So-called Armenian Genocide

[DominO123]

Radikal (Turkey)

July 14 2003

 

So-called Armenian Genocide On U.S. Congress' Agenda

 

 

 

BY GUNDUZ AKTAN

 

RADIKAL- Columnist Gunduz Aktan comments on the so-called Armenian

genocide and a possible US congressional vote on the issue. A summary

of his column is as follows:

 

Would it be the end of world for Turkey should the US Congress

recognize the so-called Armenian genocide? Under the law, genocide is

a crime, and it's up to the courts to rule as to whether any given

action constitutes a crime. Legislative bodies lack any judicial

authority, and any decision they take in this heated debate would

have no legal impact. That's why the French Parliament's recognition

of these genocide allegations two years ago has so far amounted to

nothing.

 

 

Turkish military tribunal

 

Permanent People Tribunal

 

UN subcommitee of war crimes

 

Secratary of the Human Right commission, and a specialist of International Rights, Professor Alfred De Zayas report

 

ICTJ report(even if it is biased in favour of the Turks for political reasons)

 

 

A possible yes vote by the US Congress on the issue is already

handicapped anyway. Such a decision, taken on the heels of a recent

Turkish-US rift following Ankara's `failure' to back Washington on

the Iraq war, would inevitably look like a `payback' decision. Do you

think that Congress would be even considering the measure if our

Parliament had allowed the US to use Turkish soil as a springboard

for a northern front into Iraq? Who would believe in the sincerity of

a decision about the world's gravest crime, genocide, if it is

completely dependent on shifting political minds?

 

Yes! Because it is not the first time that such resolutions were put into tables, and those were before the 'failure' in question.

 

 

A number of US insurance companies sold life insurance policies to a

few thousand Armenians well before the incidents back early in the

last century, but never paid on them up due to a lack of demand. Yet

we heard recently that heirs to those Armenians, whose numbers are

estimated at 7,000-8,000, have applied to these insurance companies

to get their ancestors' money. It's not clear whether Congress'

decision to recognize the allegation would help them to get it.

Following World War II, the US forced Switzerland's Central Bank plus

other banks as well as the Swiss government to pay huge sums of money

to the Jewish people. But this was legally possible because there was

a Holocaust decision taken during the Nuremberg trials. However, no

judicial decision on the Armenian incidents has yet been taken by an

internationally recognized court. Moreover, US courts are legally

denied any power to pass a binding judgment on the issue.

 

 

Turkish military tribunal

 

Permanent People Tribunal

 

UN subcommitee of war crimes

 

Secratary of the Human Right commission, and a specialist of International Rights, Professor Alfred De Zayas report

 

ICTJ report(even if it is biased in favour of the Turks for political reasons)

 

 

Over the last five years, we have seen more and more research and

meetings both domestic and foreign on the Armenian incidents. A

Turkish-Armenian reconciliation commission has been established, and

though only partially, the body has discussed this longstanding

problem between the two countries. In time, the strength of Turkey's

thesis on the issue has come to be much better understood. Prominent

figures within the British and Israeli government have declared that

they do not regard the incidents as genocide. Even the Swedish

Parliament withdrew its decision recognizing the so-called genocide

just a year after adopting it.

 

Make your mind please, are political mouves credible or not? I mean above in another paragraph you claim the resolution was brough because of political reasons, if you consider that, in orther that your claim works, it should be accurate in both ways, if submitting a resolution and accepting it is political, so as refusing it would be political, if not, than your claim that bringing such resolution is political would be contradicted by your own other answer saying the contrary when it adventages you.

 

 

Genocide is the attempted total destruction of a people due to racist

hatred such as anti-Semitism. However, Turks have never had any

feelings of enmity or hostility towards Armenians. Yet certain

countries, ones which harbor racist hatred within their own cultures,

are alleging that there have been genocides in many countries in the

world, including Turkey. At a 2000 congressional hearing, one

congressman said, `What we did to the Native Americans was also a

genocide.' Is the US trying to cover up its own genocide of Native

Americans by periodically dredging up the so-called Armenian genocide

issue?

 

Er? Is this congressman not admitting US past history? When would any Turkish congressman do anything similar. As for "due to racist hatred," this is not accurate, the "reason"of the destruction is not important for the word genocide to apply, between you and Lemkin(the inventor of the word genocide), I will take his words when he say what happened to the Armenians was a genocide. When you want to read about the theory of relativity, you put much more importances to the master, Einstein should be your choice.

 

 

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

AND INFORMATION

 

Why am I not surprised of the sources?

Edited July 15, 2003 by Fadix