HR398 Genocide recognition

[Guest]

Are the readers and posters of this sight aware of HR 398 which is being debated at this very moment by the US House of Repersentatives special committee regarding the Official recognition of the Armenian Genocide and specifically the use of the term "Genocide" in offical US documentation regarding the event?

[Guest]

URGENT ACTION REQUESTED -- HOUSE INT'L RELATIONS COMMITTEE

TO VOTE ON ARMENIAN GENOCIDE BILL THIS THURSDAY, 9/29/00

 

 

HELP PASS THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE RESOLUTION - H.RES.398

 

VISIT WWW.ANCA.ORG TO SEND A FAX

TO YOUR U.S. REPRESENTATIVE

 

STATUS:

 

The full U.S. House International Relations Committee is set to

vote on the Armenian Genocide Resolution (H.Res.398) on Thursday,

September 28th. Your faxed message to your U.S. representative is

critical to building the support this measure will need to win in

Committee and to move forward to final passage.

 

The Armenian Genocide Resolution was adopted, on September 21st, by

voice vote in the Subcommittee on International Operations and

Human Rights. A favorable vote in Committee will help move H. Res.

398 to the House floor for a vote. Its defeat in Committee would

seriously hinder its progress.

 

Action:

 

Contact your Representative today and urge them to support passage

of H.Res.398. To fax a letter to your Representative today:

 

1) Go to www.anca.org

 

2) At the top of the page, click on "Click here to fax a letter to

your Representative urging them to Support H.Res.398"

 

3) Enter your Zip Code at the prompt at the top of this page and

follow the simple instructions.

 

4) Forward this message to family, friends, and community

activists.

 

(To send to other members of Congress, click on "Guide to Congress"

and select a Representative, then use the "Send fax" option on the

member profile page.)

[Guest]

Finally! And the Turks can kiss our **ses!

[Guest]

Yes, we're aware of it. Fully so. However, it's my personal opinion that in the event the resolution should pass, it would not be a victory for Armenians. To the contrary, it would be a defeat of sorts. Let me explain.

 

The turks are our allies (us=americans). The passing of this resolution would put those ties with the turks in jeopardy. At the very least temporary tension would arise. It's a headache for the U.S. government, albeit a minor one, but still a headache. Armenians will be remembered on the American political stage as those pests who caused so much trouble. Do we want to be remembered like that?

 

Now, granted, there are other issues at stake here. I fully understand (and even agree with, surprise, surprise) the importance of the recognition of the genocide. I just think its recognition by the U.S. government would do more harm than good for us (us=armenians). (Lol, I should really choose an identity, either armenian or american, otherwise I'm just confusing all of you, not to mention myself.)

 

In any case, please don't jump all over this topic and make me out to be the enemy of the armenian state or anything equally heinous.

 

Gayane

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gayane:


Yes, we're aware of it. Fully so. However, it's my personal opinion that in the event the resolution should pass, it would not be a victory for Armenians. To the contrary, it would be a defeat of sorts. Let me explain.

The turks are our allies (us=americans). The passing of this resolution would put those ties with the turks in jeopardy. At the very least temporary tension would arise. It's a headache for the U.S. government, albeit a minor one, but still a headache. Armenians will be remembered on the American political stage as those pests who caused so much trouble. Do we want to be remembered like that?

Now, granted, there are other issues at stake here. I fully understand (and even agree with, surprise, surprise) the importance of the recognition of the genocide. I just think its recognition by the U.S. government would do more harm than good for us (us=armenians). (Lol, I should really choose an identity, either armenian or american, otherwise I'm just confusing all of you, not to mention myself.)

In any case, please don't jump all over this topic and make me out to be the enemy of the armenian state or anything equally heinous.

Gayane

---

[Guest]

Gayane, you have got to be kidding, your response is insane, you don't have an identity problem you have a logic problem.

Do some legitimate research on the subject of Genocide and then give your opinion until then please go away.

[Guest]

Turkish Daily News

23 September 2000

 

Comments and Analysis.

 

Is voting on the 'Armenian genocide' a sign of the disuniting of America?

 

The fragile bonds of cohesion in the US are already seen as fertile ground

for homegrown ethnic revolt against the 'melting pot'

 

 

Opinion By Yasemin Dobra Manco

 

 

It has been said that the genius of America lies in its capacity to forge a

single nation from peoples of diverse religious, racial and ethnic origins.

But can a highly differentiated society be torn apart by the demands of

group rights?

 

In the well-known book "The Disuniting of America" by Arthur Schlesinger,

the writer asks, "Must we surrender national identity to ethnic lobbies?"

The question should be posed to over 500 U.S. congressmen and senators at a

time when the Armenian lobby is transforming U.S. congressmen into

historians and judges of controversial historic events.

 

One subject of recent debate has been a bill that would mandate that U.S.

diplomats and public officials be fully educated about the controversial

"Armenian genocide." The Pentagon has reportedly warned that the recognition

of such a bill could have destabilizing effects in the Eurasian region. But

what effects can it have on U.S. soil?

 

The United States has been admired around the world for managing ethnic

diversity and has made diversity itself a source of national unity and

identity. However, with the upsurge of ethnicity, observers note that this

assimilating and unifying culture is being challenged, while Americanization

is loosing ground and the fragmentation of American life is advancing.

 

Ethnic ideologues are setting themselves against the old American ideal of

assimilation, noted Schlesinger a decade ago. "They call on the republic to

think in terms not of individual, but of group identity, and to move the

polity from individual rights to group rights. They have made a certain

progress in transforming the United States into a more segregated society,"

explains the Pulitzer Prize-winning author.

 

Like some observers, Schlesinger warns that a cult of ethnicity has arisen

in the United States which opposes assimilation, the concept of "one

people," and promotes separate communities. He reveals that its underlying

philosophy is that America is not a nation of individuals, but a nation of

groups and that division into ethnic communities establishes the basic

structure of American society and the basic meaning of American history.

 

The professor cautions: "The historic idea of a unifying American identity

is now in peril in many arenas -- in our politics, our voluntary

organizations, our churches, our language. And in no arena is the rejection

of an overriding national identity more crucial than in our system of

education." Schlesinger, who is concerned about betraying both history and

education, writes, "Our schools and colleges have a responsibility to teach

history for its own sake -- as part of the intellectual equipment of

civilized persons -- and not to degrade history by allowing its contents to

be dictated by pressure groups, whether ideological, economic, religious, or

ethnic."

 

The impact distorted information has had on U.S. legislators should be

carefully studied by U.S. political scientists and sociologists, in addition

to the detrimental effect such information can have on education and

domestic and foreign policy.

 

For years, Armenian-Americans have been lobbying for the recognition of the

alleged 1915 Armenian genocide as well as seeking to "educate" American

lawmakers and American school children about their version of events (which

many U.S. scholars maintain are not based on historical fact). There are

many other ethnic and racial groups in America who (right or wrong) feel

they have been wronged by history or the United States. There are also

foreign groups around the world who feel wronged by America. Once precedents

are established, how will the U.S. government determine which political

demands are legitimate?

 

It is hard to imagine how the United States would respond if countless

ethnic groups wish to create multicultural textbooks that incorporate all

views of their ethnic history. Japanese-Americans, African-Americans,

Latinos, Native Americans, Asian-Americans, Greek-Americans,

Mexican-Americans... Will there be sufficient room for the traditional

national heroes, folkways, common culture, creeds, mottoes and pledges that

have shaped America? As historic resentments are awakened, how can past

wrongs and denied opportunities be rectified?

 

It is evident that greater awareness must be generated in the United States

about how national and common interests are best served. The fragile bonds

of cohesion are already seen by some to be fertile ground for homegrown

ethnic revolt against the "melting pot." Can it reach the point of a denial

of a common culture and a single society? "If large numbers of people really

accept this, the republic would be in serious trouble," the author warns.

 

Hatred, prejudices, differences, antagonisms and separatism are likely to be

magnified if an increasing number of politicians lose the vision of

America's future and are preoccupied by the short-term rewards of gaining

ethnic votes.

 

As a result, ethnic loyalties may increasingly have to be replaced by

national and universal loyalties. In a world of racial and ethnic conflict

it is important that America be an example of a society united by diversity.

The burden of training citizens of the future and of maintaining a united

America falls on the shoulders of America's leaders. This training

incorporates an appreciation of common ideals and the national identity

which can be found in the professions of faith and solidarity which

generations of Americans once lived by and cherished. U.S. interests might

be better served if legislatures devoted time to creating a course for

themselves on what holds a nation together rather than debating how to

educate Americans about the controversial history of the Ottoman Empire.

 

The ever-growing debate over the so-called Armenian genocide, its place in

Congress, in U.S. textbooks and in diplomatic and non-diplomatic courses is

actually a potentially dangerous debate about what it means to be an

American.

[Guest]

TURKISH Daily News

25 September 2000

 

 

Turkey unlikely to embargo US over genocide bill

 

 

Not to mention its unquestionable dominance over lifestyle, consumer habits

and the broadcasting and movie industries, the U.S. has considerable

investments in Turkey

 

 

ANKARA - TURKISH Daily News

 

Based on Treasury and Foreign Trade Undersecretariat data, the Anatolia news

agency reported that U.S. firms account for $3.04 billion of a total $26.8

billion in foreign capital in Turkey as of last June. The U.S. is the third

largest investor in Turkey next to France with $5.3 billion and Germany with

$3.5 billion.

 

Treasury data show that foreign firms have filed for $1.2 billion worth of

direct investment in Turkey in the first half of this year, of which $30.6

million would be U.S. investments.

 

5,129 international firms, including 318 from the U.S., were active in

Turkey at the end of June.

 

The U.S. is also Turkey's second biggest trading partner. Turkey sent 11.2

percent of its total exports, that is $1.5 billion out of $13.4 billion, to

the U.S. in the first half of this year. That represents a 26.4 percent

increase from the comparable period in 1999. The U.S. bought 9.2 percent, or

$1.2 billion worth of Turkey's exports in the first half of 1999.

 

In the first half of this year, the U.S. sold $1.96 billion worth of goods

and services to Turkey, which translates as 7.8 percent of Turkey's total

imports. Compared to the same 1999 period, Turkey's imports from the U.S.

rose by 40.2 percent, which was partly caused by the dollar's appreciation

against other currencies.

 

Turkey's imports from the U.S. totaled $3.1 billion and exports to that

country $2.4 billion last year, compared to the previous year's $4 billion

and $2.2 billion, respectively.

 

The U.S. considers Turkey to be among the 10 most important emerging

markets. To Turkish firms the U.S. is a developed market with high

purchasing power.

 

Approval by a House subcommittee of the so-called Armenian genocide bill

sparked debates on sanctions against the U.S.; however, Turkey frequently

chose retaliation through political means in recent similar cases.

 

When sanctions against Iran were under consideration a short while ago

because of assassinations and fundamentalist activities attributed to that

country, an official trade mission was allowed to visit Iran at a time when

debates had hit a peak.

 

Mutual trade-related visits are going on between Turkey and Syria, though

the latter was politically and economically embargoed for years for

sheltering separatist Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) organization chief.

 

Similarly, despite disagreements over the longstanding Cyprus and Aegean

issues, Turkish and Greek businessmen are working to strengthen ties.

 

In a final example, Turkey was stiffly urged to impose a commercial embargo

on Italy when that country openly provided shelter to PKK chief Abdullah

Ocalan. Even then the Turkish government did not assume an official stand

against Italy, whereas the public boycotted Italian goods for a short time.

 

Debates over possible sanctions are on the agenda because of Belgium's

protective attitude toward Fehriye Erdal, one of the assassins of Sabanci

Holding executives. But Turkey avoids an open retaliation, in a bid to draw

a line between politics and trade. On the other hand, certain trade

organizations are attempting to influence the public opinion in this regard.

 

In the case of the U.S., Turkish consumers will have to review their habits

entirely if they are to boycott Coke, McDonald's, Burger King, Levi's or

Nike. Also there will be little to watch if TV channels stop airing U.S.

films, cartoons, soap operas, sitcoms and documentaries. The unofficial

dollarization of the entire economy would be another major problem if Turkey

attempted to boycott the U.S. over the Armenian genocide bill.

[Guest]

Art, whether the resolution will go past the full committee, we will probably know when you read this reply (at least that’s my guess about the time zone you are in). I am very suspicious that it will survive the full House vote. But if it passes by some mystery, as I have mentioned before, I think it has no chance of going past the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and it makes no even sense to count on the full Senate or the White House, no matter what administration - Democrat or Republican.

 

But I think even if by some godly power it passes all instances, other than shaping public opinion and bringing Turkey to a negotiating table, it will be of no other real consequences.

 

I believe that achieving some kind of breakthrough in Turkish-Armenian relations may become possible only if Turkey itself recognizes the Genocide, which implies that we need a dialog with them. Obviously they are not idiots, and will not recognize it unless they know in advance how far the Armenian claims will go. Therefore, first we as Armenians have homework to do in formulating for ourselves - what is it that we want from Turkey. Next we have to estimate which part of our claims are realistic and expedient (for example is the hypothetical scenario of Turkey returning our lands even on a small scale in the interests of Armenia?). Then we have to engage in about a decade of negotiations with Turkey, without demonizing them.

 

And I think engaging them has to start now, since it will take very long time to establish a climate of a normal tone. Look at the example of our forum. We all are Armenians here, but frequently cannot advance a dialog even in this format, when our opinions somewhat differ. Can you imagine what would happen if we start negotiations with Turks in this forum? And I am not even talking about outside this forum...

[Guest]

Time to relax

 

 

California Courier

September 28, 2000

 

Commentary

 

Turks Blame Monica Lewinsky For House Vote on Genocide Bill

 

By Harut Sassounian

California Courier Publisher

 

The Turkish newspaper Milliyet offered last week a rather unique analysis

in trying to explain why the US House of Representatives has taken up the

issue of the Armenian Genocide. "It's all Monica's fault,"

the paper said.

This bizarre statement seems to have some factual basis, after all.

Milliyet reminded its readers that when it was revealed that Pres. Clinton

had an illicit sexual affair with Monica, Congress decided to impeach him.

On the eve of the impeachment hearings, Cong. Bob Livingston, who was

slated to become the Speaker of the House, announced his resignation due to

his own extra-marital affair. He was replaced by Speaker Dennis Hastert who

directed that a House panel consider the Armenian Genocide Resolution.

Therefore, Milliyet reasoned, if Pres. Clinton did not have sex with

Monica, impeachment hearings would not have been held, and Cong.

Livingston's affair would not have been revealed. He would have become

Speaker of the House and would not have allowed the House to take up the

Armenian Genocide Resolution. So it's all Monica's fault!

Ever since last week's approval of the Armenian Genocide bill by the House

Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, the Turks, who

were going berserk before the vote, now have gone completely bananas! God

only knows what they will do when the International Relations Committee and

then the full House of Representatives adopt the Genocide bill.

Turkish officials and political leaders are orchestrating this

over-reaction in order to jockey for domestic political advantage. They are

trying to outdo each other in a show of who can defend the Turkish "honor"

more. Even the President of Turkey was not spared from attacks by fellow

Turks for not responding strongly enough to Pres. Kocharian's remarks on

the Armenian Genocide at the United Nations.

Last Sunday, a group of Turks staged a demonstration in front of the US

Consulate in Adana. They burnt an Armenian flag and American-made goods.

We won't be surprised if this scene is repeated over the next few days in a

number of other Turkish cities. Fearing that the approval of the Genocide

bill by the US House of Representatives would have a domino

effect on a number of European countries, the Turks are intentionally

over-reacting in order to discourage others from following suit.

Frustrated by the inability to take any effective measures against the

United States (after all Turkey needs the US more that the US needs the

Turks), the Turkish government is now directing its anger towards a

smaller target -- Armenia. According to press reports, Ankara has prepared

an "action plan" against Armenia. One of the retaliatory measures is said

to be the closing of the air corridor over Turkey to deny the delivery of

humanitarian aid to Armenia. Fortunately, there is very little else the

Turks could do against Armenia, since Turkey has refused to establish

diplomatic relations with Yerevan and has already closed its mutual border

for several years.

Another sign of Turkey's frustration is the directing its anger against the

Armenians of Istanbul who are the remnants of the Armenian Genocide.

These Armenians have the misfortune of continuing to live with the

descendants of those who butchered their forefathers. Their churches and

schools have been subjected to various restrictions with the aim of

eliminating all traces of Armenian presence in the country. Just last week,

the Patriarch of Istanbul Mesrob II, issued a statement openly calling on

Turkish authorities to resolve the Armenian community's problems.

The Patriarch said: "There are still areas where we are discriminated

against. For instance, we have reached a point where it is almost

impossible to prepare new priests for our community. Armenian organizations

and communal trusts are treated as if they were not Turkish Republican

institutions. While any westerner is free to bequeath his or her wealth to

any person, institution or even an animal, a Turkish citizen of Armenian

descent cannot bequeath his or her property to the Armenian community's

hospital, schools or churches. It is time to put an end to these irrelevant

and biased policies inherited from the 1970's. We expect understanding from

our Government and statesmen. It should not abjure the willingness to

resolve the issues faced by the Turkish Armenians merely because of

negative developments overseas."

Having made such a forthright and courageous statement, the Patriarch then

issued a second more cautious statement on the issue of the Armenian

Genocide bill in Congress. Without denying the facts of the Armenian

Genocide, Patriarch Mesrob II said, "it is not pleasant that unrelated

parliaments adopt decisions on issues pertaining to Turkish-Armenian

relations. We also believe that such interventions are unavoidable and that

this regretful situation will persist as long as the parties do not seek a

solution through dialogue."

The Patriarch, who knows well the facts of the Armenian Genocide, is forced

to tread a very delicate line. As the spiritual leader of the local

Armenian community, he is responsible for the safety of his flock.

This is no small task given the anti-Armenian frenzy that has been whipped

up all across Turkey in recent days. Indirectly indicating the precarious

existence of the Armenian community in Turkey, the Patriarch

concluded his statement with the following ominous words: "We would like to

believe that the people of Turkey and public opinion will analyze correctly

the recent developments and will not permit that this latest issue cause

any harm to the Armenian compatriots of Turkey."

Ironically, one of the first victims of last week's House Subcommittee vote

may be the powerful lobbyists of the Turkish government. Former Congressmen

Bob Livingston, Gerald Solomon (Republicans) and Stephen Solarz (Democrat),

despite their $1.8 million compensation, could not garner more than a

single vote (Cong. Dan Burton) in favor of Turkey in the Subcommittee.

Sabah, one of the largest newspapers in Turkey, published a commentary last

week questioning the usefulness of the highly paid trio for Turkey.

Roll Call, a Washington newspaper that covers Congressional affairs, wrote

this week that "some Republicans are upset at Livingston and Solomon for

accepting so much money to lobby against a key legislative priority of one

of the House GOP's most endangered incumbents [Republican Congressman Jim

Rogan of Glendale, CA]. Roll Call quoted one GOP lawmaker's angry reaction:

"This is ridiculous. What Livingston and Solomon are doing directly

undermines [Rogan's] ability to get re-elected. It's a shame that two

former Republican members are doing this."

Furthermore, Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, during last week's

Subcommittee hearing, in unusually blunt remarks, directly rebuked the

lobbyists for Turkey for disseminating "misinformation, disinformation

or outright lies." She warned these lobbyists that "they forever shattered

their credibility, at least with this Representative."

It looks like these three lobbyists have become an expensive liability,

rather than an asset, for Turkey. House Republicans will not be shedding

any tears at the news of their early departure.

 

**************************************************************

Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 21:45:20 -0400

Sender: "The Washington File for Europe, Russia,

and the New Independent States"

 

Subject: Transcript: U.S. Ambassador to Turkey Press Availability Sept. 22

Transcript: U.S. Ambassador to Turkey Press Availability Sept. 22

 

(Pearson answers questions on U.S. House "Armenian Genocide

Resolution") (430)

 

The new U.S. ambassador to Turkey, Robert Pearson, spoke with

reporters after meetings September 22 with officials at the

Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Ankara. He answered

questions about a resolution in the U.S. House of

Representatives (HR 395), the "Armenian Genocide Resolution."

 

Following is the transcript of his remarks:

 

(begin transcript)

 

QUESTION AND ANSWER WITH U.S. AMBASSADOR ROBERT PEARSON

 

OUTSIDE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

 

Ankara, Turkey

September 22, 2000

 

AMBASSADOR PEARSON: America and Turkey have been solid friends

for a long, long time and that's not going to change. We are

strongly opposed to this resolution. We feel it is disturbing

the fabric of an excellent relationship. We regret the action of

the subcommittee yesterday. We think this issue should be left

to the historians. We want to concentrate on the steps that can

be taken to resolve the regional issues that count, that mean

better futures for all the people involved. We are continuing to

make every effort to deal with this in a proper way.

 

QUESTION: We know the position made in the declaration by

Ambassador Grossman, but you talk about efforts. Could you

elaborate on these?

 

AMBASSADOR PEARSON: No it's better not to go into details about

what we are doing. It's better to reaffirm that we have a solid

basis of friendship and that we are doing everything we possibly

can. We always enjoy the prospect to work on any difficulties

that disturb the relationship.

 

QUESTION: Do you think the Turkish side is convinced the (U.S.)

government is doing a lot?

 

AMBASSADOR PEARSON: The government of Turkey will speak for

itself. My role is to reaffirm our sincere efforts and our

commitment to do everything we can to deal with this.

 

QUESTION: It looks like the Turkish government sees the Yerevan

government as having the main responsibility for all these

developments. Do you give the message to the Turkish side that

their policy toward Yerevan should not become...

 

AMBASSADOR PEARSON: Turkey and the U.S. are partners in the

objective to bring overall stability to the region. That has

been true for a long time. Turkey is a supporter of the Minsk

process, the efforts to find a solution to Nagorno-Artsax

issue. I don't find any real difference between Turkey and the

United States in our objective.

 

Thank you very much.

 

(end transcript)

 

***************************************************************

Sept 27, 2000

 

Kocharian In Moscow

 

TURKIYE - Columnist Yilmaz Oztuna writes on Armenian President Robert

Kocharian's visit to Moscow and the reason behind it. A summary of

his column is as follows:

 

Dashnak party, is a terrorist committee formed by the Armenians with

the encouragement of Russians in 1889. It was later supported by

France and Britain. Its aim was to kill as much Turks and Kurds as

possible and proclaim an autonomous Armenian State. The President of

Armenian Republic Robert Kocharian is one of the leaders of the

Dashnak party. The party which was closed in Armenia in 1994, was

re-opened when Mr. Kocharian came to power. Mr. Kocharian is on a

three-day visit to Russia. President Putin, who is said to be a

modern day tsar, most probably encouraged him and his policies

against Turks and Azerbaijanis. Is not this a deja vu of the

incidents witnessed in 1890s, 1915, and 1920? What if a new version

of it is brought before us in 2000? In the end, the Western countries

will state that now is the time for peace and the Armenians have to

reach an agreement with the Turks. How can a nation as intelligent,

industrious, mastercraftsmen as Armenians who have lived together

with the Turks for centuries believe these? Meanwhile the ruthless

terrorism waged by Dashnak and Hunchak committees against their own

kinsmen should not be forgotten. The bloodshed, a few months ago,

during the raid on the parliamentary building in Yerevan is an

example for this. What will Turkey do if the Armenian argument is

accepted at the US House of Representatives before 15 October? It

will most probably close the air corridor to Yerevan and Armenia will

fall into the hands of Russia and Iran. If Iran increases its support

to Armenia which occupies a quarter of the Azerbaijani territory, it

will offend Azerbaijani citizens of Turkish origin. Iranians are

intelligent people well-versed in history and they know what Turks do

when they are greatly upset. Tomorrow, the US deputies will cast

their votes in Washington. The next day, National Security Council

will meet in Ankara to evaluate the results of the voting. We are

certain that it will make correct assessments. We shall not damage

our ties with the US in a manner pleasing to the Armenians. We shall

not forget that the Armenian question is not as important as our main

objective which is to enter the EU. However, we should be able to

explain to everyone that we have not perpetrated a genocide but have

been subjected to one.

 

SOURCE: OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER, DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF PRESS

AND INFORMATION

 

[Groong note: Armenian president Robert Kocharian is -NOT- a member of

the Dashnak party.]

 

*******************************************************************

Turkish military criticise U.S. on Armenian vote

 

By Steve Bryant

 

 

ISTANBUL, Sept 27 (Reuters) - Turkey's top general said on Wednesday that

the

United States should have studied its own past before U.S. lawmakers

tentatively moved to recognise accusations of a Turkish genocide against

Armenians 85 years ago.

 

``This decision is mistaken, I want to underline that,'' Chief of General

Staff Huseyin Kivrikoglu said. The comments marked rare public criticism by

the military here of the United States, Ankara's chief diplomatic and

military partner.

 

Last week, a congressional subcommittee approved a non-binding resolution

for

President Bill Clinton to ``characterise the systematic and deliberate

annihilation of 1,500,000 Armenians as genocide.''

 

Turkey disputes this allegation and says killings took place on both sides

during a period of partisan fighting as the Ottoman Empire was collapsing.

 

``Countries have to examine what happened in their own past before making

such decisions about other countries,'' the state-run Anatolian news agency

quoted General Kivrikoglu as saying in the Aegean city of Izmir.

 

``If there are worse things in their past they should attend to them and

clean them up,'' he added, without elaborating.

 

Armenia on Tuesday welcomed the congressional move as ``a serious step

towards determining the truth.''

 

Kivrikoglu said the government was examining options on how to respond to

the

committee decision, which has yet to be ratified by the full committee or

the

House or Senate.

 

Turkey is a major purchaser of U.S. arms and hosts a U.S. air force that

patrols a no-fly zone over northern Iraq from a base at Incirlik in southern

Turkey.

 

Turkey could also consider stopping flights into Armenia, its estranged

eastern neighbour, or tighten a frontier blockade.

 

``The government and relevant institutions are considering, and will do,

what

is necessary. Of course, we have contacts through military channels,''

Kivrikoglu said.

 

Turkey on Wednesday announced plans to hold military exercises with

Armenia's

Transcaucasian neighbour Georgia in the east of the country.

 

*****************************************************************

Armenia Hails U.S. Vote on Turk Genocide Charge

 

ROME, Sep 27, 2000 -- (Reuters) Armenia welcomed on Tuesday last

week's tentative step by U.S. lawmakers towards recognizing

accusations that Turks carried out genocide against Armenians 85

years ago.

 

Turkey has strongly condemned the September 21 decision by a House of

Representatives International Relations subcommittee.

 

The subcommittee approved a non-binding resolution for President Bill

Clinton to "characterize the systematic and deliberate annihilation

of 1,500,000 Armenians as genocide".

 

"We welcome the decision of the Congress' subcommittee," Armenian

Foreign Ministry press secretary Ara Papyan said.

 

"This is a serious step towards determining the truth."

 

The U.S. vote sparked a furious backlash in Turkey.

 

Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit called it "baseless and regrettable".

 

Armenians say 1.5 million of their compatriots were murdered by

Ottoman troops in 1915. Turkey denies the charges and says any

killings were part of a wider partisan war.

 

The view in Ankara is that the House subcommittee was acting to curry

favor with the large Armenian Diaspora in the United States in an

election year.

 

*****************************************************************

 

Sept 25, 2000

 

The Armenian Resolution And Reconaissance Force

 

MILLIYET- Columnist Fikret Bila writes on the acceptance of the

Armenian Resolution by a House subcommittee. A summary of his column

is as follows:

 

The acceptance of the Armenian Resolution by the US House of

Representatives International Operations and Human Rights

subcommitteee regarding the so-called Armenian Genocide has led to

tension in the relations between Ankara and Washington and Ankara and

Yerevan. The Resolution is expected to be voted at the US House of

Representatives International Relations Committee on Thursday. The

Armenian Resolution has two proposals; one of them is to call upon

the President for issuing an annual message commemorating the

Armenians using the word 'genocide' on April 24 and the other is to

train US Foreign Service officers, officials of the US Department of

State on the issue. The aim is to have the claim that Armenians were

massacred by the Turks to be accepted by the US and commemorate it

every year. When Kocharian became Head of State after Petrosyan, the

policy obsessed with certain events in history has been inflamed. As

in every election year, the Armenian lobby has intensified its

efforts on the issue. Under the present conditions and within the

framework of international relations what would Yerevan and

Washington achieve or lose by the acceptance of such a resolution? It

is nothing but a dream for Armenia to believe that this will have a

concrete effect on the solution of their problems other than having

an historical claim to be accepted by the US House of Rperesentatives

and forcing other states to do so. Armenia which seems to be

independent legally, has not gained economic and political

independence in the real sense. It is a country living in poverty and

dependent on Russia economically, in war with Azerbaijan. It has no

ties with the outer world and the only tunnel through which it can

breathe is Turkey. Good relations with Turkey will relieve Armenia

both economically and politically and trying to pass a resolution

from the House of Representatives despite all these considerations

and a possible political retaliation by Turkey means that they are

undertaking great risks. In fact, such a resolution does not have any

concrete benefits for Washington. What is more, Washington which was

in strategic cooperation with Turkey in the Middle East, Northern

Iraq, the Caucasus and the Balkans has to forsake Ankara's

contributions to officialize a claim of which the truth is not known.

Ankara may discuss the issue at length at the next National Security

Council(NSC) on 29 September. The 'measures' which can be taken

against both Washington and Yerevan can be brought to the agenda of

the NSC in a package. In addition to implementing an economic and

political isolation policy against Yerevan, and a proposal for not

lengthening the term of duty of the 'reconnaisance force' based in

Incirlik may come to the agenda. Just as the House of Representatives

accepts a resolution against Turkey in spite of the US

Administration, TGNA may accept a decision ending Reconnaisance

Force's mandate even though Ankara does not want to do so. Prime

Minister Ecevit's reservations concerning Northern Iraq problem, the

US policy over the region and 'Poised Hammer' and 'Reconnaisance

Forces' are known. When Turkey's influence, function in the Middle

East, Central Asia, Iraq, the Caucasus and the Balkans and its

contributions to the US are taken into consideration as a whole it

would be better for Washington to take steps with evaluating the

possible retaliations to come from Ankara.

 

 

SOURCE: OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER, DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF PRESS

AND INFORMATION

 

****************************************************************

AP Worldstream

September 26, 2000; Tuesday 8:55 AM Eastern Time

AP Photos ANK101-103

ANKARA, Turkey

 

Some 200 nationalist Turks laid a black wreath outside the U.S. Embassy

on Tuesday to protest a U.S. resolution that seeks to recognize the

killings of Armenians under the Ottoman Empire as a genocide.

 

''Down with American imperialism,'' and ''America, don't try our

patience,'' chanted the crowd of sympathizers to the far-right Nationalist

Movement Party, a governing coalition partner.

 

The non-binding resolution, approved last week by the House International

Relations Committee's panel on human rights, calls on U.S. President Bill

Clinton to label the deaths of Armenians a genocide, which means the

systematic annihilation of a racial, political or cultural group.

 

Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit called the resolution ''an extremely ugly and

saddening event,'' and warned that Turkish-U.S. relations were being

harmed.

 

The Clinton administration has expressed strong opposition to the

resolution, arguing that it would damage its vital ties with Turkey. U.S.

forces use a Turkish air base to patrol northern Iraq and bomb Iraq's air

defense system there.

 

The full Committee on International Relations will discuss the resolution

Thursday.

 

Armenians says 1.5 million people were slaughtered as part of an Ottoman

campaign to force Armenians out of eastern Turkey between 1915 and 1923.

Turkey says 300,000 Armenians were killed during civil unrest.

[Guest]

In a rare comment on foreign affairs, the head of Turkey's army, General

Huseyin Kivrikoglu, said Wednesday that "before passing judgement on the

history of others, nations should first look into their own histories" --

in an apparent reference to the US massacres of native Americans.

"If they have worse incidents in their history, they should move to clear

these incidents first," the general said.

[Guest]

Haaretz

Sept 28, 2000

 

 

Turks and Armenians corner Jews in debate over genocide

 

By Nitzan Horowitz

 

 

Washington - Turkish newspapers seemed to be filled in recent days

with articles smearing the United States. "A knife in the back," "An

ugly plot," "Betrayal" scream the headlines in Ankara. Turkish fury

is

aimed at a legislative initiative of the Armenian lobby in

Washington.

 

The law, if passed, is only symbolic, but is a symbol of great

significance, especially in the bitter dispute between the Armenians

and the Turks.

 

The bill was endorsed a week ago by a subcommittee of the House

of Representatives, and is expected to be debated in the committee

plenum. The law calls upon the president to "define as genocide the

systematic and intentional murder of a million-and-a-half Armenians,"

and asks the State Department to pass on this material to American

diplomats. The Armenians are of course seeking to obtain American

recognition for the genocide committed by Ottoman Turkey in 1915.

 

The Armenian initiative did not make waves in the American media,

and has little chance of passing the coming stages of legislation.

The

State Department even published a condemnation of the decision in

the House of Representatives. "Historians, not lawmakers, are the

ones who should be concerned with this matter," explained the State

Department spokesman. "We are prepared to assist the efforts of the

Turkish and Armenian experts, together with academics from other

countries, to study their joint history."

 

The State Department, by the way, has clear instructions not to use

the expression "Armenian genocide." In the recent announcements

concerning the congressional initiative, the spokesman was careful to

use the word with quotation marks, gesturing with his fingers to

signify this, but also saw fit to add that the "slaughter of the

Armenians in 1915," is already mentioned in two courses for American

diplomats.

 

The administration has warned the lawmakers that if the Armenian

proposal passes, it could undermine the entire Caucasus and harm

American relations with Turkey, "our strategic partner in the

region,"

according to the official designation.

 

There is nothing vague about Turkey's position on the matter. It has

threatened to close down its Incirlik air force base from where

American planes take off for bombing missions in Iraq. Washington

got the hint. The pressure on Congress mounted.

 

But the Armenians did not let up either. After years of failed

attempts to pass decisions of this kind, it was a more radical

Armenian group that succeeded this time. The upcoming elections and

the tight race between the Republicans and Democrats over control of

the House of Representatives played into their hands. The powerful

Greek lobby also lent a hand.

 

The National Armenian Congress of American has just announced a

general mobilization from coast to coast. The Armenian community in

the United States is eager to strike out against the "great Turkish

Satan." It has also threatened to obstruct the $4.5-billion sale of

145 American assault helicopters to Turkey. The Turks, for their

part,

have recruited their real lobby in Washington: the Pentagon. They

even mobilized the Armenian Orthodox Patriarch of Turkey, Masrob

II, who warned that the Armenian initiative would harm the relations

between the two communities.

 

Both sides have made it clear that in this confrontation, "Anyone who

is not with us is against us," as a Turkish source put it. Both have

also promised not to forget those who helped whom "at the moment of

truth," as an Armenian activist put it.

 

This fierce struggle is difficult for the Jews. More than any other

group of Americans, they feel caught between a rock and hard place.

A major element in the close ties between Israel and Turkey is the

Turkish aspiration to enjoy the assistance of Jewish organizations in

the United States. The Jewish lobby, well aware of the importance of

these relations, indeed generously extends Turkey its assistance. But

it is finding it difficult to accede to the Turkish demands to block

the Armenian initiative, which are based on the Turkish denial of the

Armenian Holocaust.

 

The Jewish organizations and Israeli representatives chose not to

take

a public stand on this matter, "because it does not concern Israel."

As a result, the Turks and the Armenians are angry and the Jews may

end up losing on both ends. Behind the scenes, Jewish sources in

Washington have expressed extreme dissatisfaction with the

Armenian initiative. They feel that it is harmful to everyone.

 

To the Armenian activists they say that there is no chance for this

legislation to pass in the House of Representatives and afterward in

the Senate, but the Turks, in revenge, are liable to harm Armenia, to

stop flights there and to block its outlet to the Black Sea. Moderate

Armenians, by the way, share these warnings.

 

The Jews have reiterated to the Turks that there is no reason for the

Turkish anger because it is merely a symbolic bill that will not be

passed. They also claim that the dramatic Turkish response is what

caused the uproar and that they are playing into the hands of the

Armenians who seek to tighten the ranks in their communities in the

United States. And Turkish leaders, including Prime Minister Bulent

Ecevit, have cautioned against taking hasty steps. As for the matter

in question, the Jews have said that they cannot block initiatives

that concern genocide.

 

"There is a limit to Jewish influence, and this is where our red line

goes," said a senior Jewish source. Do the Turks understand this?

"They understand that it is difficult for us to take sides but they

don't quite accept it, and they are angry and frustrated and claim

that we have disappointed them. The whole matter is very difficult

for us and puts us in a very uncomfortable position. It is a grave

moral issue."

 

Another Jewish representative maintained that there should be a clear

division between the excellent ties with Turkey and the historical

question of the Armenian Holocaust. Turkey should not make one

conditional on the other.

 

Others are really angry. They view the fact that the Jews are forced

not to take sides publicly on the matter of the Armenian Holocaust

because of Turkish dictates very seriously. "I am proud of Yossi

Sarid and Yossi Beilin who stood up courageously to Turkey," says

an Israeli source. "After all, we, as Jews, should be the first to

understand the Armenians. Jewish organizations wage struggles all

over the world against attempts at Holocaust denial. So how can se

stand back and remain 'neutral' when the denial of another nation is

at stake?.

[Guest]

Please read carefully especially the last paragraph of the article below!

_____________________________________________

 

ANKARA: Turkey: Possible Strategies Against Armenian Genocide Claims Viewed

 

21 Sep 2000

Istanbul Hurriyet (Ankara edition)

Column by Ilter Turkmen: "Allegations of Genocide Once Again"

 

[FBIS Translated Text] Armenian lobbies in the world, encouraged by

the Armenian government, have recently launched initiatives in many

countries in order to gain political support for their allegations of

genocide. In this context, a bill submitted to a subcommittee of the US

House of Representatives calls for organizing courses for personnel from

different departments on the alleged genocide as well as public

observances on April 24.

 

The outcome of the vote taken by the subcommittee was not known when

this article was written. Yet, there is a strong possibility that similar

steps will be taken in the future even if the present attempt fails. It

seems that the purpose is not only to have Turkey's liability in the

"genocide" recorded, but also to accelerate a process that could pave the

way for claiming compensation, as was the case with the Jews.

 

What I would like to focus on today is Turkey's stance vis-a-vis

these developments. In fact, I had difficulty understanding opinions

expressed on behalf of Turkey at the subcommittee's meeting. We have

urged Armenia to apply to the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

However, this is impracticable for two reasons. Firstly, the ICJ has

jurisdiction over exclusively legal disputes. Secondly, there was no

independent state known as Armenia in 1915. Therefore, Armenia cannot

file an application on behalf of people who were then subjects of the

Ottoman empire. In order to get the ICJ involved in the matter it must be

referred to the UN General Assembly or to the Security Council and one of

these organs must consult with the ICJ.

 

I cannot imagine any other method that could be more harmful than

this one. In fact, the International Criminal Court, which has not become

functional yet and the statute of which was not signed by Turkey, would

be the most suitable forum regarding the Armenian allegations.

Fortunately, this court will not have jurisdiction over events that have

taken place in the past; it will examine complaints pertaining to

genocide and crimes against humanity that may occur in the future.

Otherwise, we could have suggested referring the matter to that court as

well! I am very anxious to find the source of this naive belief that

international courts can be objective.

 

Neither international courts nor history can be objective. The saying

that "History is written by the winners of wars" reflects a reality.

Although France's responsibility for the First World War was much

greater, all the blame was put on Germany after the war. Some even

suggested putting the German Emperor on trial. The Ottoman Empire, as a

state that lost the war, also received its generous share in the

distortion of history. After the Armenian terror started all scientific

studies and efforts to have history books reflect the facts failed. If

5-10 books include Turkish arguments hundreds of other books distort

history based on Armenian claims. Offsetting the influence of Armenian

lobbies is not a task that can be achieved easily. Though the biggest

support is lent by Jewish lobbies, some of them are sympathetic to the

Armenian thesis.

 

What should we do then? The subcommittee has received a warning on

behalf of Turkey that some action would be taken. It was said that

President Clinton's special envoy on Cyprus would not find an

interlocutor to meet with, that Turkey would limit cooperation with the

United States in the Caspian region, and that Incirlik base would be

closed to Americans. These remarks, described by a Congress member as

threatening, are also astonishing. This would be tantamount to cutting

off your nose to spite your face. By getting angry with the United States

we would hurt our own interests. For instance, we would have to drop the

Baku-Ceyhan pipeline scheme.

 

It seems that the most farsighted method to be pursued against the

campaign launched against us will be trying to influence Armenia. We can

do this either by putting on pressure and imposing sanctions on Armenia,

or, to the contrary, by pursuing good neighborly relations at least for a

certain period. The most important of all is to insure that there is

logic in our policies and statements.

[Guest]

Media Advisory

9/27/00

 

COMMITTEE VOTE ON ARMENIAN GENOCIDE RESOLUTION TO BE WEBCAST LIVE

 

-- Visit http:// www.house.gov/international_relations

 

The House International Relations Committee has announced that its

consideration of the Armenian Genocide resolution will be webcast

live on its website:

 

http:// www.house.gov/international_relations

The Committee is scheduled to debate and vote on the Armenian

Genocide Resolution at 10:00 am (Eastern Time) on Thursday,

September 28th. This cybercast will also be archived at the

Committee's website for later viewing.

 

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by MJ (edited September 28, 2000).]

[Guest]

My request:

 

"In any case, please don't jump all over this topic and make me out to be the enemy of the armenian state or anything equally heinous."

 

Your response:

 

"Gayane, you have got to be kidding, your response is insane, you don't have an identity problem you have a logic problem.

Do some legitimate research on the subject of Genocide and then give your opinion until then please go away. "

 

Now, I'll have you know that regardless of your views on what is but my opinion, I have absolutely no intention of going away.

 

That said, (and while granted, some of you may have better knowledge of the issue), I think my basic understanding of the topic warrants my opinion. And surprise surprise, people actually share it, as I'll illustrate through the following quotes taken from the articles posted on this thread.

 

" The Pentagon has reportedly warned that the recognition of such a bill could have destabilizing effects in the Eurasian region."

 

"Hatred, prejudices, differences, antagonisms and separatism are likely to be magnified if an increasing number of politicians lose the vision of America's future and are preoccupied by the short-term rewards of gaining ethnic votes"

 

"The U.S. is also Turkey's second biggest trading partner."

 

"AMBASSADOR PEARSON: America and Turkey have been solid friends for a long, long time and that's not going to change. We are strongly opposed to this resolution. We feel it is disturbing the fabric of an excellent relationship."

 

"We shall not damage our ties with the US in a manner pleasing to the Armenians. We shall not forget that the Armenian question is not as important as our main objective which is to enter the EU"

 

"Turkey is a major purchaser of U.S. arms and hosts a U.S. air force that patrols a no-fly zone over northern Iraq from a base at Incirlik in southern Turkey."

 

"Under the present conditions and within the

framework of international relations what would Yerevan and Washington achieve or lose by the acceptance of such a resolution? It is nothing but a dream for Armenia to believe that this will have a concrete effect on the solution of their problems other than having an historical claim to be accepted by the US House of Rperesentatives and forcing other states to do so. Armenia which seems to be

independent legally, has not gained economic and political independence in the real sense. It is a country living in poverty and dependent on Russia economically, in war with Azerbaijan. It has no ties with the outer world and the only tunnel through which it can breathe is Turkey. Good relations with Turkey will relieve Armenia both economically and politically and trying to pass a resolution from the House of Representatives despite all these considerations and a possible political retaliation by Turkey means that they are undertaking great risks. In fact, such a resolution does not have any

concrete benefits for Washington. What is more, Washington which was in strategic cooperation with Turkey in the Middle East, Northern Iraq, the Caucasus and the Balkans has to forsake Ankara's contributions to officialize a claim of which the truth is not known. Ankara may discuss the issue at length at the next National Security Council(NSC) on 29 September. The 'measures' which can be taken against both Washington and Yerevan can be brought to the agenda of the NSC in a package. In addition to implementing an economic and political isolation policy against Yerevan, and a proposal for not

lengthening the term of duty of the 'reconnaisance force' based in Incirlik may come to the agenda. Just as the House of Representatives accepts a resolution against Turkey in spite of the US Administration, TGNA may accept a decision ending Reconnaisance Force's mandate even though Ankara does not want to do so. Prime Minister Ecevit's reservations concerning Northern Iraq problem, the US policy over the region and 'Poised Hammer' and 'Reconnaisance Forces' are known. When Turkey's influence, function in the Middle East, Central Asia, Iraq, the Caucasus and the Balkans and its

contributions to the US are taken into consideration as a whole it would be better for Washington to take steps with evaluating the possible retaliations to come from Ankara."

 

This should be enough for now, it'll have to be as I'm late for class.

 

This is the stage of worls politics, ladies and gentlemen, where Armenians are presently but an insignificant speck of dust.

 

Gayane

[Guest]

Statement of Dr. Justin McCarthy

Professor of History

University of Louisville

September 14, 2000

Hearing on H. Res. 398, The United States Training on

and Commemoration of the Armenian Genocide Resolution

 

In Turkey today there are millions of men and women who remember their parents and grandparents' accounts of the terrible events of World War I. Their stories tell of murders, rapes, and forced exile from their homes. Turks do not dwell on these things, but they remember. When asked, they tell their family histories in sorrow and anger. The stories are so similar to those told by Armenians that only the names of the victims separate them. Like the Armenians, the Turks and other Muslims suffered horribly in one of the most perilous times in human history. Like the Armenians, Turks were killed by their enemies; in their case the enemies were often Armenians. Like the Armenians, the Turks suffered forced migrations in which great numbers died. Like the Armenians, the Turks died from disease and starvation. In the wartime period, Turks and other Muslims lost nearly 3 million souls. Like the Armenians, they have not forgotten their losses. Turks tell their children stories of those times. Like the Armenians, they dwell on the suffering of their own. Turkish scholars and the Turkish government have begun to recognize and to deplore the suffering of both sides, but it is naturally the sufferings of their own people that are most remembered.

 

I have come here to oppose a House resolution that ignores the suffering of the Turks, a resolution that declares that mutual inhumanity in an inter-communal war was genocide. I am naturally troubled by the inaccurate assertions in the resolution. Yet I am most troubled that the United States Congress might promulgate a version of history that attacks one of our allies without affording those allies a chance to tell their own side of history. Turks will not receive this resolution well, nor should they. Those who remember the past suffering of their own people cannot be expected to accept unjust attacks on their forefathers, not even when the attacks come from those whom the Turks have rightly considered to be their best friends in the world.

 

The historical assertions in House Resolution 398 are more than questionable. Within the resolution is a long list of accusations, quotes, and justifications--carefully selected and with no mention of opposing positions. This is the equivalent of a trial in which the judge hears only the prosecution, then issues a verdict.

 

House Resolution 398 quotes from General Harbord, without mentioning that General Harbord has been proven to have lied and to have suppressed evidence from his own staff that demonstrated that Armenians had engaged in mass murder of Turks and Kurds. The Resolution selectively recalls one American Ambassador of the war period, Morgenthau, who agreed with the Armenian Cause, but makes no mention of the American ambassador, Bristol, who disagreed with that cause. Morgenthau's political motivations, racist views, and patent inventions of events go unmentioned.

 

Adolf Hitler's supposed views on Armenian history are quoted, as if the Nazis needed to learn from Middle Eastern history before they could put their evil plans into effect. Whether Adolf Hitler ever said those words has been fiercely debated. Scholars have examined German archives and reports of eye-witnesses and newspaper reporters from the time. Some scholars believe the quote was the product of the imagination of a reporter for the Associated Press. Others believe it was simply omitted from the official record. Such disagreements are only truly resolved by study and academic debate. Yet House Resolution 398 declares with confidence that Hitler said it.

 

The statement that 2,000,000 Armenians were deported, 1.5 million were killed, and 500,000 were survivors is a bizarre increase of both the number of Armenians and the number of deaths. Immediately after the war, Armenian representatives estimated that approximately 600,000 Anatolian Armenians had died, a number with which I agree. Now the figure seems to have risen to 1.5 million dead--slightly more than the entire Armenian population of Anatolia. Contemporary figures from the League of Nations and those of Armenian scholars (not figures from Turks) indicate that nearly 900,000 Armenians survived the war, not the 500,000 stated in the resolution. Which leaves the question, where did these figures come from? They are not the result of historical inquiry.

 

Turkish courts-martial that convicted members of the Committee of Union and Progress Government of the Ottoman Empire are reported, but not described. Had they been portrayed in any detail, the character of the tribunals would have been apparent. They were quisling courts, convened by an unelected government under the watchful eyes of the British and other Allies. The accused could not defend themselves at these mock courts. The resolution does not mention that the courts also found the government guilty of all sorts of preposterous crimes, everything the courts could invent that would discredit the previous government and please the Allies. The resolution does not relate that the British themselves admitted that they could find no evidence that the Ottoman government was guilty of planned extermination of the Armenians, although they tried very hard to do so. The British at the time were in control of Istanbul. Archives and government records were in their hands. Yet they could not find the evidence. Facts such as this are essential to an understanding of the Armenian-Turkish conflict; they are omitted from House Resolution 398.

 

The resolution states that the national archives of Turkey contain records of these courts-martial, which is true. What is not stated is that these same archives also contain voluminous evidence of Armenian actions against the Muslims. This evidence would call into question the entire basis of House Resolution 398. It is also not included in the resolution.

 

Statements of the Allied governments in 1915 are included, but no mention is made of the fact that those Allies were at the time at war with the Ottoman Empire. It is well known that Allied propaganda bureaus deliberately fostered a damning image of the Turks to counter effective anti-Russian propaganda from the Central Powers. At the time, Russian persecution of the Jews was much publicized in America. The Allies needed something to counter it in the American mind, something to blame on the Central Powers. They selected the Armenian Horrors, and did their job of propaganda very well. Documents invented by the British Propaganda Bureau during World War I are still being reprinted today as if they were true.

 

There can be no question that the concept of an Armenian Genocide has been widely accepted. The various statements of political leaders listed in the resolution demonstrate this. This is partly due to the fact that in Europe and the United States there were very few Turks. No one was there to defend the memory of the Turks, and there was no incentive for Americans or Western Europeans to delve deeper into the subject. Religious and ethnic prejudice played their part. Indeed, anyone who did advance arguments against the conventional wisdom risked vilification and loss of position. It must also be said that America was remarkably lacking in scholars who studied the Ottoman Empire at all. Not until well into our lifetimes was this situation corrected. It was when scholars began to study Ottoman history from Ottoman sources that they began to question the Armenian Genocide.

 

The Turks themselves bear responsibility for not opposing those who distorted their history. After the terrible wars of 1912 to 1922, Turkey was largely in ruins. One-fourth of the population was dead. Cities had been destroyed, farm animals killed, trees and crops burned with no seed to replace them. Yet there were some who called for the wars to go on. Lands that had been Turkish were still in the hands of enemies. Revenge lived in the minds of those who had lost all in the wars. If these sentiments were to rule the new Turkish Republic, more deaths would have resulted. The government of Mustafa Kemal Atat rk therefore set a policy of ignoring past losses and making peace with old enemies. The Turkish government felt that pressing the Turkish case against Armenians and others would rekindle old hatreds and invite war, so the Turks said nothing of their grievances. This was the right decision for the time. The unfortunate result was that no one spoke for the Turks.

 

Not until Armenian terrorists began to kill Turkish diplomats did the Turks change their policy. They opened their archives and began to publish documents of the wartime period. These became a part of a scholarly reexamination that will continue for many years.

 

Do I expect that the Sub-Committee and the Congress will accept my word on historical events? No. Nor should they accept the word of others. Such matters should be considered by historians who marshal facts, analyze sources, and engage in scholarly debate-- historians who do not only put forth one side of the argument. Congress, with limited time to consider the pressing problems of our country, cannot be expected to read all the literature, then come to conclusions on historical events. Yet, in fairness, that is exactly what must be done before historical judgements are made.

 

Finally, it must be asked why the Foreign Service of the United States should be instructed to teach this one version of history. Why this particular example of man's inhumanity to man? Why pick one example that is debated by scholars, instead of the many examples of inhumanity that are agreed by all? Why not the Irish potato famine, the murder and starvation of Ukrainians by Stalin, the Serbian death camps in Bosnia? Incredibly, I understand that no House resolution has been passed requiring Foreign Service instruction on the Holocaust! What are the Turks to think, but that they are being singled out for condemnation, unjustly censured for something they believe they did not do, when those whose guilt is agreed upon by all go unmentioned, unblamed?

 

If the Foreign Service of the United States is to be instructed in man's inhumanity to man, would it not be better to instruct in all of the many examples of inhumanity? If this were to be done, justice would demand that the curricula include not only the sufferings of the Armenians, but also the sufferings of the Turks.

[Guest]

No 2 mln and 1,5 mln are not exagerated, this is a fact

 

------------------

http://www.CyberIran.com/music/persian/beh...di_nazinazi.ram

[Guest]

Wow those Armenians must have been slaughtering Turks day and night, with shifts taking over, in order for the insane theory of the Turkish government and those who kiss their **ses, (McCarthy)to be true. I think Armenians are wasting their time with worrying about US recognition, they should hit the War Crimes Tribunal of Europe(not sure of the exact name, the ones that are after Milosevic). Turkey wants to be European after all! Reading these posts have filled me with so much anger. I always try to separate the present day Turks from their ancestors, but how can I when there is no repentance?

[Guest]

I have received an email, with the following info:

 

FYI

 

The vote on H.Res.398 in the U.S. House International Relations Committee

was postponed till next week. Reliable sources in Washington claim that had

there been a vote, H.Res.398 would have passed 11-9, with 29 abstentions.

The danger about voting next week lies in the fact that Congress goes to

recess on Oct. 6, 2000. Therefore, if H.Res.398 were to pass in the

Committee, there needs to be enough time next week for the full house to

vote on it. The Turks, their lobbyists (Livingston, Solomon, Solarz, etc.)

and sympathizers in Congress are trying to buy as much time as possible to

negate a potential opportunity for the full House to vote on H.Res.398

before the recess if it passes in the IR Committee.

 

Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN), a Turkish apologist, went on the attack today by

bringing up a controversial Helsinki Committee document citing unilateral

human rights violations by Armenian troops in Nagorno-Karabagh (or

"Nagorno-Karabaaaaah" as he pronounces it)... such as the burning of houses,

hostage taking, the murders of POWs, etc. Burton angrily argued that

"Armenian aggression against Azerbaijanis needs to be recognized too."

Reinforcing Rep. Burton's frontal attack on H.Res.398 was a survivor of the

Jewish Holocaust, Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA), who introduced a watered-down

counter-resolution eliminating all language referring to the Armenian

Genocide and replacing it instead with a generic commemoration of 175

million people killed as a result of ethnic clensing in the 20th century.

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by MJ (edited September 28, 2000).]

[Guest]

Gayane,

 

You don’t have a logic problem, nor you sound insane It is a legitimate point of view. But I, for example, don’t share it.

 

First of all, I think this resolution is not going to clear the house of representatives. Second, if it does, and if even it was a binding resolution for the presiden (which it is not), this resolution or the recognition of the Genicide by the whole world itself has no legal consequences, unless Turkey demonstrates good will. But as far as your concerns related to the American political landscape are concerned, I just want to say there are two alternatives:

 

1. It doesn’t pass and nobody cares;

2. It passes, and “The winner is not judged” – “Haghtoghin chen datum.”

 

Now, definitly, this is going to strain the Armenian-Turkish relations further. If the curernt Armenian government is not poised at pursuing the matter to the end, this will imply that they are just imature, opportunistic and irresponsible politicans. Once you open the can, you have to be ready to deal with the warms! If they don’t have a strategy, they should’ve not started this process. I hope they have, though...

 

As I have expressed my opinion in another tread, the right sequence of pursuing the issues is the revision of the 1921 Treaty, and using the Genocide card as a reinforcement and powerful measure in that context. That revision is even more of an explosive issue, and even more complicated. But the good thing about it is that it is a robust legal process, and is not based on “he said, she said.” Again, it may be that it is the wrong thing to do, and we – Armenians have to shut up, and just try to survive. I am not going to make sweeping statements, here. But what I claim is, at least theoretically, this is the right path in my view. And this view has existed for almost a doesen of years, now, but has been dismissed by the thinkers or better to say the executers of Foreign Affairs of Armenia, as of today. I wonder what has changed...

 

I am not claiming that I am convinced that this is the right thing to do. First of all, I am not a preofessional Diplomat, and second I don’t have the necessary information to make qualified judgements for the current stage of the geopolitical affairs. Finally, no one, except you (implicitely ) asks my oipinion

 

But don’t panic. Whatever it is, it will be fine. Nobody in Pentagon or elsewhere denies the right of Armenians to pursue the matter. They just don’t have a compelling reason to antagonize Turkey.

 

I can share with you a story of a friend of mine having a conversation during a fund-raising event with Dick Cheney in 1993, when for a short run he had been exploring the grounds for running for the Presidency of the US. My friend tells me that he expressed his concerns to Cheney, and tried to educate him in the issue of Genocide. Cheney turned to be very sympathetic and acknowledged the tragedy of the Genocide, but replied that “Turkey is too important to US at this stage in history. If the situation in the region changes, the US policy may also change.” Well, obviously these are not his exact words, but they are pretty close.

 

I think there is a chance of change of the regional politics in our region. All that depends on the further improvement of US-Iran relations. Let’s cross our fingers for Armenia, and hope that the day may come.

 

But I personally thing that the issues have to be pursued at all levels, only they have to be put in the right geopolitical and legal context.

 

This was my 2 cents

[Guest]

The material at the site referenced below is very interesting. I am not posting it because of the Copyright issues. I think from now on, we have to be very careful with the Copyright issues, and I suspect many of us in the past have unintentionally violated them.

 

http:// groong.usc.edu/news/msg21763.html

 

[This message has been edited by MJ (edited September 28, 2000).]

[Guest]

For a new wave of calculated nonsense in Turkish press, visit http://groong.usc.edu/news/msg21777.html .

[Guest]

MJ, thank God for your two cents!!!

[Guest]

Gayane, I will

[Guest]

MJ,

 

I think the paragraphe you brought to the forum member's attention in "Possible Strategies Against Armenian Genocide Claims Viewed" article is the main reason of all this.

Arayzhm