of the secrecy surrounding the negotiation process that has kept, and will continue to keep people from growing used to the exact terms of a settlement as they are established. Aliyev and Kocharian will only take their peace package to the people once it is complete. Until then, its precise terms will be known only to the parties and the mediation teams from the U.S., France and Russia. Cavanaugh defended the inevitability of secret peace talks with a nod to the efforts by Barak and Arafat to offer great compromises in a settlement that would resolve the longstanding conflict between Israel and Palestine. "As those elements of a solution for the Middle East became public they were ripped apart by oppositions who said, `you cannot do this - you cannot divide Jerusalem, you cannot compromise on the right of return - you cannot do this creative solution on the Temple Mount'." The terms of any single facet of compromise might unearth innumerable religious, cultural and historical debates, and this could hinder progress toward the ultimate goal of peace, obstructing a big picture view. Encouraging long-term perspective, Cavanaugh pointed to the increasing meaninglessness of borders between countries in Europe. "France and Germany spent two great world wars fighting with one another and now, if you want to drive from one to the other, you hop in your car and you go." This would clearly take a very long time to happen in Artsax, he said, but it was essential that the Azeri and Armenian people be encouraged to have a future-forward perspective that is not so bound up on particular aspects of the settlement. Still, the secrecy of the process may effect the public's ultimate acceptance of a peace settlement, and this is the ultimate paradox facing Aliyev and Kocharian. "[The peace process] requires secrecy but it complicates the very task I just spoke to before," says Cavanaugh, indicating the need to gain slow public favor for compromises that as yet remain unnamed. Aliyev and Kocharian have been countering this problem by speaking with leading political figures and members of their respective Parliaments in hopes of spurring an informed public dialogue on the subject of a peace settlement, and to spread the idea of the need for compromise. Neither is reported to have firmed up a plan for selling a settlement built on compromises to their people. For myriad reasons, it is an opportune time for Aliyev and Kocharian to introduce a peace settlement. These leaders are the beneficiaries of a mediation process facilitated by a "seamless cooperation" between the U.S., Russia and France; they are between election periods; and there is, in Cavanaugh's words, "no competing crisis" on the international scene at the present time. Still, Cavanaugh would not set what he called an "artificial deadline" on the peace process, as a partial peace settlement is in many ways no peace settlement at all. "The dilemma in working peace settlements is if you don't have the whole thing, in many ways you don't have anything," he said, likening the process to the successful construction of a bridge. Even if you have completed 80 or 90%, you will fall into the water if you try to drive across it prematurely. "Kocharian and Aliyev have made significant progress-- but it doesn't mean they'll succeed," said Cavanaugh. The road ahead remains difficult, but he is encouraged by their commitment and their preparedness to make serious compromises to bring a new future to the region and a far better life for their people. http://groong.usc.edu/news/msg31728.html

OK. You got me on the subject of alleging insincerity… I don’t have to know any details so that to have an attitude towards ASALA and similar organizations. The very fact that I don’t know about them much is indicative of my absence of pride, or excitement for their actions. I indeed think that their actions have been senseless and counterproductive, and they have not served any positive purpose, with all the allegations that they have done it with the purpose of raising awareness of the Genocide on the International arena. Do you want me to say that I am condemning their senseless violence? No, I am not going to say it until things are put in the right context. And only modern Turkey can put things in the right context. What disturbs me in your and many Turks’ attitude towards ASALA is the indications that I receive that following the official position of the government of Turkey, you want to put a sign of equality between the actions of ASALA and the Ittihat. How marvelous: “Ottomans have killed innocent Armenians, but ASALA has also killed innocent Turks.” What a quid pro quo, hah? This is all I have to tell you about ASALA, at this time. When we can resolve the real issues, we can also give a political and other assessment to the actions of ASALA. No statement of mine implies that the families of any guilty of innocent parties deserve being murdered. To the contrary, I have spoken about bringing the guilty parties to justice, and have claimed that we/nobody should take the mission of bringing the guilty to justice into our own hands. Additionally, all my postings in the past, which I am sure you are familiar with, indicate how much I despise the feeling, moreover, the actions of revenge. There are courts for those purposes – from the parliaments of the world to the courts of public opinion. The very fact of your such twisting of my statements is telling about your motives, I should say. From the very beginning of your arrival to this forum, you have tried to play with the concepts, maneuver and reinterpret what the meaning of “is” is. Let me make clear what all this is about: Since the late 19th century, the Ottoman Government has conducted a systematic policy of extermination of the Armenian nation under different pretexts. As a result, about half the Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire has been slaughtered without discrimination, the other half has been condemned to generations of misery. Regardless of what political terminology would you choose, this is one of the most hideous crimes of a state against its own population – call them “rebels, “renegades,” or whatever. I am yet to hear an unequivocal condemnation of it, even not from the Turkish Government, but say, the Turkish Academia, Turkish Association of Writers, other Intellectual Associations of Turkish intellectuals. So far, the condemnations that I hear, with the exception of some admirable Turkish individuals, are too Clintonesque to be accepted for acknowledgement. Regarding what Armenians have done… and my finding of excuses… There is not an iota of evidence that you can provide, which would support your allegation. Your desire of personalizing the argument is indicative only of the lack of arguments from your side. Why are you so nervous? What has happened? Have you learned something new, or have your old theories come down? Why cannot you argue on the merits? Is it because it is hard to argue on the merits? Why don’t I condemn ASALA for their actions, you mean? Here it is one more time: Because I am not going to condemn ASALA, first. I am first going to here you to unequivocally condemn the Government of the Ottoman Empire for the slaughter of more than a million of innocent people, first, next to condemn all those who are engaged in a cover up, including the vast segments of Turkish academia and intelligentsia, condemn the modern day Republic of Turkey for engaging in systematic policy of denial and forgery, and then, I would feel that it is my moral obligation to speak out about ASALA. “What would you think if I say Armenians had desired to be massacred because they were renegades? Can we accept it as an excuse or a “mitigating cause” for Ottomans?” Well, this has been the logic of your postings in our forum, with all the Clintonesque temperings of definitions, and the allegations of rebellion, and it is the official position of your government. What’s new about it? Isn’t it what you have been implying? And I have to thank you for the suggestion to research into the subject of ASALA, but should respectfully refuse. Have no interest in such marginal events in Armeno-Turkish history. And save your breath. It would be very difficult for you to equate their actions with the actions of your consecutive governments – both against the minorities and against the Turkish majority. About the French… Whatever they have done to the Anatolian people, you should take it with the French. There is no rationale to hold the French responsible for whatever they have done to the Anatolians in an Armenian Forum. “As long as you keep on blaming Turks for everything goes bad in your life, you will deserve to experience same nightmares again and again. How telling this last statement of your is, isn’t it? The controls didn’t work for a moment? Isn’t it for these types of occasions that is said: “Beware of the wolf who wears sheep’s mask?” After all, how different are you from the murderers, who I am sure had their own rationale in their hearts? Thank you again for the lesson on Imperialism. They were Imperialists, OK. But what was or what is still the modern Turkey? Colonialist? Being smart in the particular context subject to discussions has meant ability to distinguish the wolf from a sheep. Finally, show me that single declaration of the Turkish parliament, or the Turkish President, or the Turkish Prime Minister, where the fact of the Ottoman Empire’s atrocities, regardless if you would call it Genocide or apricot, has been recognized and condemned. Until you do it, I will call you “a lot of noise but no substance.” If your government really needs a dialog process with the Armenian government, have your government give some evidence of it. First, no dialog between the governments can take place without diplomatic relations – that is obvious, I think. Second, you don’t invite somebody to a dialog with you, and close your doors to him. Give me some evidence that your government wants an honest dialog. quote: I don't want to argue the numbers anymore, it is not humanistic. We are talking about people here; 5000 or 5 million doesn't changes the fact in my view. How convenient… Your finale sounds better than your introduction, I should say. You could’ve started there, instead of escalating the argument. But let me set the record straight. You have tried contrast the 2.5 million Turkish victims of the WWI to, let’s say, 1.5 million Armenian victims of the Genocide, as if it mitigates the crime of the Genocide. Additionally, the pretext of your statement has been that somehow Armenians had something to do with it, and “well, you have lost a lot of people, and we have lost a lot of people. This resolves the issue.” No, it doesn’t. In both cases, the responsibility of the lives of these about 4 million people is on the consciousness of the same government and the same leadership. Armenians have nothing to do with the 2.5 million Turkish loses. By the admission of the Turkish Generals of the time (there are references on such materials in our forum and I am sure you have seen them), about 600,000 Turkish solders have died only from typhus. The Generals subject to controversy have been found guilty by the Turkish public of the time and the Turkish courts, for their merciless usage of the Turkish solders on the capacity of human waves or, what is called, “cannon meat” in the WWI fronts. And it has been the decision of Turkey to enter the WWI – Armenians have not pushed Turkey towards that decision. Sure if we are talking about the human tragedy, it doesn’t make difference if it was the tragedy of Turkish families or Armenian families. But when we are talking about calling the guilty to justice, this is where it makes all the difference in the world. There has always been and still there is a lot of misery in the world. Millions of people have died in different wars, fro example WWII, millions of people are infected with AIDS and are condemned to slow death in Africa, millions of people suffer from hunger, tens of thousand of people in Armenia and Turkey have died from earthquakes. These types of human tragedies have no national, or ethnic, or religious boundaries. In this sense, Armenian lives are not more valuable than the Turkish lives. But crimes have context and there is an expectation, at least, of responsibility for the committed crimes. This is what you refuse to accept. This is where you want to twist things, depoliticize the history, and take the context out of it. You try to present the Armenian Genocide as a pure human tragedy, of which Turkish people have also seen enough. But the context is what makes all the difference in politics and history. Because the Armenians loses have not been a mere unfortunate event. They have been the result of organized, orchestrated and hideous policies of the central government of Turkey. And this is what has to be acknowledged and condemned. This is what it is about, and not about expressing sympathies to the dead. We are past the point of sympathy. Finally, about Genocide or not Genocide. I have referred you to the UN Resolution on the Genocide, of which the Republic of Turkey is a signatory, among many other states. I have asked you to explain me which point of the resolution the Turkish actions of the time do not satisfy? Your explanation basically has been “It is an incorrect definition.” Total absurd! This is what is defined to be Genocide. This is the meaning of that word according to its very definition. There is no other meaning to the word of Genocide other than what the resolution describes. Besides, why instead of questioning the meaning of the Genocide, you wouldn’t raise an issue with the Turkish Government of pulling out of the list of the signatories of this “incorrect” Resolution, then? Is there something more rational that you may suggest? This would be my last argument with you, personally. I am getting tired of these pointless exchanges.

3.103 Question: What is the difference between the Constitutions of the USA and USSR? Both guarantee freedom of speech. Answer: Yes, but the Constitution of the USA also guarantees freedom after the speech.

Article in Holocaust and Genocide Studies The following is an article concerning Heath Lowry that appeared in Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Vol. 9, Number 1, Spring 1995, pages 1-22 Professional Ethics and the Denial of Armenian Genocide By: Roger W. Smith College of William and Mary Williamsburg, Virginia Eric Markusen Southwest State University Marshall, Minnesota Robert Jay Lifton The City University of New York This article examines Turkish efforts to deny the Armenian genocide of 1915-17. Specifically, it exposes an arrangement by which the government of Turkey has channeled funds into a supposedly objective research institute in the United States, which in turn paid the salary of a historian who served that government in its campaign to discredit scholarship on the Armenian genocide. After a short review of the Armenian genocide and a range of Turkish denial efforts, three documents are reproduced in full. They include a letter that Robert Jay Lifton received from the Turkish Ambassador to the United States, and two documents that were inadvertently included with the Lifton letter, a memorandum to the Turkish Ambassador and a draft letter to Lifton for the Ambassador's signature. After a critical analysis of each document, we discuss the harmfulness of genocide denial and explore why intellectuals might engage in the denial of known genocides. The article concludes with reflections on the relationship between scholars and truth. The will to truth is cowed by pressure of numerous kinds, reasons of state on the one hand, economic necessities on the other, and, not least, the pure careerism of intellectuals who put their expertise in the service of power as a matter of course. When governments and professional elites find reward in the sophistries of might makes right, truth is bound to suffer. [1] Terrence Des Pres It has been said that gentlemen do not read other gentlemen's mail. But suppose that one receives a letter from the Turkish ambassador to the United States rebuking one's scholarship because one has written about what the ambassador refers to as "the so-called 'Armenian genocide,' allegedly perpetrated by the Ottoman Turks during the First World War." And suppose that, inadvertently, the envelope also contains an internal memorandum written by the executive director of what claims to be a non-political, scholarly institute and that memorandum reveals much about the mentality of those who engage in denial of the Armenian genocide. What then? The attempt to confuse and intimidate academics by such letters is an ongoing process. The letter that we shall present is from the current ambassador, but two of us have received such letters from his predecessor. The difference is that only in the letter to Robert Jay Lifton is there created an opportunity to see what takes place behind the scenes, what assumptions guide the work of scholars who engage in denial, and what the implications are in terms of professional ethics. Our concern is not with the person who wrote the memorandum and drafted the letter, but with the role such scholars perform in the subversion of scholarship and with their assumptions which substitute a narrative of power for the search for truth. In such narratives, as Terrence Des Pres has noted, "knowledge" is what serves the interest of the powerful (particularly the state), the goal of knowledge is seen as control rather than freedom, and "truth" is whatever officials (and their adjuncts) say it is. [2] The Armenian Genocide and Turkey's Attempt to Deny It From 1915 to 1917 the Young Turk regime in the Ottoman Empire carried out a systematic, premeditated, centrally-planned genocide against the Armenian people. One of the documents authenticated by Turkish authorities in 1919 is a telegram sent in June 1915 by Dr. Sakir, one of the leaders of the secret organization that carried out the planning and implementation of the genocide. He asks the provincial party official who is responsible for carrying out the deportations and massacres of Armenians within his district: "Are the Armenians, who are being dispatched from there, being liquidated? Are those harmful persons whom you inform us you are exiling and banishing, being exterminated, or are they being merely dispatched and exiled? Answer explicitly...." [3] The evidence of intent is backed also by the outcome of the actions against the Armenians: it is inconceivable that over a million persons could have died due to even a badly flawed effort at resettlement. Moreover, the pattern of destruction was repeated over and over in different parts of Turkey, many of them far from any war zone; such repetition could only have come from a central design. Further, the reward structure was geared toward destruction of the Christian minority: provincial governors and officials who refused to carry out orders to annihilate the Armenians were summarily replaced. [4] Armenian men were drafted into the army, set to work as pack animals, and subsequently killed. Leaders were arrested and executed. Then the deportations of women, children, and the elderly into the deserts of Syria and Iraq began. The American ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, Henry Morgenthau, immediately recognized that the forced marches into the desert, and the atrocities that accompanied them, were a new form of massacre. "When the Turkish authorities gave the orders for these deportations, they were simply giving the death warrant to a whole race; they understood this well, and in their conversations with me, they made no particular attempt to conceal the fact." [5] The ambassadors of Germany and Austria, representatives of governments allied with Turkey, also quickly realized what was taking place. As early as July 1915, the German ambassador reported to Berlin: "Turks began deportations from areas now not threatened by invasion. This fact and the manner in which the relocation is being carried out demonstrate that the government is really pursuing the aim of destroying the Armenian race in Turkey." And by January 1917 his successor reported: "The policy of extermination has been largely achieved; the current leaders of Turkey fully subscribe to this policy." [6] More than one million Armenians perished as the result of execution, starvation, disease, the harsh environment, and physical abuse. A people who lived in eastern Turkey for nearly 3,000 years lost its homeland and was profoundly decimated in the first large scale genocide of the twentieth century. At the beginning of 1915 there were some two million Armenians within Turkey; today there are fewer than 60,000. Despite the vast amount of evidence that points to the historical reality of the Armenian genocide_eyewitness accounts, official archives, photographic evidence, the reports of diplomats, and the testimony of survivors [7], denial of the Armenian genocide by successive regimes in Turkey has gone on from 1915 to the present. [8] The basic argument of denial has remained the same, it never happened, Turkey is not responsible, the term "genocide" does not apply. The tactics of denial, however, have shifted over the years. [9] In the period immediately after World War I the tactic was to find scapegoats to blame for what was said to be only a security measure that had gone awry due to unscrupulous officials, Kurds, and common criminals. This was followed by an attempt to avoid the whole issue, with silence, diplomatic efforts, and political pressure used where possible. In the 1930s, for example, Turkey pressured the U.S. State Department into preventing MGM Studios from producing a film based on Franz Werfel's The Forty Days of Musa Dagh, a book that depicted aspects of the genocide in a district located west of Antioch on the Mediterranean Sea, far from the Russian front. [10] In the 1960s, prompted by the worldwide commemoration of the fiftieth anniversary of the genocide, efforts were made to influence journalists, teachers, and public officials by telling "the other side of the story." Foreign scholars were encouraged to revise the record of genocide, presenting an account largely blaming the Armenians or, in another version, wartime conditions which claimed the lives of more Turks than Armenians. [11] Thereafter, Turkey tried to prohibit any mention of the genocide in a United Nations report and was successful in its pressure on the Reagan and Bush administrations in defeating Congressional resolutions that would have designated April 24 as a national day of remembrance of the Armenian genocide. [12] The Turkish government has also attempted to exclude any mention of the genocide from American textbooks. Stronger efforts still have been made to prevent any discussion of the 1915 genocide being formally included in the social studies curriculum as part of Holocaust and genocide studies. [13] There have also been attempts by the Turkish government to disrupt academic conferences and public discussions of the genocide. A notable example was the attempt by Turkish officials to force cancellation of a conference in Tel Aviv in 1982 if the Armenian genocide were to be discussed, demands backed up with threats to the safety of Jews in Turkey. [14] The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council reported similar threats over plans to include references to the Armenian genocide within the interpretive framework of the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington. [15] At the same time, Turkey has sought to make an absolute distinction between the Holocaust and the Armenian genocide, defining the latter as "alleged" or "so-called." The documents we have, however, show that, in private, such labeling drops off (a point to which we shall return and discuss in detail). Finally, in the 1980s the Turkish government supported the establishment of "institutes", whose apparent purpose was to further research on Turkish history and culture. At least one also was used to further denial of Turkish genocide and otherwise improve Turkey's image in the West. To our knowledge, the memorandum and letters that we reproduce in full provide the first direct evidence of the close relationship between the Turkish government and one such institute. Before turning to that evidence, we shall provide background information on the origin, funding, stated purposes, and tax status of the institute from which that evidence comes. The Institute of Turkish Studies The Institute of Turkish Studies, Inc., located in Washington, D.C., was established in 1982 with a grant of three million dollars from the Republic of Turkey. [16] Information about its current finances is not readily available, but in 1989 it had expenditures of $264,593, of which $121,062 was for grants. That year it received gifts of nearly $240,000. The sources of the gifts are unknown to us, but in the past much of its financial support has come from American corporations that sell military equipment to the Turkish government. In 1992 the Institute began a fund-raising campaign to double its endowment to six million dollars, with funds to be raised from businesses in America and Turkey. The organization itself has a staff of two: an executive director and a secretary. There is also a board of directors, which includes several academics among its members. In various directories of associations, its purposes and activities are listed as: To provide funding for research centers and scholars interested in Turkish studies; to encourage development of Turkish studies in university curricula. Bestows awards. Maintains 5000 volume library on the Ottoman Empire, Turkey, and Turkish history. Grants for the academic community of U.S. specialists in the field of Turkish studies; support includes awards to individual scholars and to institutions. The Institute's fields of interest are said to be "Turkey, higher education." In terms of activities, it is said to provide grants to individuals and institutions for "research, publications, scholarship funds, fellowships, seed money, conferences and seminars, including matching funds, grants to individuals." Its own brochure published within the first years of the founding of the Institute, however, throws a somewhat different light on its stated purpose. The Institute states that it has received grants from major defense contractors, such as General Dynamics and Westinghouse, and with this support the Institute "shall continue to play a key role in furthering knowledge and understanding of a key NATO ally of the United States, the Republic of Turkey, among citizens of our country." [17] Unfortunately, the phrase "furthering knowledge and understanding" includes measures that have been construed as denial of the Armenian genocide. Under United States tax law, the Institute falls within section 501©3 of the Internal Revenue Filing Status: Charitable organization; educational organization; literary organization; organization to prevent cruelty to children; organization for public safety testing; religious organization; or scientific organization. Given its tax filing status, the Institute for Turkish Studies is exempt from taxation. Contributions to the Institute are tax deductible. The executive director of the Institute from its inception to 1994 was Dr. Heath W. Lowry, who received his doctorate in history from UCLA. His mentor at UCLA was Professor Stanford Shaw, whose history of Turkey strenuously denies the reality of the Armenian genocide, while, at the same time, blaming the victims, who are depicted as disloyal, rebellious, and terroristic. [18] It is Lowry who wrote the memorandum and drafted the letter for the ambassador that are now made public for the first time. In 1994 Dr. Lowry became the first incumbent of the Ataturk Chair in Turkish Studies at Princeton University. The chair was established through a $1.5 million grant from the Republic of Turkey. In its Report of the Institute of Turkish Studies, Inc., 1982-1992, the Institute cites its "key role . . . in encouraging the Government of Turkey to embark upon a plan of endowing a series of Chairs in Turkish Studies at major American Universities. In an advisory capacity the Institute has been involved in every stage of this process." The report notes that the chair at Princeton is "fully established and funded" and that the Institute supports "the further creation of endowed chairs at three other U.S. Universities." [19] Analysis of the Lowry Memorandum Let us now consider what Lowry's memorandum reveals about the mentality and tactics of denial, then turn to the letter, commenting on its style and content. Memorandum from Dr. Heath Lowry, Executive Director of the Institute of Turkish Studies, Inc., to Nuzhet Kandemir, Turkish Ambassador to the United States, September 26, 1990 M E M O R A N D U M - - - - - - - - - - _TO_: H.E. AMBASSADOR NUZHET KANDEMIR: _FROM_: DR. HEATH W. LOWRY; _REG_: COMMENTS ON THE "ARMENIAN GENOCIDE" INCLUDED IN THE ROBERT JAY LIFTON STUDY ENTITLED: _THE NAZI DOCTORS, MEDICAL KILLINGS AND THE PSYCHOLOGY OF GENOCIDE_; _DATE_: SEPTEMBER 26, 1990. PER YOUR REQUEST CONVEYED TO ME BY MS. HILAL BASKAL OF YOUR STAFF, I HAVE LOCATED AND READ LIFTON'S _THE NAZI DOCTORS_, WITH AN EYE TO DRAFTING A LETTER FOR YOUR SIGNATURE TO THE AUTHOR. LIFTON'S WORK, A MASSIVE TOME OF XIII + 561 PAGES, IS AUTHORED BY A PROFESSOR OF PSYCHIATRY AND PSYCHOLOGY AT JOHN JAY COLLEGE AND THE GRADUATE CENTER OF THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK [NOTE: THE LATTER IS THE SAME INSTITUTION WHERE PROFESSOR RUSTOW OF THE I.T.S. BOARD TEACHES]. HE IS A WELL KNOWN AUTHORITY ON THE TRAUMA OF WAR AND HIS MAJOR WORKS INCLUDE: _DEATH IN LIFE_ (1968) _HOME FROM THE WAR_ (1973) _THE LIFE OF THE SELF_ (1976) _THE BROKEN CONNECTION_ (1982) IN SHORT, LIFTON IS A RECOGNIZED AUTHORITY IN HIS OWN FIELD WHO CLEARLY KNOWS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT THE SO-CALLED "ARMENIAN GENOCIDE." INDEED, A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF HIS BOOK, REVEALS THAT IN ITS 561 PAGES HE MAKES THE FOLLOWING FEW REFERENCES TO THE SUBJECT: _P. XII._ "BUT I FOUND THAT NAZI DOCTORS DIFFERED SIGNIFICANTLY FROM THESE OTHER GROUPS, NOT SO MUCH IN THEIR HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION BUT IN THEIR CENTRAL ROLE IN GENOCIDAL PROJECTS . . . _(PERHAPS TURKISH DOCTORS, IN THEIR PARTICIPATION IN THE GENOCIDE AGAINST THE ARMENIANS, COME CLOSEST, AS I SHALL I LATER SUGGEST) . ." [NOTE: LIFTON DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY SOURCE FOR THIS STATEMENT FOLLOWING THIS PASSAGE; _PP.466-7_: I SHALL REFER TO OTHER GENOCIDES -- NOTABLY THE TURKS' ANNIHILATION OF ABOUT ONE MILLION ARMENIANS IN 1915- _NOT WITH ANY CLAIM TO COMPREHENSIVENESS_ BUT ONLY TO SUGGEST WIDER APPLICATION NOTE: AGAIN NO FOOTNOTED SOURCE. MORE IMPORTANTLY IS LIFTON'S ADMISSION THAT HE DOESN'T CLAIM ANY EXPERTISE ON THE SUBJECT HE IS GOING TO ADDRESS; _P. 470_: THERE SEEM TO HAVE BEEN DEFINITE PARALLELS IN TURKISH HISTORICAL EXPERIENCE PRIOR TO THEIR MASS MURDER OF ARMENIANS IN 1915. WITHIN THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE, THROUGHOUT THE LATTER PART OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY, THERE WAS AN ATMOSPHERE OF PROGRESSIVE 'DECAY AND DISINTEGRATION', ALONG WITH A CONTINUOUS IF LOSING STRUGGLE FOR SPIRITUAL AND POLITICAL UNIFICATION. THE TURKS ALSO EXPERIENCED HUMILIATING FORMS Of FAILED REGENERATION IN THEIR DISASTROUS MILITARY ENTERPRISES DURING THE 1912 BALKAN WAR (IGNOMINIOUS DEFEAT AT THE HANDS OF THEIR FORMER SLAVES AND WARDS, THE GREEKS AND THE BULGARIANS) AND THEIR ABORTIVE RUSSIAN CAMPAIGN IN 1915 AS A GERMAN ALLY. _VAHAKN N. DADRIAN_ OBSERVES THAT THE TURKS MOVED CLOSER TO GENOCIDE AS THEIR PERCEPTION OF THEIR SITUATION PROCEEDED 'FROM THE CONDITION OF MERE STRAIN, TO THAT Of CRISIS, TO A PRECIPITATE CRISIS, AND EVENTUALLY TO THE CATACLYSM OF WAR.' [19] _FOOTNOTE 19_: VAHAKN N. DADRIAN, "THE ROLE OF TURKISH PHYSICIANS IN THE WORLD WAR I GENOCIDE OF OTTOMAN ARMENIANS," _HOLOCAUST AND GENOCIDE STUDIES_ I (1986, FORTHCOMING); DADRIAN, "THE COMMON FEATURES OF THE ARMENIAN AND JEWISH CASES OF GENOCIDE: A COMPARATIVE VICTIMOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE," IN ISRAEL DRAPKIN AND EMILIOI VIANO, _VICTIMOLOGY; A NEW FOCUS, VOL. IV (LEXINGTON, MASS: D.C. HEATH, 1974, PP. 99-120. SEE ALSO, HELEN FEIN, ACCOUNTING FOR GENOCIDE: VICTIMS -- AND SURVIVORS -- OF THE HOLOCAUST (NEW YORK: FREE PRESS, 1979, PO. 10-18. _NOTE_: THE SOLE SOURCE FOR LIFTON'S COMMENTS IS THE ARMENIAN AUTHOR: VAHAKN DADRIAN. P. 473: "AGAIN, THERE ARE SUGGESTIONS OF SIMILAR CURRENTS IN THE TURKISH SITUATION. THE YOUNG TURKS' WHO SOUGHT TO REFORM THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE SPEARHEADED 'A MAJOR CAMPAIGN TO CHANGE THE SOCIAL STRUCTURE OF OTTOMAN SOCIETY AS AN ANTIDOTE TO INTERNAL DISCORD AND CONFLICT, AND ALSO AS A MEANS OF RECAPTURING. IMPERIAL, PANTURKIC GLORY.' THEIR CURE INCLUDED AN ADMIXTURE OF RELIGIOUS AND POLITICAL IDEOLOGIES,' AND AND GENOCIDE BECAME A MEANS FOR [ BRINGING ABOUT ] A RADICAL ..... CHANGE IN THE SYSTEM.'" [34] _FOOTNOTE 34_: SEE DADRIAN, "TURKISH PHYSICIANS" AND "COMMON FEATURES" [19] _NOTE_: AGAIN, LIFTON'S SOLE SOURCE FOR HIS VIEWS ON THE TURCO- ARMENIAN QUESTION ARE THE TWO ARTICLES OF DADRIAN CITED IN FOOTNOTE 19. P. 475: IN THE CASE OF THE TURKS, WHATEVER THEIR ATTITUDE TOWARDS SCIENCE, THEY DID PUT FORWARD A MYSTICAL VISION OF PAN- TURANIANISM (OR 'TURKIFICATION') _WHICH ALLEGED A PREHISTORIC MYTHIC UNITY AMONG TURANIAN PEOPLES BASED ON RACIAL ORIGIN_' [43] AND ONE CANNOT DOUBT THE EXPERIENCE OF TRANSCENDENCE OF TURKISH NATIONALISTS IN THEIR REVERSION TO FUNDAMENTALIST MOHAMMEDANISM AS A CALL TO AN ANTI-ARMENIAN-CHRISTIAN CRUSADE -- ALL ON BEHALF OF A NEW VISION OF OTTOMAN GLORY." _FOOTNOTE 43_: DADRIAN, "TURKISH PHYSICIANS" [19]. _NOTE_: ONCE AGAIN, LIFTON'S _SOLE_ SOURCE ID DADRIAN P. 488: "ARMENIANS WERE DESCRIBED AS '_A CANCER, A MALIGNANCE WHICH LOOKS LIKE A SMALL PIMPLE FROM THE OUTSIDE, WHICH, IF NOT REMOVED BY A SKILLFUL SURGEON'S SCALPEL, WILL KILL THE PATIENT'" [108] _FOOTNOTE 108_: A YOUNG TURK ACTIVIST, QUOTED IN KUPER, _GENOCIDE_, P 40 [LEO KUPER, _GENOCIDE: ITS POLITICAL USE IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY_ (NEW HAVEN: YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS, 1981), PP. 19-23, 210-214 _NOTE_: AGAIN, LIFTON IS SIMPLY CITING AN ALREADY PUBLISHED (AND VERY WELL KNOWN) BOOK BY A JEWISH EXPERT ON THE HOLOCAUST. P. 493: "ONE CANNOT SAY THAT ANY PARTICULAR LEVEL OF TECHNOLOGY IS REQUIRED FOR GENOCIDE: THE TURKS KILLED ABOUT A MILLION ARMENIANS BY MEANS OF SHOOTING, CLUBBING, BEATING, SLAVE LABOR, STARVATION, AND OTHER FORMS OF TORTURE," _NOTE_: THERE IS NO FOOTNOTE APPENDED TO THIS STATEMENT, BUT IT IS CLEARLY TAKEN FROM THE DADRIAN ARTICLES AS WELL. ********** IN SUMMATION, WHAT WE ARE FACED WITH HERE ARE SEVEN REFERENCES (COMPRISING ABOUT ONE FULL PAGE OF TEXT) IN A BOOK OF 561 PAGES. THEY ARE BASED ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY ON THE ARTICLES BY DADRIAN (EACH OF WHICH HAVE BEEN THE SUBJECT OF DETAILED MEMOS BY THIS WRITER IN PAST YEARS), TOGETHER WITH REFERENCES TO THE WORK OF HELEN FEIN (WHOSE BOOK INCLUDES A FULL CHAPTER ON THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE) AND LEO KUPER (WHOSE BOOK CONTAINS A VERY LONG CHAPTER ON THE GENOCIDE). STATED DIFFERENTLY, LIFTON, IN HIS BOOK PUBLISHED FOUR YEARS AGO IN 1986, IS SIMPLY USING THE EXISTING LITERATURE ON THE HOLOCAUST AND GENOCIDE. CONSEQUENTLY, OUR BASIC PROBLEM IS WITH AUTHORS SUCH AS DADRIAN, FEIN, AND KUPER, EACH OF WHOM ARE NOW SERVING AS SOURCES FOR AUTHORS SUCH AS LIFTON. THESE FACTS MAKE IT RATHER DIFFICULT TO REGISTER OUR UNHAPPINESS WITH LIFTON PER SE, AS HE WILL QUITE JUSTIFIABLY RESPOND BY GIVING US REFERENCES TO HIS SOURCES, I.E. DADRIAN, FEIN, AND KUPER. OUR PROBLEM IS LESS WITH LIFTON THAN IT IS WITH THE WORKS UPON WHICH HE RELIES. LIFTON IS SIMPLY THE END OF THE CHAIN, THAT IS, FROM NOW ON WE WILL SEE _ALL_ WORKS ON GENOCIDE OF THE JEWS, INCLUDING REFERENCES SUCH AS THOSE MADE BY LIFTON ON THE BASIS OF THE WORKS OF DADRIAN, FEIN, KUPER, HOVANNISIAN, ET. AL. THOUGH THIS POINT HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY STRESSED BOTH IN WRITING AND VERBALLY TO I.A.D.A.-ANKARA, WE HAVE NOT YET SEEN AS MUCH AS A SINGLE ARTICLE BY ANY SCHOLAR RESPONDING TO _DADRIAN_ (OR ANY OF THE OTHERS AS WELL). I STRONGLY RECOMMEND THAT IT BE POINTED OUT TO ANKARA THAT LIFTON'S BOOK IS SIMPLY THE END RESULT OF THE TURKISH FAILURE TO RESPOND IN A PROMPT FASHION TO THE DADRIAN ARTICLES AND THE FEIN AND KUPER BOOK. ON THE CHANCE THAT YOU WILL STILL WISH TO RESPOND IN WRITING TO LIFTON, I HAVE DRAFTED THE FOLLOWING LETTER, WHICH, DUE TO THE ABSENCE OF AN ADDRESS FOR LIFTON WILL HAVE TO BE SENT TO HIM IN CARE OF HIS PUBLISHER. Draft of letter to Dr. Robert Jay Lifton, prepared by Dr. Heath Lowry, to be signed by Ambassador Nuzhet Kandemir D R A F T L E T T E R - - - - - - - - - - - MR. ROBERT JAY LIFTON % BASIC BOOKS, INC. 10 E 53RD. STREET NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10022 DEAR MR. LIFTON: YOUR 1986 PUBLICATION ENTITLED: _THE NAZI DOCTORS, MEDICAL KILLING AND THE PSYCHOLOGY OF GENOCIDE_ WAS RECENTLY BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION. NEEDLESS TO SAY, I WAS SHOCKED BY REFERENCES IN YOUR WORK (PP. XII., 466-7, 470, 473, 476, 488, & 493) TO THE SO CALLED "ARMENIAN GENOCIDE," ALLEGEDLY PERPETRATED BY THE OTTOMAN TURKS DURING THE FIRST WORLD WAR. I WAS EVEN MORE DISTURBED WHEN YOUR CITATIONS REVEALED THAT YOUR SOURCES CONSISTED Of ARTICLES AND BOOKS BY THREE INDIVIDUALS (VAHAKN N. DADRIAN, HELEN FEIN AND LEO KUPER), NONE OF WHOM ARE HISTORIANS OF THE PERIOD IN QUESTION AND NONE OF WHOM RELY ON PRIMARY RESEARCH IN THEIR OWN WORKS. IN SHORT, YOU HAVE SIMPLY PASSED ALONG QUESTIONABLE SECONDARY SOURCES AS EVIDENCE fOR A NUMBER OF CONTENTIONS WHICH ARE, TO SAY THE LEAST, HOTLY DEBATED AMONG CONTEMPORARY SCHOLARS WRITING ON THE PERIOD AND EVENTS IN QUESTION. IT IS PARTICULARLY DISTURBING TO SEE A MAJOR SCHOLAR ON THE HOLOCAUST, A TRAGEDY WHOSE ENORMITY AND BARBARITY MUST NEVER BE FORGOTTEN, SO CARELESS IN HIS REFERENCES TO A FIELD OUTSIDE HIS OWN AREA OF EXPERTISE. FOR TURKS, WHO ARE JUSTIFIABLY PROUD OF OUR LONG AND CONTINUING ROLE AS A HAVEN FOR MINORITIES (INCLUDING THE JEWS EVICTED FROM SPAIN BY THE INQUISITION), IT IS PARTICULARLY DISQUIETING TO FIND OUR OWN HISTORY DISTORTED IN WORKS DEVOTED TO THE HOLOCAUST OF WORLD WAR II. TO COMPARE A TRAGIC CIVIL WAR (PERPETRATED BY MISGUIDED ARMENIAN NATIONALISTS) AND THE HUMAN SUFFERING IT WROUGHT ON BOTH THE MUSLIM AND CHRISTIAN POPULATIONS, WITH THE HORRORS OF A PREMEDITATED ATTEMPT TO SYSTEMATICALLY ERADICATE A PEOPLE, IS, TO ANYONE FAMILIAR WITH THE HISTORY IN QUESTION, SIMPLY LUDICROUS I AM ENCLOSING COPIES OF WORKS BY TWO AMERICAN EXPERTS ON THE HISTORY OF TURCO ARMENIAN RELATIONS, PROFESSORS JUSTIN MCCARTHY AND HEATH LOWRY, AND WOULD HOPE THAT IN THE INTERESTS OF OBJECTIVITY AND FAIRNESS YOU WILL NOT ONLY READ THEM, BUT REFLECT HAVING DONE SO IN ANY FUTURE WORKS YOU MAY PUBLISH. SINCERELY YOURS, NUZHET KANDEMIR AMBASSADOR, REPUBLIC OF TURKEY WASHINGTON, D.C. Letter from Ambassador Nuzhet Kandemir to Robert Jay Lifton, October 2, 1990 TURKISH EMBASSY 10/16 certified mail WASHINGTON, D.C. 4047-434 October 2, 1990 Mr. Robert Jay Lifton c/o Basic Books, Inc. 10 E 53rd Street New York, NY 10022 Your 1986 publication, _The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide_, was recently brought to my attention. Needless to say, I was shocked by references in your work (pp x11, 466-7, 470, 473, 476, 486, and 493) to the so-called "Armenian genocide" allegedly perpetrated by the Ottoman Turks during the First World War. I was even more disturbed when your citations revealed that your sources consisted of articles and books by three individuals: Vahakn N. Dadrian, Helen Fein, and Leo Kuper, none of whom are historians of the period in question and none of whom rely on primary research in their own works. In short you have simply passed along questionable secondary sources as evidence for a number of contentions which are, to say the least, hotly debated among contemporary scholars writing on the period and events at issue. It is particularly disturbing to see a major scholar on the Holocaust, a tragedy whose enormity and barbarity must never be forgotten, so careless in his references to a field outside his area of expertise. For Turks, who are justifiably proud of our long and continuing role as a haven for minorities (including the Jews evicted from Spain by the Inquisition), it is particularly disquieting to find our own history distorted in works devoted to the Holocaust of World War II. To compare a tragic civil war (initiated by Armenian nationalists) and the human suffering it wrought on both the Muslim and Christian populations with the horrors of a premeditated attempt to systematically eradicate a peaceable people is, to anyone familiar with the history in question, simply ludicrous I am enclosing copies of works by two American experts on the history of Turco-Armenian relations, Professors Justin McCarthy and Heath Lowry, and would hope that an the interests of objectivity and fairness you will not only read them but also reflect having done so in any future works you may publish. Yours Sincerely [ signed ] Nuzhet Kandemir Ambassador The memorandum indicates that Lowry has been engaged in an ongoing relationship with the Turkish government, and that he has regularly offered advice on denial both to the Turkish ambassador to the United States and to other persons in Turkey (IADA-Ankara). The memorandum also provides evidence of the desire to check scholars from referring to an Armenian genocide. Indeed, the process by now may even be almost bureaucratic. It is easy to surmise that someone at the embassy identifies books and articles that mention the genocide (is denial part of his or her official duties?), the list is turned over to Lowry at the request of the ambassador, and Lowry examines the works in question, provides a report in the form of a memorandum, and then prepares a letter for the ambassador's signature. Lowry reads Lifton's book, not out of interest or to be informed: he does it as a service to the Turkish government, "with an eye to drafting a letter for your [the ambassador's] signature to the author." Why a scholar would conceive of his or her craft in this fashion is not a question that admits of easy answers. But as we shall suggest in another section of the article, it is not uncommon. What is clear from the memorandum, though, is that Lowry identifies with the power of the Turkish government. He twice refers to "our problem," that is, the availability of works that discuss the Armenian genocide, suggesting that he sees himself as part of a power constellation engaged but in furthering the perceived interests of the government of Turkey. Lowry is critical, in fact, of the ineptitude of the deniers who thereby fail to serve what he assumes are Turkey's interests. He has repeatedly told, verbally and in writing, those in power that they must attack and discredit articles or books by Dadrian, Fein, Kuper, and others, yet not a single attack has been written. He underlines the date of Lifton's book -1986- and suggests implicitly that four years is simply too long: material must be subjected to damage control at the earliest possible moment. And one does wonder why it took so long in this case, since Markusen and Smith received letters along the lines addressed to Lifton within months of the appearance of their essays in _Genocide and the Modern Age_. [20] Lowry's own work contains many questionable assertions and conclusions. He denies that Hitler ever uttered the widely quoted remark: 'Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?" [21] And in his recent book, _The Story Behind Ambassador Morgenthau's Story_, he asserts that Morgenthau's account of the genocide is nothing but "crude half-truths and outright falsehoods . . . from cover to cover." [22] His conclusions do not in fact follow from his analysis or the evidence he can marshal. Quite astonishing, however, is his claim that what Talaat, a principal architect of the Armenian genocide, had in mind for the Armenians was not destruction, but "segregation," that the fate of the Armenians was to be that of African- Americans in the South in 1915. [23] Lowry apparently seeks to discredit the work of any author who treats the Armenian genocide as historical reality. But those in Ankara, with whom he has communicated again and again on how to discredit works on the Armenian genocide, have not heeded his words. "I strongly recommend that it be pointed out to Ankara.... " Had people listened to me, he suggests, "we" wouldn't be faced with "our" present "problem." Analysis of the Letter to Lifton Various perspectives on denial can be brought to bear on the content of the letter. Smith notes that typically the denial of genocide involves denial that the events took place, that the perpetrator bears any responsibility for the destruction, or that the term "genocide" is applicable to what occurred. Deborah Lipstadt, in her work on the Holocaust, speaks of the "Yes, but" mode of denial: applied to the present case, Yes, Armenians died, but so did Turks. Yes, Armenians were killed, but they brought it upon themselves. Yes, the conflict took place, but it was a civil war within a global war. Likewise, Israel Charny has pointed to a "template of denial," the rules of which include: do not acknowledge that the genocide took place; transform it into other kinds of events; portray the victims as the perpetrators; insist more victims were from the perpetrator's group; and relativize the genocide in whatever way possible. [24] The letter is too limited in purpose to display all of the elements depicted in these overlapping perspectives, but they are found in the larger literature of denial of the 1915 genocide. In terms of the letter itself, however, we want to call attention to two aspects of denial that are part and parcel of Turkey's denial tactics. The goal of each is to prevent recognition of the fact that what the Ottoman government did to the Armenians in 1915 constitutes genocide. First, there is an attempt to remove the label "genocide" from the Armenian experience. This is done in part by not differentiating between the victims of the massacre and of warfare, of blaming the victims as the initiators of violence (thus suggesting that they got what they deserved, even though it never happened), and describing the genocide as a civil war within a global war. In the end, the genocide of over a million Armenians is made to appear like an "amorphous human disaster." [25] A second theme, unique to the Turkish case, is the determination to deny the Armenian genocide by acknowledging the Holocaust. [26] This involves in part special efforts by Turkey to recognize the tragedy of the Holocaust and show compassion for its victims. But Turkey has also gone to extraordinary lengths, including threats and disruption of academic conferences, to prevent Jews from learning about the Armenian genocide. Moreover, one notes that Lowry' memorandum stresses that Lifton relied upon the work of other scholars, but this, he argues, is precisely why it is necessary to discredit at the outset authors such as Dadrian, Fein, and Kuper. The danger Lowry sees is that "from now on we will see all works on the genocide of the Jews" containing references to the Armenian genocide. Such references would allow for comparison and the conclusion that, for different reasons, both Jews and Armenians have been victims of genocide. There is another aspect to this, however, that can best be addressed in terms of the letter -- the attempt of the Turkish government and its intellectuals to draw a sharp and decisive distinction between the Holocaust and the experience of the Armenians in 1915. The letter states that to make any comparison of the Holocaust and the Armenian genocide is ludicrous. But it is not ludicrous: the similarities have been pointed out by many scholars, most recently by Robert Melson in his major work on Revolution and Genocide: On the Origins of the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust. [27] Other leading Jewish scholars of the Holocaust, in fact, describe the Armenian massacres and deportations into the desert as genocide, and one that approximates the Holocaust in important respects. Yehuda Bauer, for example, not only points out the similarities between the Armenian genocide and the Holocaust, but states that on a "continuum of murderous behavior, the Armenian massacres would figure nearest to the Holocaust. [28] Similarly, the late Lucy Dawidowicz stated that the Armenian genocide in its "extent and horror most closely approximated the murder of the European Jews." She continued: "The once unthinkable 'Armenian solution' became, in our time, the achievable 'Final Solution,' the Nazi code name for the annihilation of the European Jews." 29] Concluding Reflections on the Memorandum and Letter To confront denial is to face a recurrent question: do those who engage in denial of a well-documented genocide actually believe their own words, or do they know better, but disregard the facts for personal or political reasons? The issue is complicated in that denial is, at times, a deliberate distortion of the facts to serve some presumed advantage. But denial may also be a "defense mechanism" that functions to reduce stress and inner conflict. As a defense mechanism, the events and feelings that one wants to deny are not completely removed from consciousness, but are rather placed in a more favorable light through a kind of selective emphasis and reappraisal. While this distorts the truth, the person who uses such a strategy may not be aware that he or she is doing so to make the situation less threatening. Nevertheless, denial as distortion of truth and as self-serving rationalization are often intertwined and reinforce each other. In the case of Lowry and the ambassador, there is a sense in which their whole enterprise involves a retelling of the Armenian genocide to place Turks in a favorable light and Armenians in a bad light: in such accounts the victim is invariably blamed for the genocide; indeed, is cast in the role of perpetrator. But for all the reinterpretation and selective uses of history, there is a clue that the ambassador and Lowry know that the Armenian genocide took place, which would make their public statements to the contrary appear to be calculated distortions of the truth. To return to the documents at hand. The letter Lifton received and the draft of it by Lowry are explicit in denying the genocide, and speak of the "so-called 'Armenian genocide,' allegedly perpetrated by the Ottoman Turks during the First World War." However, when we examine the memorandum, a different story appears, with a decided gap between the public discourse of the letter and the private discourse of the memorandum. On the first page of the memorandum, the executive director of the Institute of Turkish Studies approaches the subject, and the ambassador, delicately, referring to the "so-called 'Armenian Genocide.'" Yet a few pages later, when he gives his "summation," Lowry speaks openly without using such terms as "alleged" or "so-called": he now writes, without quotation marks, about "the Armenian Genocide" and "the genocide." It is hard to believe that he would present such language to the ambassador unless he knew that the ambassador would not be offended. The Harmfulness of Genocide Denial We should not be surprised by instances of what many would consider to be inappropriate use of academic credentials and skills, since, after all, academics and professionals have contributed in direct ways to genocidal killing projects, including the Armenian genocide and the Holocaust. They have done so by lending their talents and prestige to racist, victimizing ideologies that are central features of many genocides, by helping to create and administer the policies and technologies of mass killing, and by actually engaging in the killing. [30] If highly educated academics and professionals have been able to repudiate their ethical codes and serve as accomplices and perpetrators of actual genocides, it is likely that they would be even more able to engage in an activity in which no one is killed. It would be a mistake, however, to underestimate the serious harm caused by denial of genocide, particularly denial wrapped in the guise of legitimate scholarship. In this section, we examine the harm done by pseudo-scholarly denial of known genocides and consider the assertion, put forth by some scholars, that deliberate denial is a form of aggression that ought to be regarded as a contribution to genocidal violence in its own right. Then we briefly address the question of what might motivate academics to make a career out of denial of genocide. Some of the ways in which denial of genocide causes "violence to others" have identified by Israel W. Charny in his essay on "The Psychology of Denial of Known Genocides," in which he emphasizes that denial conceals the horror of the crimes and exonerates those responsible for it. [31] This point is echoed by Deborah Lipstadt, who, in her recent book on denial of the Holocaust, writes that "Denial aims to reshape history in order to rehabilitate the perpetrators and demonize the victims." [32] Denial also, according to Charny, "attacks the historical spirit and morale" of the survivors and the descendants of those killed and places "further burdens on their recovery." [33] In short, denial prevents healing of the wounds inflicted by genocide. [34] Furthermore, it constitutes an "attack on the collective identity and national cultural continuity of the victim people." [35] A number of scholars have argued, in fact, that the deliberate denial of a known genocide is a harmful act that deserves to be included in the same moral domain with indirect and direct contributions to the actual genocides. Thus, Charny states that "Denials of genocide make no sense unless one sees in them renewed opportunities for the same passions, meanings, and pleasures that were at work in the genocide itself, now revived in symbolic processes of murdering the dignity of the survivors, rationality, dignity, and even history itself' (emphasis in original). [36] Indeed, denial may be thought of as the last stage of genocide, one that continues into the present. A kind of double killing takes place: first the physical deed, followed by the destruction of remembrance of the deed. Historian (and Holocaust survivor) Erich Kulka regards the denial of genocide as an offense in its own right, asserting that "Attempts to rewrite Holocaust history on the pretext of 'revisionism,' aided by scholars with academic backgrounds, must be viewed as intellectual aggression," a repetition in thought of what was enacted earlier as physical deed. [37] In his recent book on denial of the Holocaust, Pierre Vidal-Naquet characterizes Robert Faurisson, whose "scholarly" denials of the Holocaust have been widely disseminated, as a "paper Eichmann." [38] We concur with Charny, Kulka, and Vidal-Naquet in regarding denial of genocide as an egregious offense that warrants being regarded as a form of contribution to genocidal violence. Denial contributes to genocide in at least two ways. First of all, genocide does not end with its last human victim; denial continues the process. But if such denial points to the past and the present, it also has implications for the future. For by absolving the perpetrators of past genocides from responsibility for their actions and by obscuring the reality of genocide as a widely practiced form of state policy in the modern world, denial may increase the risk of future outbreaks of genocidal killing. Why Might Intellectuals Engage in the Denial of Known Genocides? There are several possible motivations for denial of genocide, and these can be complex. The motivations to which we would call attention include: self- serving ideology, bigotry, intellectual confusion, careerism, identification with power, and a particular conception of knowledge. It seems unlikely, however, that denial rests only on one of these motivations; moreover, the particular combinations of motivations may vary with individuals. Also, what prompts denial may vary with different examples of genocide: anti-Zionism, for example, may help explain denial of the Holocaust, but in terms of its content tells us nothing about why the Armenian genocide has been denied. On the other hand, if we focus not on the content of the motivation, but on its form (ideology) and goals (political and psychological purposes), then the motivations for denial in these two cases may have more in common than appear at first glance. Ideology, Bigotry and the Denial of the Holocaust Scholars who have analyzed deniers of the Holocaust have concluded that they are primarily motivated by ideology. Thus, Vidal-Naquet, in his examination of Faurisson and other French "revisionists," asserts that "all revisionists are resolute anti-Zionists." [39] Similarly, on the basis of her even more comprehensive survey of Holocaust deniers, Lipstadt concludes that "it is clear that deniers have no interest in scholarship or reason. Most are antisemites or bigots." [40] These answers are no doubt correct, but they are incomplete. It may be that all revisionists are anti-Zionists, but there are surely anti-Zionists (some of them Jewish) who do not deny the reality of the Holocaust. Similarly, there are people who are highly antisemitic, but are well aware that the Holocaust took place. Intellectual Confusion, Rationalization Clues to the thinking of academics who question the reality of the Armenian genocide have been provided by Israel Charny and his colleague Daphna Fromer, who sent questionnaires to sixty-nine scholars who signed an advertisement which, in the words of Charny and Fromer, "questioned insidiously the evidence of the Armenian genocide" and appeared in several newspapers, including the New York Times and the Washington Post. [41] In analyzing the comments of the seventeen scholars who provided "active responses" to their mailing, Charny and Fromer discerned a number of "thinking defense-mechanisms" that enabled the scholars to engage in "the denial of genocide." These mechanisms included what the authors term "scientificism in the service of denial," i.e., the claim that not enough empirical evidence is available to justify an unequivocal position on the reality of the genocide; and "definitionalism," i.e., acknowledging deaths, but denying that they were the result of "genocide," thus shifting responsibility for the genocide away from the Turkish government and trivializing the killing of over a million Armenians as the inadvertent result of famine, war, and disease. Whether anyone is led into denial by such reasoning is an open question, but such thinking does serve to make denial easier thereafter, while, at the same time, it preserves the appearance of objectivity. Careerism, Power, Knowledge "Careerism" is a complicated phenomenon, but for our purposes we would identify two (non-exclusive) forms that it may take: one that is oriented more toward material goals, and one that involves more the satisfactions that go with power. Both share the "thoughtlessness" that Hannah Arendt saw as the essence of the "banality of evils": an imaginative blindness that prevents one from reflecting upon the consequences of one's actions. [42] But elsewhere Arendt also speaks of a "willed evil," and the second type of careerism is not far removed from this: not simply the obliviousness to hurt, but the infliction of hurt. [43] Intellectuals who engage in the denial of genocide may be motivated in part by either type of careerism, or by both. The more insidious form, however, is the second type of careerism. Here material rewards are important, but more so, the opportunity for certain psychological and social satisfactions: a sense of importance, of status, of being in control, all of which can come through identification with power, something we believe we have shown in the memorandum we have analyzed. The price for intellect in the service of denial, however, is a particular conception of knowledge, one in which knowledge not only serves the ends of those in power, but is defined by power But to define truth in terms of power is to reveal the bankruptcy, irrationality, and above all, danger, of the whole enterprise of denial of genocide. Inherent in such a view of knowledge is both a deep-seated nihilism and an urge to tyranny. Concluding Comments: Scholars and Truth Scholarship is, or should be, a quest for truth. What scholars write and say in that quest matters a great deal. Directly or indirectly, our words contribute to a shared consciousness -- to the constellation of beliefs that a society forms in connection with issues of any kind. Scholars' contributions to that shared consciousness become especially important in relation to a society's struggles with large, disturbing, and threatening historical events. Nowhere is scholarly research and commentary more significant than in connection with genocide. Here the scope of mass murder and the depth of its moral violation defy understanding and arouse every kind of confusion, whether in the form of diffuse passions or resistance to painful evidence. Careful scholarly evaluation can hardly eliminate these confusions, but it can diminish them in favor of reasoned interpretation and the channeling of passion into constructive policy. Generally speaking, the extremity of human harm brought about by genocide raises the stakes of scholarly commentary. Where scholars deny genocide, in the face of decisive evidence that it has occurred, they contribute to a false consciousness that can have the most dire reverberations. Their message, in effect, is: murderers did not really murder; victims were not really killed; mass murder requires no confrontation, no reflection, but should be ignored, glossed over. In this way scholars lend their considerable authority to the acceptance of this ultimate human crime. More than that, they encourage -- indeed invite -- a repetition of that crime from virtually any source in the immediate or distant future. By closing their minds to truth, that is, such scholars contribute to the deadly psychohistorical dynamic in which unopposed genocide begets new genocides. Those of us who wish to be true to our scholarly calling have a clear obligation here. We must first expose this form of denial. At the same time we must ourselves bear witness to historical truths -- to the full narrative of mass murder and human suffering. To be witnessing professionals in this way requires that we take in grim details so that we can tell the story with accuracy and insight. It is a task to which we must bring both heart and mind, an approach that combines advocacy and detachment. We require sufficient detachment to maintain rigorous intellectual standards in evaluating evidence and drawing conclusions. At the same time our moral advocacy should require us to open ourselves to suffering as a way of taking a stand against cruelty and killing, whatever its source. Notes 1. Terrence Des Pres, "Introduction: Remembering Armenia," in Richard G. Hovannisian, ed., The Armenian Genocide in Perspective (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 1986), p. 10. 2. On scholarship as commitment to power, see Terrence Des Pres, "On Governing Narratives: The Turkish-Armenian Case," Yale Review, 75:4 (October 1986), pp. 517-531. Richard Cohen of the Washington Post provides an excellent example of "truth" being whatever officials say it is. He recounts in an article entitled "Killing Truth," how after a brief reference to the Armenian genocide in a previous column, the Turkish ambassador invited him to the embassy for a talk. Cohen writes: I found myself sitting at one end of an enormous table in the embassy of Turkey. At the other end was the ambassador himself and what he was telling me was that the crime I had always thought had happened, simply had not.... What the world persisted in calling a genocide was actually a civil war -- one with atrocities on both sides and one in which the central government in Constantinople lost control of its own troops and could not protect the Armenians. There never was a policy to exterminate the Armenians. Cohen, who thought that "the genocide was a given -- that no one could possibly dispute that it had happened," was thrown into turmoil by the ambassador's claims, and now found that the ambassador had "dented his confidence." The problem of denial had now included Cohen: "And so year by year, person by person, the genocide blurs, doubt corrodes it, and the easy word, 'alleged,' creeps in to mock the Armenian anguish. The goal of such denial, he believed, was not so much the rewriting of the past as such, but the control of the present and the future. He concluded his article with the observation that perhaps the "last victim of any genocide is truth." Richard Cohen, "Killing Truth," The Washington Post, 31 May 1983, p. B 1. 3. Vahakn N. Dadrian, "A Textual Analysis of the Key Indictment of the Turkish Military Tribunal Investigating the Armenian Genocide," Armenian Review, 44:1 (Spring 1991), pp. 26-27. 4. Vahakn N. Dadrian, "The Documentation of the World War I Armenian Massacres in the Proceedings of the Turkish Military Tribunal," International Journal of Middle East Studies, 23:4 (November 1991), p. 560. 5. Henry Morgenthau, Ambassador Morgenthau's Story (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, Page: 1918), p. 309. 6. Dadrian, "The Documentation," p. 568. 7. Here we can cite only a few of the many works that document the Armenian genocide. Among the contemporary accounts, see: Leslie Davis, The Slaughterhouse Province: An American Diplomat's Report on the Armenian Genocide, 1915-1917 (New Rochelle, NY: Aristide D. Caratzas, Publisher, 1989); Henry Morgenthau, Ambassador Morgenthau's Story (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, Page; 1918); and Arnold J. Toynbee, ed., The Treatment of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire: Documents Presented to Viscount Grey of Fallodon, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1916). The Armenian Genocide in the U.S. Archives, 1915-1918 (Alexandria, VA: Chadwyok-Healey Inc., 1990) provides 37,000 pages of documentation in microfiche. For recent studies, see three articles by Vahakn N. Dadrian, "The Secret Young-Turk Ittihadist Conference and the Decision for the World War I Genocide of the Armenians," Holocaust and Genocide Studies, 7:2 (Fall 1993), pp. 173-201; "The Documentation of the World War I Armenian Massacres in the Proceedings of the Turkish Military Tribunal," International Journal of Middle East Studies, 23:4 (November 1991), pp. 549-576; and "Documentation of the Armenian Genocide in Turkish Sources," in Israel W. Charny, ed., Genocide: A Critical Bibliographic Review (London: Mansell Publishing; New York: Facts on File, 1991), Vol. 2, Ch. 4; Tessa Hofmann and Gerayer Koutcharian, "'Images that Horrify and Indict': Pictorial Documents on the Persecution and Extermination of the Armenians from 1877 to 1922," Armenian Review, 45:1-2 (Spring/Summer 1992), pp. 53-184; Robert Melson, Revolution and Genocide: On the Origins of the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992); and Donald E. Miller and Lorna Touryan Miller, Survivors: An Oral History of the Armenian Genocide (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993). For an extensive bibliography on the Armenian genocide, see Richard G. Hovannisian, The Armenian Holocaust: A Bibliography Relating to the Deportations, Massacres, and Dispersion of the Armenian People, 1915-1923 (Cambridge, MA: Armenian Heritage Press, 1980). On the availability of survivor testimony in the form of oral history, see Miller and Miller, pp. 212-213. Most of the oral histories are in Armenian and have not been translated; on the other hand, many survivor memoirs exist in English: among the more detailed are Abraham H. Hartunian, Neither to Laugh nor to Weep: A Memoir of the Armenian Genocide (Boston: Beacon Press, 1968) and Ephraim K. Jernazian, Judgment Unto Truth: Witnessing the Armenian Genocide (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 1990). 8. There is a substantial literature on denial of the Armenian genocide. See, Rouben Adalian, "The Armenian Genocide: Revisionism and Denial," in Michael N. Dobkowski and Isidor Wallimann, eds., Genocide in Our Time: An Annotated Bibliography with Analytical Introductions (Ann Arbor, MI: Pierian Press, 1992), Ch. 5; Marjorie Housepian Dobkin, "What Genocide? What Holocaust? News from Turkey, 1915 1923: A Case Study," in Hovannisian, ed., The Armenian Genocide in Perspective, Ch. 5; Richard G. Hovannisian, "The Armenian Genocide and Patterns of Denial," in Hovannisian, ed., The Armenian Genocide in Perspective, Ch. 6; Clive Foss, "The Turkish View of Armenian History: A Vanishing Nation," in Richard G. Hovannisian, ed., The Armenian Genocide: History, Politics, Ethics (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1992), Ch. 11; Vahakn N. Dadrian, "Ottoman Archives and Denial of the Armenian Genocide," in Hovannisian, ed., The Armenian Genocide, Ch. 12; Vigen Guroian, "The Politics and Morality of Genocide," in Hovannisian, ed., The Armenian Genocide, Ch. 13; and the following articles by Roger W. Smith, "Genocide and Denial: The Armenian Case and Its Implications," Armenian Review, 42:1 (Spring 1989), pp. 1-38; "Denial of the Armenian Genocide," in Charny, ed., Genocide, Vol. 2, Ch. 3; and "The Armenian Genocide: Memory, Polities, and the Future," in Hovannisian, ed., Armenian Genocide, Ch. 1. See also the wide-ranging discussion by Israel W. Charny, "The Psychology of Denial of Known Genocides," in Charny, ed., Genocide, Vol. 2, Ch. 1. 9. See, for example, Hovannisian, "The Armenian Genocide and Patterns of Denial," in Hovannisian, ed., The Armenian Genocide in Perspective, pp. 115 131; and Roger W. Smith, "Genocide and Denial," pp. 15-20. 10. Edward Minasian, "Musa Dagh: The Film That Was Denied,"Journal of Armenian Studies, 11:2 (Fall/Winter 1985 86), pp. 63-73; Hovannisian, "Patterns of Denial," pp. 120-21. 11. Hovannisian, "Patterns of Denial," pp. 113-14, 124-27, 129 30. 12. Leo Kuper, Genocide: Its Political Use in the Twentieth Century (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1981), pp. 219-20; Smith, "Genocide and Denial," pp. 22-23. 13. Leo Kuper, "Problems in Education on Genocide," Internet on the Holocaust and Genocide, 14, (Feb. 1988), Special Supplement, p. 1. 14. Israel W. Charny and Shamai Davidson, eds., The Book of the International Conference on the Holocaust and Genocide: Book 1, The Conference Program and Crisis (Tel Aviv: Institute of the International Conference on the Holocaust and Genocide, 1983), pp. 269-315, and Israel W. Charny, ed., Toward the Understanding and Prevention of Genocide (Boulder, Colorado and London: Westview Press, 1984), pp. 364-372. 15. New York Times, 22 June 1982, p. A 4. 16. Our description of the Institute of Turkish Studies, Inc. is drawn from the following sources: "The Institute of Turkish Studies, Inc.," a brochure published in Washington, DC, by the Institute, not dated, but includes the Director's Report for 1983 84; Report of the Institute of Turkish Studies, Inc., 1982-1992 (Washington, DC: Institute of Turkish Studies, Inc., 1992); Encyclopedia of Associations, 26th ed-1992 (Detroit and London: Gale Research, Inc., 1991), 1:l 133; Stan Olson, ed., The Foundation Directory 1992 Edition (New York: The Foundation Center, 1992), p. 228; William Wade, ed., National Directory of Nonprofit Organizations, 1991, Volume 1: Organizations with Revenues of $100,000 or More, Part 1: A-O (Rockville, MD: The Taft Group, 1991), pp. ix, 1078; and Speros Vryonis, Jr., The Turkish State and History: Clio Meets the Grey Wolf, 2nd ed. (Thessaloniki and New Rochelle, NY: Institute for Balkan Studies and Aristide D. Caratzas, Publisher, 1993), Part 3. We are grateful to Dr. Rouben Adalian for making a copy of the brochure published by the Institute of Turkish Studies available to us. 17. "The Institute of Turkish Studies, Inc.," p. 11. 18. Smith, "Denial of the Armenian Genocide," in Charny, ed., Genocide, 2:83. I

The Wizard of MGM Kirk Kerkorian wants respect in Hollywood. Alex Yemenidjian is in charge of earning it. By Brett Pulley Forbes Magazine, 05.28.01 For much of his career, Alex Yemenidjian was a certified public accountant, toiling in the dry realm of tax planning. But in his current role as head of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer he has days like this one: He and the saucy siren Sharon Stone meet privately in his office to talk about the sequel to her hit thriller Basic Instinct. She suggests the opening scene: Her character emerges from the shower, naked and dripping wet, just as the cops arrive. Running MGM is a tough job. No, really, it is. Chitchat with Sharon Stone is one thing, but Yemenidjian also seeks to revive the glorious motion-picture lion that once roared with masterpieces like The Wizard of Oz and Gone with the Wind. MGM, formed in a three-way merger in 1924, was home to Clark Gable, Greta Garbo, Judy Garland and Spencer Tracy. These days publicly held MGM is 81% owned by financier Kirk Kerkorian, who has bought or sold the studio five times in three decades. In that time MGM has withered, reduced to a mere bit player among Hollywood's film factories. It went 11 years without a profitable quarter, a slump that ended as Kerkorian installed his longtime consigliere, Yemenidjian, as chief executive of the studio in April 1999. Now two years into the role created by Louis B. Mayer, Yemenidjian just may be up to the task of resurrecting MGM. Far more experienced chiefs have failed before him-Paramount alum Frank Mancuso, producer Alan Ladd Jr. Yemenidjian is the antimogul. He shuns long lunches at Spago, refuses to buy a studio jet and balks at excessive pay for fading stars. He focuses more on profits than on creative vision. Yet Yemenidjian, with help from Hollywood veteran Christopher McGurk, is finding success at the box office. For the first time in six years MGM just had two consecutive films open at number one. Hannibal, the campy horror hit, debuted in February and has grossed $320 million worldwide. Heartbreakers, with Sigourney Weaver, opened in March and is nearing $40 million. And for the first time in more than a decade, with four films, MGM has a full summer slate. The $55 million Martin Lawrence comedy What's the Worst That Could Happen? opens in June, and the $28 million erotic thriller Original Sin, starring Antonio Banderas and Angelina Jolie, opens in August. Yemenidjian, who proved himself the loyal Kerkorian deputy by running the billionaire's separate MGM Grand casino-hotel business, has overseen a six-quarter run in which MGM has had operating income (net before depreciation, interest and taxes) of $220 million, versus negative operating income of $100 million in the previous six quarters. In the first three months of 2001 the studio's operating income increased 9% to $28.6 million before the one-time effect of an industrywide accounting change. In two years MGM's stock price has climbed from $12 to $19. As Jack Valenti, chief of the Motion Picture Association of America, observes: "They're really turning this company around." Such rebounds can be fleeting in show biz, and Yemenidjian could yet blow it; all it would take is a nine-figure flop. But for Kirk Kerkorian, a renewed MGM could bring vindication. Despite building a fortune worth $7.8 billion by investing in everything from airlines to Chrysler, Kerkorian has failed to find success in 30 years in Hollywood. He bought MGM in 1969. He sold it in 1986, then repurchased most of it months later. He sold it again in 1990-and bought it back in 1996. All the while MGM's legend unraveled as poor management, scandal and the sale of treasured assets turned it into a pip-squeak in a town dominated by integrated entertainment companies like Sony and Disney. In the process Kerkorian never took a financial bath (see chart), but his reputation took a beating. Hollywood dismissed him as a trader of assets who didn't understand the art of the silver screen. Behind his back people knew him as the guy who ran MGM into the ground. Now, at age 83, Kerkorian finally may get a little respect. That owes largely to Yemenidjian, 45, who had rarely ever set foot in Hollywood. He has worked for Kerkorian since 1989, and they have almost a father-son relationship. And like a loyal son, Yemenidjian is determined to enhance Kerkorian's legacy. "Kirk has gotten a bum rap in Hollywood," he says. "People think he just wants to buy and sell assets. Kirk's not looking to sell MGM. He doesn't need the money. Kirk wants to build MGM." Now comes their biggest challenge. They aim to turn MGM into a global entertainment company with broadcast outlets and cable and satellite channels. MGM, they say, can be a leaner version of a Viacom or a Disney, filling captive media outlets with films from one of the richest libraries in the business. MGM already holds stakes in 14 foreign TV channels. In the U.S. it just paid $825 million for a 20% stake in four cable channels, including Bravo and American Movie Classics, owned by Rainbow Media, which is controlled by NBC and Cablevision. Yemenidjian hopes to buy full control of the four outlets. "It's the beginning of MGM's transformation," he says. Of MGM's $1.2 billion in annual revenue, half now comes from new films, 40% from licensing MGM's library, 7% from TV shows and 3% from other items. In three to five years, Yemenidjian predicts, revenue will be "several times" today's, with less than 25% coming from new movies; the rest will come from advertising, cable and satellite fees, and the library. It sounds good, but plenty of other newcomers have fallen in love with Hollywood, only to lose billions. For now, MGM is still a pygmy. To play with the big boys like Viacom-whose revenue is 17 times that of MGM's-Yemenidjian must boost the stock and use it for big acquisitions. Kerkorian, for his part, will have to dig deep into his own pockets. Kerkorian is maniacally low-profile and hasn't granted an on-the-record interview since 1969. In written answers to some questions, he says MGM "deserves to be a much larger and diversified entertainment company. It's clearly headed in that direction, and I fully support it." Yemenidjian had idolized Kerkorian, a fellow Armenian, for years before going to work for him. Though Yemenidjian's grandparents were born in Armenia, he was born in Argentina, where his father was a shoemaker. When he was 13, the family moved to Los Angeles, but his heavy Spanish accent remains. He graduated from college in 1977 and started his own accounting firm in 1981, getting an M.B.A. at night at the University of Southern California, where he taught taxation. It was perverse training for Hollywood, where 2+2 equals whatever a studio chief wants it to equal. "Historically," he says, "some people abused the system. I won't allow it to happen here." Tall, lean and courtly, he wears scallop-collared shirts of his own design. He's got 60 of them, and they are all white. His office inside MGM's Santa Monica headquarters is stylish but antiseptic: white furniture, white carpet, black-and-white photos of his wife and two children. He is such an outsider that most people in Hollywood are still struggling to pronounce his name ("yemma-NEED-jee-an"). At the New York premiere of Hannibal the film's star, Sir Anthony Hopkins, made a speech to guests and stumbled miserably over the mouthful, failing to get past the first syllable. After joining Kerkorian's Los Angeles office as an accountant, Yemenidjian went to MGM Grand in 1995 as the number two to Chairman J. Terrence Lanni. Yemenidjian became known for preoccupying himself with details. In remodeling the MGM Grand in Las Vegas "he obsessively scrutinized everything," a former aide says. "If he didn't like the way the light came down on the tile on the walkway, it had to be done over until it was done right." Now named the MGM Mirage, the casino company's market cap quadrupled in four years. Hollywood is a tougher place to make money. For the first 17 years after Kerkorian acquired MGM, he struggled to turn a profit. In 1981 he was smart enough to pay $380 million to acquire United Artists, adding the Rocky and James Bond franchises to MGM's stash. But in 1986 he bailed out, selling MGM to Ted Turner for $1.5 billion in cash and stock. Months later Turner was in debt trouble, and Kerkorian paid him $780 million to buy back United Artists, the MGM name, the logo and other assets. Turner kept the 2,200 MGM films made before 1986. He used them to create Turner Classic Movies, a channel now worth an estimated $1.2 billion. In 1990 Kerkorian retreated once again, selling MGM to Pathe Communications for $1.34 billion, 72% more than he had paid four years earlier. But Pathe's owner, Giancarlo Paretti, had bribed bank officials to raise the cash to buy the studio. He defaulted in 1992, and bank Crédit Lyonnais took control. In 1996 Kerkorian took his third shot at MGM, paying the bank $1.3 billion-a hefty price, given MGM's travails. With Kerkorian's blessing, then-chief Frank Mancuso loaded up on content. MGM went public again in 1997, raising $180 million for 10% of its stock. Months later MGM spent $573 million to purchase Orion Pictures. In 1999 it put up $235 million for PolyGram's film library. Kerkorian now had the industry's biggest modern library-more than 4,100 theatrical releases, 75% of them made after 1960. With the content in hand the priority shifted to building distribution, but Mancuso, in his mid-60s, wanted to retire. In 1999 Kerkorian began looking for a successor, tapping Yemenidjian, who sat on the MGM board, to help in the search. Then Kerkorian simply installed Yemenidjian in the job. The finance man lacked Hollywood shrewdness but had the owner's trust. They talked two or three times a day and played tennis every weekend. To hell with Hollywood experience. "This is the first time since I took control of MGM in 1969 that I feel totally confident with the management," Kerkorian says in his canned comments. His first day in the new job Yemenidjian arrived at MGM at 8 a.m., worked until 8:30 that night, then drove to Universal Pictures. There he negotiated to win the services of Chris McGurk, then Universal's chief operating officer. At 4 a.m. Yemenidjian went home, having signed McGurk and landed a bonus: MGM would coproduce Hannibal, the sequel to The Silence of the Lambs. MGM would split the $81 million cost of Hannibal and handle the U.S. release; Universal would do overseas distribution, and the two would split revenue down the middle. The film's opening weekend was the third-largest ever in the U.S., taking in $58 million in three days. Arriving at work groggy the next morning, he phoned Kerkorian. "I just worked 20 hours-do I get overtime?" he asked the boss. Kerkorian cracked up. At MGM Yemenidjian strikes a "delicate balance" of personal involvement in all aspects of the studio. "I have a point of view about the creative side and the marketing of pictures," he says, "and I make my point of view known when I think it's important." Last year, after a test screening of the Pierce Brosnan film The Thomas Crown Affair, Yemenidjian stepped in. The character played by Rene Russo needed to remain tough to the very end, he decided. Instead of Russo and Brosnan kissing sweetly, the way the flick ended at first, the final cut shows the kiss, and then Russo whispers in his ear: "You pull a stunt like that again, I'll break both your arms." Brosnan's take on Yemenidjian: "He knows how to crunch the numbers, and he's got a good eye for character." More recently, when eight MGM executives pitched him a project he thought was too costly, he polled them:"Are you willing to stake your bonus for the year on this film?" One at a time, each said yes. They got the green light, but will he really hold them to the bonus bet? "Absolutely," he says. "Otherwise, the next time I say it, it won't have any meaning." Yemenidjian has quickly grasped the social eccentricities and byzantine arithmetic of the insular film industry. By striking ventures with rivals, he plans to release 20 films this year-more than twice the output in 2000, on only a 30% rise in the production budget, to $450 million this year. For Basic Instinct II, which awaits a male lead to joust with Sharon Stone, MGM has offset the entire $55 million budget by selling foreign rights to the film's producers. That approach cuts MGM's risk and gives it a stake in many more films, but also forces the lion to split the upside. Yemenidjian also has spent $225 million to end a contract with AOL Time Warner's home video unit, which handled distribution for a fee of 12% of sales. MGM now does it itself, at half the cost. That saves $20 million a year and frees MGM to use video rights as a bargaining chip in coproduction deals. To improve foreign distribution, Yemenidjian last year withdrew from a syndicate that required MGM to pay a fixed cost for overhead, regardless of how few films it released. Now MGM pays News Corp.'s Fox 9% of its share of overseas sales to get MGM films into theaters, on a per-picture basis. In the past 18 months Yemenidjian also has raised $1.4 billion in a rights offering to shareholders and in three private placements. He used the cash to fund the film slate, reduce debt by $200 million to $900 million and buy into the Rainbow channels. To reduce overhead he has cut MGM's work force by 6% to 1,000. MGM's overhead, at $185 million last year, was 14% of revenue, down from 17% in 1999. Bucking Hollywood's propensity for self-interest, Yemenidjian also has cut back on long-term contracts and lavish bonuses. Six of MGM's 12 division heads have left since he took over. Instead of signing five-year pacts with their replacements, he imposed three-year deals with two-year options. This reduces severance packages. "The richest people in town are those who've been fired a couple of times," he says. "People who are talented don't worry about having a long-term contract." He gives all employees stock, and ties bonuses directly to operating profits. Most studios base bonuses on market share and box-office gross. Though the lease on MGM headquarters is about to expire, the company will merely move into an office tower in Century City. He won't even consider relocating to a studio lot, the ultimate status symbol. MGM hasn't owned a lot since Kerkorian sold out to Ted Turner in 1986. Lots are expensive trophies with soundstages that sit empty half the time and street sets that directors shun in favor of location shots. "You could not give me a lot," Yemenidjian says disdainfully. When the numbers look bad, the old accountant balks. A few months ago he backed out of Dragonfly, arguing the fading star Kevin Costner was overpriced at a guaranteed $15 million. Universal bought the rights and has begun filming, Costner's deal intact. Still, Yemenidjian knows when to pay up. Word is he is wooing Mike Meyers of Austin Powers fame, trying to persuade the comic to assume the Peter Sellers role in a planned Pink Panther film, the tenth in the series. The glare of Tinseltown blinds many rookies, but MGM's chief seems unfazed. Other moguls mingled with the stars at the Academy Awards in March; Yemenidjian stayed home with his wife, watching on TV. The Oscars, he says, "are not as glamorous as they seem." (Especially when your studio isn't up for any.) As Kerkorian says: "Alex isn't seduced by the trappings of the entertainment industry." Many predict Kerkorian will soon sell out again, but Yemenidjian insists the goal is to more than double MGM's market cap, then make a large acquisition. His vice chairman, McGurk, is more blunt: "We are not for sale." But Yemenidjian admits suitors call frequently these days. Cablevision, cozying up to MGM since Yemenidjian invested in its Rainbow cable unit, could plausibly buy the studio in order to capture its library. A fledgling TV outlet-Paxson Communications, for one-could become an instant player by grabbing the MGM library. And if MGM can land a few hits, the library's value grows. MGM hasn't won a best picture Oscar since the 1988 film Rain Man. But hopes are high this year for Windtalkers, starring Nicholas Cage and directed by John Woo; it's scheduled for release in November. At $110 million, it is the renewed MGM's biggest gamble. If it fails, MGM's comeback could sputter. If it's a success and wins a nomination, Yemenidjian finally may break the pattern and attend the Academy Awards-in one of those weird shirts. There's No Business Like Show Biz Ian Zack, Forbes Magazine, 05.28.01 While MGM has spent three decades in an on-again, off-again dalliance with Kirk Kerkorian, its Hollywood rivals have been fodder for takeover by soft- drink sellers, electronics makers, billionaires and media conglomerates. Studio and founding: Columbia Pictures (1924). Stars and hallmark films: Rita Hayworth, Jimmy Stewart; Lawrence of Arabia, Men in Black. Owner legacy: Financial turmoil in the 1970s. Coca-Cola bought it (1982) for $750 million. Sold to Sony Corp. (1989) for $3.4 billion. Sony took $3.2 billion writeoff of losses (1994). Studio and founding: Paramount (1914). Stars and hallmark films: Bob Hope, Gary Cooper; The Ten Commandments, The Godfather. Owner legacy: Acquired by Gulf & Western (1966). Viacom gained control (1994) for $10 billion after takeover war with former studio head Barry Diller. Studio and founding: United Artists (1919). Stars and Hallmark films: Charlie Chaplin, Sean Connery; Some Like It Hot, the James Bond series. Owner legacy: Went public (1957), acquired by TransAmerica Corp. (1967). Suffered $44 million loss on (1980) western Heaven's Gate. Sold to MGM (1981) for $380 million. Studio and founding: Universal (1912). Stars and hallmark films: Rudolph Valentino, Abbott and Costello; All Quiet on the Western Front, American Graffiti. Owner legacy: Decca Records gained control (1950). Swallowed by MCA (1962). Matsushita bought MCA (1990) for $6.6 billion. Kept $3 billion debt, but sold 80 percent to Seagram (1995) for $5.7 billion. Last year, acquired by Vivendi for $34 billion. Studio and founding: Warner Bros. (1923). Stars and hallmark films: Humphrey Bogart, James Cagney; The Jazz Singer, Superman. Owner legacy: Bought by Kinney National Service (1969). Acquired by Time Inc. (1989) for $14 billion. Became AOL Time Warner in January merger. Studio and founding: 20th Century Fox. (1935). Stars and hallmark films: Marilyn Monroe, Gregory Peck; The Sound of Music, Titanic. Owner legacy: Bought by oil billionaire Marvin Davis (1981) for $722 million. Acquired by Rupert Murdoch in two pieces (1985-86) for $575 million. Now part of Murdoch's News Corp.

ARF Conference Reaffirms Party Position Regarding Artsax Negotiations The ARF Bureau held a conference in Yerevan from May 11-12, to deal with the latest phase in the ongoing negotiations in the Artsax conflict. The conference reviewed the variants in the resolutions which have been proposed by the three co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group. It is presumed that these proposals will most likely be presented to the parties of the conflict in the next few weeks. Conference participants included the ARF Bureau, the ARF Executive Council of Armenia, the Central Committee of Artsakh, representatives from various other ARF central committees, members of the ARF factions in the Armenian and Artsax parliaments, and other invited members of the party. The conference, putting faith in the negotiation process as a peaceful solution to the conflict at its present stage, affirmed the ARF position calling for the reunification of Artsakh with Armenia, which is part of the party program and is of strategic value. The assembly upheld the position of the ARF regarding the negotiation process, which was outlined in a statement released by the ARF Bureau on March 20, 2001. The conference also clarified the party’s positions on the variants proposed by the OSCE Group. The conference affirmed that even at the first phase of the peace negotiations, the ARF stressed the necessity of fully involving Armenian political forces in the process. The security of not only Artsakh, but also the national security of Armenia and the Armenian people, is on the negotiating table. A unified position, unanimous adherence, and especially the strengthening of internal political stability must be displayed by the Armenian side, so that a victorious outcome can be realized in the negotiations. Furthermore, the conference called on the Armenian president to consult with Armenian political forces in the examination of the various proposals that have been made, so that a single consolidated policy can be adopted. The conference also found it necessary the full participation of the Nagorno Artsax leadership in the decisive phases of the negotiations. The conference closed with the conclusion that the ARF supports a fair and peaceful resolution which could come about as a result of the ongoing negotiations, as long as the following principles are upheld in the peace process: - Securing the reunification of Artsakh with the Republic of Armenia or at least the recognition of Artsakh’s independent status - Guaranteeing the security and defense of Artsakh and Armenia, - Protecting the Armenian Republic’s sovereignty over its territory, as well as affirming Armenia’s strategic importance in the region. The conference concluded that all those who expect the Armenian people to renounce the gains made in the Artsax conflict simply because of the current social-economic conditions, are mistaken. The conference also reaffirmed the ARF’s commitment to the Armenian Cause and the resolution of the Artsax conflict which must secure the gains achieved during the 13-year struggle.

Oz, I have to tell you that it is one of my least favorite things when somebody questions my sincerity. To the contrary to you, I would not question your sincerity, even though I may have more reasons for it, and more evidence supporting it. Before your mentioning of it, I have not even known who Garbisyan was, and have not had interest in him. Before you can raise the issue of one Armenian man killing one Turkish diplomat (or let’s say several), assuming even they were innocent, I am yet to hear from you condemnation for the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Armenians by the Ottoman Empire, instead of your prolonged maneuverings on the subject – if we are to call things by their names. I don’t speak for the French government. However my understanding is that Garbisian has admitted his responsibility for whatever killings he has done, has served his time, and now he is released. The length of his imprisonment is a secondary issue in my view. As you are aware (I am sure), Soghomon Tehlirian has also admitted his responsibility for the killing ofTaalat ***** in a German court, but has been found Not Guilty by the court. Additionally, a denier of the Armenian Genocide, assuming that he/she does it consciously and with a full knowledge and understanding of the truth (which I am sure is the case with Turkish diplomats), is not an innocent person, in my view, but guilty in the participation of the Genocide through his/her attempt of cover up. Does this imply that I think we have to take the mission of bringing justice into our own hands? No. I don’t think so, and I think it is senseless and counterproductive. I don’t know whether the French Government has done the right thing or not. I am not going to talk for them, neither I have any rights to talk for the Armenian Governement, or the US government, whose citizen I am. I can talk only for myself, and I have been doing so far in this forum. You ask: “Do you think they are fair to all humans in human rights and other similar issues?” I presume you are asking if it is fair from the point of view of Human Rights to release Garbisian? Again, the French court has found him guilty in whatever crimes when convicting him, and the French court has perhaps cut his sentence short due to whatever “mitigating circumstances.” When the Ottoman Turkey is found guilty for its crimes, and brought to justice, I would also be open to a discussion of cutting its “sentence” short, probably. Finally, why do you care if French care about us or not? Does it change the facts? Are you pursuing justice and mutual understanding, or are you trying to give us education in International Politics? Does it have anything to do with the substance of the issue, which is the committing of one of the most hideous crimes in the history of mankind by the Government, whose crime you want to brush under the rug through your infinite maneuverings? Wouldn’t you give us a little bit more credit, and accept that we are, maybe just a little bit, but smarter than that?

"ARMENIA IS OUR FLAGSHIP PRODUCT IN CAUCASUS," WORLD BANK'S REPRESENTATIVE SAYS YEREVAN, May 14. /Mediamax/. "Armenia is our flagship product in the Caucasus." This words belong to Owaise Saadat, World Bank's Representative in Armenia are quoted by Financial Times paper, in an article on "Armenia Investor" business-forum held in New York on May 9-12. The paper says that the World Bank and other international agencies believe Armenia's progress in both political and economic reform can be an example for the rest of the region. President Kocharian said in an interview to Financial Times that there was a mutual recognition that direct investment into the private sector could push the country forward. "We need investment like we need air," says Finance and Economics Minister of Armenia Vardan Khachatrian in his interview to the newspaper.

Have a good trip.

Everybody who is able to post here is already a member. So, you are a member. Your status depends on the number of your postings, and will be upgraded automatically by the software. We don't vote on the status of the members. It doesn't take too many postings so that to become a Member (non-junior). Don't know the exact number. Additionally, by being a Member rather than a Junior Member, nothing will change in your status or privileges. It is just reflective of the number of your posts. [ May 14, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

quote:Originally posted by Domino: There is some repetitions in this post, since he posted tree time. And the funny faces are not intentional. Domino, You can easily disable the "faces." Click the edit botton, and then put check marks where appropriate.

quote:Originally posted by oz: By the way, yesterday French government relased Varujan Garbisyan and sent him back to Yerevan. What are you thinking about that? [ May 12, 2001: Message edited by: oz ] Oz, Varujan Garbisian has never resided in Yerevan. He couldn't be sent "back" there, therefore.

BABKEN ARARKTSIAN THINKS NO DOCUMENT ON Artsax SETTLEMENT WILL BE SIGNED IN THE NEAR FUTURE -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- YEREVAN, May 11 (Noyan Tapan). The ex-speaker of the Armenian parliament (1992-1998) Babken Ararktsian, who is now one of the leaders of the "Armat" ("Root") Center for the Development of Democracy and Civil Society, disagrees with the wording that the drafting of a certain plan of settlement of the Nagorno-Artsax problem is the result of the latest round of talks between the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan in Key West. He expressed this opinion during a meeting with journalists at the National Press Club on May 11. Actually, Ararktsian believes, the result of these talks is the re-shaping of the geopolitical map of the region, in which the issue of Nagorno Artsax's status is but an insignificant part. The ex-speaker said that the format of the negotiations was changed with the "revolt of 1998" when the necessary dialogue between Stepanakert and Baku was replaced by bilateral meetings of the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan, and Nagorno Artsax transformed from the subject of the negotiations into an object. He emphasized that the real geopolitical change is the following circumstance: Turkey will get a land link with "mainland" Azerbaijan. In Ararktsian's estimation, by signing the final document of the OSCE summit in Istanbul, the current president of Armenia, in fact, confirmed the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. Babken Ararktsian recalled some events of 1997 when President Levon Ter-Petrossian agreed to compromises but not to the detriment of Armenia's sovereignty. For that very reason he was removed from power by "external forces". The "external forces" relied on a leader in Armenia who would agree to a transformation process: to reform the Nagorno Artsax problem into a new geopolitical scheme of the region. It was for that "service" that Robert Kocharian (Ararktsian emphasized that "the revolt of 1998" was led by the current president of Armenia) was awarded the "Legion of Honor" Order in 2001. The current economic forum in New York on Armenia, in which the Cochairman of the OSCE Minsk Group Carey Cavanaugh is taking an active part, is only a stage in the matter of fixing a price for the consent to the mentioned deal, Ararktsian claimed. Speaking about Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanian, the former top legislator said that this man should not be rebuked, as he is only a "mouthpiece of Robert Kocharian" and the executor of the political will of the current president of the country. Answering the questions of journalists concerning the status of the decision made by the Armenian parliament of 1992 to restrict the mandate of the president at talks around Nagorno Artsax, Ararktsian said that this decision remains in vigor, as it was not abolished by anyone. As for possible predictions regarding the settlement process in general, Ararktsian said he did not believe in the "legends" that the real positions of Russia, the USA and France coincided in this matter. He stressed that "... Russia has not had its say yet". In his opinion, the only country which is really concerned in the process is the United States. Babken Ararktsian finds that: first, the real format of talks within the framework of the OSCE Minsk Group on Nagorno Artsax should be immediately restored; secondly, any solutions infringing upon Armenia's sovereignty are unacceptable; thirdly, the current leaders of the country must resign immediately and a new, legitimate president is to be elected. The ex-speaker believes that the tough statement of the parliamentary factions and groups on the Artsax settlement made on April 27 was initiated by the president and pursues the ultimate goal of delaying the signing of the final documents for at least another year, i.e. the next presidential election (2003). Ararktsian thinks he will win another bet in the visible future, as no document on the Artsax settlement will be signed in the visible future. *01/-2e--p c32 $e17 11/05/2001 Copyright © 19

Circassian, Thanks. It is an interesting material. Good luck in your aspirations!

To all current and future mothers!

quote:Originally posted by MadArmo: Ok, Who's the real Armenian ?? The Mad ones.

quote:Originally posted by oz: There could be no excuse for any type of violation. So, what do we do now? [ May 13, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

quote:Originally posted by hayemyes: Thx all, but the guy told me it was in the 1930s and the inventor is born in Baku. I also thought it must be an armenian. That may very well be true (about where he was born).

quote:Originally posted by oz: Berj, there could be no excuse for terrorism. I don't accept buts,ifs or becauses when we are talking about terrorism. Oz, How about excuses for Genocide, or even just for slaughtering hundreds of thousands of innocent people, whatever the context. Can there be an excuse for it?