FORMER DIPLOMAT AND CHP DEPUTY SUKRU ELEKDAG
By AYLA GANIOGLU
Turkish Probe
November 7, 2004
ANKARA – Former diplomat, Parliamentary Foreign Commission member
and opposition Republican People’s Party deputy Sukru Elekdag, when
asked about the debate on whether Kurds and Alewis should be considered
minorities, said the example of France should be followed. Elekdag said
the attitude towards ethnic groups was the same in Turkey and France.
Speaking to TDN, Elekdag said: “In France, just like the Republic of
Turkey, a unitary nation-state exists. In such a state, the guiding
principle of the system is the the unity and indivisibility of the
state, nation and the country. Turkey, by adhering to the guidelines
provided by the Lausanne Treaty, does not accept a concept of minority
based on ethnicity or religion, just like France.”
France, which was one of the founders of the European Union,
had established a unitary state and had implemented a concept of
citizenship not based on ethnic identity, he said. Elekdag noted:
“France, in addition to having various religious groups, also has
local ethnic groups in Brittany, Bask, Catalan, Oksitan, Savuaca,
Flemish, German and Italian communities. However, France refuses
to say it has minorities and believes ethnic characteristics are
something that can be practiced in private.”
Elekdag said every citizen in France had the right to respect, protect
and develop his or her cultural values. However, it did not mean this
right was a collective one of an ethnic group, he said, noting that
this was a right of an individual. He said, “No one in the EU objects
to the French system or accuses them of medieval mentality.”
Armenian, Greek or Jewish
Elekdag said the founder of the Republic of Turkey was the Turkish
nation, which as a supra-national identity, covered all groups such
as Turks, Kurds, Bosnians, Laz, Sunnis and Alewis.
Elekdag said that a homogeneous nation was an exception, rather than
the rule. In a unitary state, citizens could not be granted special
rights just because they were different, said Elekdag, adding that
certain groups could not be given the right to utilize special
privileges or the right to establish political movements.
He said attempts to create new minorities in addition to those listed
in the Lausanne Treaty aimed to divide the country, noting that
the rights granted to Armenians, Greeks and Jews in the treaty were
collective ones. Elekdag said: “Turkey has no obligation, politically
or legally, to grant such rights to any group apart from non-Muslims.”
Turkey’s obligation to the EU was to make sure all its citizens equally
enjoyed the benefits of democracy and the rule of law, said Elekdag,
adding each individual should enshrine, protect and develop his or
her own cultural values. This was not a collective right, but was
the right of an individual as a citizen, said Elekdag.
EU’s minorities
CHP deputy Elekdag said that by mentioning Kurds and Alewis in Turkey
as minorities in its progress report, the European Commission was
recommending the broadening of the concept of minority, as defined in
the Lausanne Treaty. Elekdag said Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan
and Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul had succeeded in removing the part
of the report that mentioned Kurds and Alewis as minorities, adding
that despite their efforts, the matter was far from resolved. He said
the other assessments in the report showed that the commission still
considered Kurds as a minority.
He said the Kurdish issue was included in the “Minority Rights,
Cultural Rights and the Protection of Minorities” section in the
report, and added that one passage said: “According to Turkey, the
minorities in Turkey are only the nun-Muslim communities listed in
the Lausanne treaty. The only communities defined as minorities are
Greeks, Armenians and Jews. In addition to these groups, there are
other communities in Turkey, including the Kurds. In this context,
the reservations put by Turkey on certain sections of the United
Nations Charters on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights is a source of concern. These reservations
may be used to prevent the future development of the protection of
minority rights.”
Elekdag also added that statements concerning the Alewis aimed to
create a new minority. He said the report noted the fact that no
change in the status of Muslim minorities had taken place, and that
Alewis were not recognized as a separate religious community.
In the last few European Commission progress reports, Kurds were
repeatedly seen as a minority and that Turkey was being forced to
accept this as a fact, he said, adding that now new attempts at
doing the same for Alewis was taking place. He said: “According
to international principles that guide the minority issue, being a
member of a minority is a personal choice. Even if individuals are
members of different ethnic groups or religions, they can’t be forced
to accept themselves as a minority. The guiding principle is for a
person to make his or her own choice. The European Commission to try
to question the identity of a few select groups and its attempts to
create new minorities in Turkey is both illegal and ugly.”
Government and the federative structure
Elekdag said that the minority report prepared by the Prime
Ministry Human Rights Advisory Board was significantly influenced
by the European Commission progress report. He said that the
report in question recommended the annulment of the concept of
the “indivisibility of the Turkish nation” from Article 3 of the
Constitution. He said the board’s reason for this recommendation was,
“the use of this term insinuates that the nation is a monolithic
structure, which means the disregarding of the sub-national identities
that form the nation and consequently is undemocratic.”
Elekdag said that the board also wanted to replace the system of
nation-state with its Turkish identity with a multicultural model with
a supra-national identity called “the citizen of Turkey. He said: “The
report, by suggesting the concept of “citizen of Turkey,” dismissing
the supra-national identity of Turkishness of the Turkish nation,
is trying to change the unitary state into a federal structure. This
recommendation boosts the efforts of domestic groups that call for
a bi-national state and their supporters overseas.”
The government needs to make its opinion on the report public, he
said, asking Prime Minister Erdogan to say if he is still behind his
suggestion to replace “Turkishness” with the concept of the “citizen
of Turkey.”
“The government’s statement on this issue is especially important in
terms of membership negotiations with the EU. If not, the EU will try
to force Turkey to accept a federative structure. The recommendations
made in the report, if implemented, would result in the collapse
of the nation-state system in Turkey and would begin the process of
transformation from a unitary state to a federative one.”
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

RUSSIA’S MIXED BLESSING
by Vladimir Radyuhin
The Hindu, India
November 8, 2004
THE SOVIET Union may have been dead for 13 years but as far as
Russians are concerned it has never been more alive. They have never
seen so many Tajiks, Azeris, Moldovans and Ukrainians walk the
streets of big cities and small townships across Russia from the
Baltic Sea in the West to the Pacific coast in the Far East. The
former compatriots build houses, sell fruit, drive public transport
buses, and do a myriad other jobs for which Russians have no taste or
ask a higher pay.
With the Russian economy growing at a healthy seven per cent a year,
it is an attractive destination for millions of workers from many
post-Soviet states where economic growth is not so vibrant. Officials
put the number of migrant labour in Russia at four million to five
million, a majority of them from the former Soviet Union. Unofficial
estimates are at least twice as high. Russia offers a source of
livelihood to three million to four million Ukrainians, two million
to three million of Azerbaijan’s eight million population, one in
three working-age Georgians and Armenians, and hundreds of thousands
of workers from Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Moldova and Belarus.
The “fraternal family of nations,” as Communist ideologues used to
describe the Soviet Union, has re-assembled itself on Russian soil,
even though it is no longer so fraternal. Migrant labour has proved a
mixed blessing for Russia. It helps alleviate an acute demographic
crisis and sustain economic growth, but also creates dangerous ethnic
and social tensions.
Russia’s population has declined by more than five million over the
past 12 years and keeps falling at a rate of about 700,000 a year,
according to the State Statistical Committee. The Ministry of
Economic Development estimates that Russia may lose half of its 144
million people within the next 60 to 100 years if no radical measures
are taken to reverse the trend.
The demographic situation has been aggravated by large-scale
emigration from Russia during the years of rocky economic reforms,
with an estimated seven million leaving the country between 1991 and
2002. The outflow was initially balanced by the influx of millions of
ethnic Russians who fled instability and economic ruin in former
Soviet republics. But their migration to Russia has dwindled to a
trickle recently, partly because many have adjusted to life in the
newly independent states and partly because the Russian Government
has failed to provide any attractive resettlement programmes.
The Government has also been slow to react to the growing tide of
migrant labour. In the absence of effective government regulation,
immigration has been chaotic, flooding Moscow and the European part
of Russia, but leaving vast areas of Siberia short of labour.
Monolithic migrant communities, often cemented by a strong criminal
component, have virtually ousted Russians from some sectors of the
economy. Azeris and Armenians, for example, have taken over wholesale
and retail trade in Russia in fruit and vegetables, construction
materials, and many other commodities, setting monopoly prices and
provoking deep resentment among local population. Authorities, who
often have a cut in the business, just look the other way.
“If the Government continues to turn a blind eye to this process of
uncontrolled immigration, Russians will eventually be ousted from
trade, banking, hotel and other profitable businesses, and will be
left to do low-paid or hard manual work,” says Yuri Godin of the
Foreign Economy Studies Centre. In a poll conducted earlier this year
in Moscow, this problem topped the list of grievances.
Migrants have contributed to high crime rates in Russia. Tajiks, for
example, have become major drug haulers from Afghanistan to Russia.
Residents of Yekaterenburg, a regional capital in Siberia, which lies
on the trunk route of drug traffickers, held an anti-narcotics rally
in May to demand a visa regime for Tajikistan. Last year Tajiks
accounted for over 90 per cent of all drug couriers intercepted at
the Koltsovo international airport in Yekaterenburg.
The influx of millions of non-Russians has also led to the rise of
violent racist movements in Russia, with many people blaming their
poverty and unemployment on immigrants. Neo-Nazi skinhead gangs are
mushrooming all over Russia, terrorising non-Russians from the former
Soviet Union, as well as nationals from India and other Asian and
African countries. Racist attacks under the slogan “Russia for
Russians” are getting increasingly brazen and violent.
A nine-year-old girl from Tajikistan was knifed to death in St.
Petersburg in February; an African student was murdered in Voronezh
the same month; a 50-year-old Azerbaijani was beaten up in Nizhnii
Novgorod in May and died later in hospital; a 19-year-old student
from Vietnam was killed in St. Petersburg in October; an Uzbek was
beaten to death in a Moscow suburb in October. About 20 murders
fuelled by ethnic hatred were reported across Russia in the first six
months of this year. The skinheads’ most outrageous crime this year
was to shoot and kill Nikolai Girenko, a 64-year-old Russian
ethnographer and anthropologist who dedicated himself to fighting
neo-Nazis in court.
Human rights organisations estimate the number of skinheads in Russia
at between 35,000 and 55,000 and rapidly rising. Russian police have
all too often dismissed racist attacks as hooliganism. It was not
until the President, Vladimir Putin, earlier this year called the
attention of the Interior Minister, Rashid Nurgaliyev, to racially
motivated crimes, that the latter admitted that ultranationalist
groups were a real problem.
However, the Kremlin still refuses to acknowledge a link between
growing racist extremism and the lack of a coherent immigration
policy. Job quotas for migrant labour introduced last year have
failed to regulate migration processes and protect local jobs. The
ridiculously low quota of about 600,000 for this year has fallen far
below the demand. There are also many vested interests in Russia who
have a stake in keeping labour migration illegal. Employers prefer
hiring illegal migrants because they are willing to work for much
lower pay than local labour and do not ask for a social security net.
In the construction business, for example, illegal workers help cut
project costs by two-thirds. Even Kremlin contractors are known to
use illegal workers.
Illegal migration has grown into a multi-million criminal business.
Last year authorities in the Volgograd region in central Russia
busted a labour traffic racket from Tajikistan. Trainloads of Tajiks
were brought to work like slaves on local farms. At one point
investigators stumbled on a farm where over a hundred Tajik children
worked from dawn to dusk practically for free. Illegal labour
migrants are also the target of constant harassing and fleecing by
police who regularly raid construction sites and hostels to check
registration and work-permit papers.
Yet, for all its negative aspects, labour migration from the former
Soviet states is a big boon for Russia. Apart from filling a shortage
of workforce, it gives Moscow a powerful policy lever in dealing with
its ex-Soviet neighbours and pushing a re-integration agenda. Many
newly independent states critically depend on the money their
nationals working in Russia send back to their families. According to
government estimates, in 2002 migrant workers from Azerbaijan,
Georgia and Armenia employed in the Moscow region alone took back
home about $ 10 billion, more than their annual budgets.
When its President, Imomali Rakhmonov, baulked at approving the
establishment of a Russian military base in Tajikistan earlier this
year, Moscow threatened to deport illegal Tajik workers from Russia.
This would spell a catastrophe for Tajikistan and the base agreement
was promptly signed. An easing of travel rules for millions of
Ukrainian workers in Russia sanctioned by Mr. Putin on the eve of
Ukraine’s presidential election last week helped shore up the
faltering campaign by the pro-Russian candidate, Prime Minister
Viktor Yanukovich.
Immigration also has a strategic dimension for Russia. Average
population density in Russia is 8.5 persons per square km, and in the
Far East it is just over 1 person per square km, hundreds of times
less than in China across the border. Further depopulation poses a
threat to Russia’s territorial integrity.
“From economic and geopolitical point of view it is a catastrophe to
have so sparse a population on such a vast territory,” says
academician Anatoly Vishnevsky of the Centre for Demography and Human
Ecology of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Russia must accommodate
700,000 to 1,000,000 migrants a year, primarily from former Soviet
republics, just to maintain its population at present level. Such a
massive injection of immigrants is fraught with great risks.
“To avoid the dangers we need a system of measures for adapting and
integrating migrants, and it yet to be developed,” the scholar says.

Danish government, far-right reach deal on refugees
Agence France Presse — English
November 8, 2004 Monday 5:42 PM GMT
COPENHAGEN Nov 8 — The Danish government reached a deal Monday on
the repatriation of refugees with a far-right party whose support it
needs to get its budget through the national parliament.
The far-right Danish Peoples Party (PPD) had made a hard line on
refugees who been denied asylum the minimum price for its support for
the minority centre right government, which has no other political
ally.
Under the agreement refugees will be encouraged to go back to their
countries of origin and states that refuse to accept their nationals
who have been refused asylum will see their aid suspended or reduced.
The measures concern about 2,200 unsuccessful asylum-seekers, of whom
between 500 and 600 are Iraqis.
“What we wanted was to withdraw economic aid to states which do not
want to agree to take back their own nationals whose asylum requests
have been rejected,” PPD leader Pia Kjaersgaard told reporters.
“And we have obtained the assurance of the government in this
direction.”
The PPD is the third biggest group in the Danish parliament and was
instrumental in the coming to power of the ruling coalition in November
2001. It has chosen to make the return of refugees its flagship issue.
It wants refugees from Afghanistan, Armenia, Bosnia, Ethiopia, Iraq,
Kosovo and Somalia sent home, as well as stateless Palestinians from
Lebanon and the West Bank.
But Bertel Haarder, the minister with responsbility for refugees,
immigration and integration, declined to set a time limit on the
repatriation process.
“I cannot fix a number or deadlines or criteria for the success of
this operation since this will depend on war and peace in the world,”
he told Danish television.
On Monday he offered a bonus of 17,000 Danish kronor (2,963 dollars,
2,287 euros) per adult and 6,000 kronor (1,046 dollars, 807 euros)
per child to Iraqis who volunteered before February 1 next year to
go back home..
Last month the United Nations High Commission for Refugees called on
countries that had taken in Iraqi refugees not pressure them to go
home because it was not safe to do so.
“There are considerable pressures on Iraqi refugees in a number of
European countries for them to return,” a spokesman said.
“There are financial incitments to go back and penalties if they are
not taken up, he added.
“The situation in Iraq is still extremely unstable and dangerous. No
parts of Iraq can be considered definitely safe for return.”
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Azerbaijan says officer killed along Nagorno-Karabakh ‘line of control’
Associated Press Worldstream
November 8, 2004 Monday 10:17 AM Eastern Time
BAKU, Azerbaijan — An Azerbaijani army officer was killed in firing
along the no man’s land separating the country’s military from
ethnic Armenian forces in Nagorno-Karabakh and surrounding territory,
Defense Ministry spokesman Ilgar Verdieyv said Monday.
He said the officer died Sunday in the Agdam region. Agdam is
a destroyed, deserted city within territory occupied by ethnic
Armenian forces.
Armenian forces drove the Azerbaijani army out of Nagorno-Karabakh,
an ethnic Armenian enclave, in the 1990s and took control of several
areas outside the enclave as well. Since a 1994 cease-fire, the sides
have been separated by the so-called “line of control,” a demilitarized
buffer zone, but occasional shooting breaks out and each side accuses
the other of mounting small incursions.
Negotiators under the auspices of the Organization for Security
and Cooperation in Europe are trying to work out an agreement on
Nagorno-Karabakh’s final status, but no visible progress has been made
in recent years and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliev has repeatedly
raised the prospect of military action if no negotiated solution
is reached.
Also Monday, an Armenian organization issued an appeal to the OSCE
negotiators to press Azerbaijan for information about Armenians and
Nagorno-Karabakh residents who disappeared during the conflict.
The appeal did not specify how many such people are believed held,
but other estimates have placed the number at several hundred.

Agence France Presse
8 novembre 2004 lundi 12:03 PM GMT
Un officier azerbaïdjanais tué près du Nagorny-Karabakh (ministère)
BAKOU 8 nov
Le ministère azerbaïdjanais de la Défense a assuré lundi qu’un de ses
officiers avait été tué par les forces arméniennes près de la
frontière entre les deux Etats, non loin du territoire disputé du
Nagorny-Karabakh.
Bahaddin Abdiyev, un lieutenant de 24 ans, a été tué dimanche soir
lors d’un échange de coups de feu avec les forces arméniennes dans la
région d’Agdam, au sud de l’Azerbaïdjan, a souligné un porte-parole
du ministère de la Défense.
Enclave à population majoritairement arménienne en Azerbaïdjan, le
Nagorny-Karabakh a été le théâtre d’un conflit meurtrier au début des
années 90 au moment de la désintégration de l’Union soviétique. Il
reste depuis un cessez-le-feu en 1994 sous le contrôle des Arméniens,
qui l’avaient emporté sur le terrain.
Le cessez-le-feu est globalement respecté, mais des échanges de coups
de feu restent fréquents autour de la frontière
arméno-azerbaïdjanaise.
Bakou considère toujours que l’enclave fait partie de l’Azerbaïdjan
et a menacé de recourir à la force pour reprendre le contrôle du
territoire.
Des négociations de paix se déroulent par intermittence depuis dix
ans avec la médiation du groupe de Minsk, qui opère sous le mandat de
l’Organisation pour la sécurité et la coopération en Europe (OSCE).
–Boundary_(ID_r7aytmSMRo2bnVtJ+ugPFQ)–

L’Express , France
8 novembre 2004
”14-18 est l’invention de la guerre totale”;
Stéphane Audoin-Rouzeau
par Makarian Christian
Peut-on encore apprendre quelque chose sur la guerre de 14-18?
Stéphane Audoin-Rouzeau prouve que oui. Spécialiste de la Première
Guerre mondiale, ce jeune historien a consacré toute son oeuvre à la
redécouverte d’un conflit en passe de devenir mythique. Il s’est
penché sur la fibre humaine, les ressorts psychologiques, les effets
à long terme. Il a ainsi été le premier à s’intéresser aux enfants
nés de l’ennemi, au mécanisme du deuil, à l’usage de l’enfance par la
propagande… Il a contribué à fonder l’Historial de la Grande Guerre
de Péronne, dont il dirige, avec sa collègue Annette Becker, le
centre de recherche. Professeur à l’université de Picardie
Jules-Verne, à Amiens, médaillé de bronze du CNRS, il est un des
coordonnateurs, avec Jean-Jacques Becker, de la remarquable
Encyclopédie de la Grande Guerre, publiée par Bayard (voir l’article
de Jacques Duquesne, page 104). Il donne ici, pour L’Express, une
vision éclairante de ce conflit.
Presque un siècle après le déclenchement du premier conflit mondial,
si l’on essaie de se détacher du fil des événements et de s’abstraire
de la charge émotionnelle de la Grande Guerre, quel bilan peut-on
tirer au titre de l’histoire universelle? Je crois que ce qui
subsiste de 1914-1918 peut se résumer à une expérience de violence
sans aucun précédent historique. En tout cas à l’échelle de
l’Occident et plus particulièrement de l’Europe. La Première Guerre
mondiale à la fois représente la mort de masse et induit les autres
formes de violence qui l’accompagnent. A l’impact du conflit lui-même
s’ajoutent les effets sur les survivants, puis sur les générations
suivantes.
Comment se manifeste ce deuxième impact, qui est parvenu jusqu’à
nous? D’abord, on ne peut qu’être frappé par la manière dont
l’expérience de violence s’est déplacée ailleurs, notamment dans le
champ politique et idéologique. La cristallisation des totalitarismes
au XXe siècle est un élément crucial, qui vaut tant pour le fascisme
ou le nazisme que pour le communisme. Cristallisation qui s’étend, de
surcroît, sur le court, le moyen et le long terme: dès 1917 pour la
Russie, le début des années 1920 pour l’Italie, les années 1930 pour
l’Allemagne et jusqu’à la fin des années 1980 pour le bloc
soviétique, la chute du mur de Berlin représentant, au fond, la
dernière séquelle géopolitique, et par contrecoup idéologique, de la
Grande Guerre. Ensuite, reste le problème du deuil de masse. Je suis
persuadé que les historiens n’ont pas vraiment mesuré son poids
persistant sur les sociétés européennes. Ils n’ont pas davantage
estimé les effets de récurrence de ce deuil, de génération en
génération. L’activité commémorative qui a commencé immédiatement
après la Grande Guerre, dans tous les pays et avec une intensité
inouïe, a sans doute empêché le deuil de se clore alors que c’était
le but initialement recherché. La présence si forte, de nos jours, de
ce passé guerrier dans notre présent révèle, dans une large mesure,
une parenthèse non refermée. C’est ce que les psychiatres
spécialistes des catastrophes de masse appellent un “phénomène de
troisième génération”. Ce sont les petits-enfants et
arrière-petits-enfants de 14-18 qui ramènent désormais la guerre au
premier plan.
N’y a-t-il pas, également, un “effet 14” qui perdure sur le fait
national, par exemple au centre et à l’est de l’Europe? Il y a
certainement un lien entre 14-18 et certaines résurgences actuelles
des affects nationaux. Indiscutablement, le premier conflit mondial
est avant tout une grande guerre des nations et, derrière les
nations, une guerre de civilisation, dont chaque grand pays se
croyait porteur. Les Français combattaient les Allemands avec la
conviction d’incarner la “civilisation” contre la “barbarie”. Les
Allemands, quant à eux, pensaient défendre l’avenir de la “Kultur”.
Les Britanniques et les Américains n’étaient pas en reste. Au-delà
des nations, ce sont des visions de l’humanité qui se sont
affrontées. Sans cet arrière-plan idéologique, qui peut aussi receler
des connotations ethniques de type raciste, on ne comprend rien à
l’ampleur du processus guerrier, à sa durée, à l’acharnement mis à le
poursuivre. L’Alsace-Lorraine, par exemple, n’est qu’un aspect mineur
s’inscrivant dans le cadre d’une défense de la nation qui elle-même
incarne la civilisation, et se veut donc l’expression de l’humanité
tout entière. Dans les enjeux de la Grande Guerre, on trouve une
composante eschatologique, très perceptible lorsqu’on relit les
discours tenus le 11 novembre 1918: la victoire devait permettre aux
sociétés humaines dans leur ensemble de connaître un âge d’or que,
sans la guerre, on n’aurait pu atteindre. Cela paraît aujourd’hui
monstrueux, mais c’est bien ainsi que la victoire des Alliés a été
perçue.
Il a fallu déchanter et retourner au réel. Comment s’est produite ce
que les historiens appellent la “démobilisation culturelle”? Cela
dépend des pays. En France et en Grande-Bretagne, l’écart se creuse
assez rapidement entre la perception des sacrifices consentis et les
résultats réels. Chez les vaincus – l’Allemagne ou l’Italie – il
n’existe pas de vraie démobilisation, mais une seconde étape
mobilisatrice, qui provoque la Seconde Guerre mondiale. Le grand
moment d’un pacifisme susceptible de dévaloriser globalement, à
l’échelle de toute l’Europe occidentale, les affects guerriers et
nationaux date d’après 1945 et surtout des années 1960 et 1970. C’est
là seulement que tous les pays européens intériorisent définitivement
les effets du double choc de la Première et de la Seconde Guerre
mondiale. C’est là la justification profonde de la construction
européenne, qu’on ne peut comprendre autrement.
Où en sommes-nous aujourd’hui? Peut-être à un retour de balancier.
Les affects nationaux, si démonétisés, sont revenus, ici ou là, sur
le devant de la scène, dans une sorte de nostalgie du national. Ce
retour n’a, bien sûr, rien à voir avec ce que fut la surrection du
sentiment de nation en 1914, mais je crois qu’il ne faut pas négliger
le vague regret, qui ne peut évidemment s’avouer, que cette époque-là
engendre. En d’autres mots, le fait que 1914 puisse apparaître comme
une horreur, mais aussi comme une sorte d’apogée de la “France
parfaite” me semble peu discutable. Beaucoup de contemporains
entretiennent une relation ambiguë, à la fois horrifiée et fascinée,
avec l’investissement national qui s’est manifesté au cours des ces
quatre années, avec cet examen de passage sanglant et si tragiquement
réussi.
D’autant plus que, de façon confuse, les Français ont la perception
d’un déclin continu depuis… Question difficile pour l’historien. La
sensation d’un déclin français, qui existe effectivement avec force,
découlerait-elle de ce moment où la France aurait été une dernière
fois elle-même? C’est en tout cas vraisemblable. On le voit très
bien, par exemple, dans la manière dont les soldats français ont
perçu Dien Bien Phu, en 1954, cette dernière bataille de l’armée
française au XXe siècle. Quelle est alors leur référence constante,
comme le prouvent leurs lettres et leurs témoignages? Verdun. Or,
sans Dien Bien Phu, comprend-on l’intense investissement militaire
français en Algérie? Il est clair que 14-18 pèse sur tout le siècle
et, au-delà, sur toutes les représentations de nous-mêmes en tant que
nation. De nos jours, la nostalgie de la France en tant que grande
puissance fait peu de doute. Mais comment l’avouer sans admettre,
voire excuser, le massacre de masse de 1914-1918?
En va-t-il de même dans les autres pays européens? Les situations
sont très différentes, ce qui explique pourquoi il ne peut y avoir de
cérémonie du 11 Novembre au niveau européen. Le fait que la société
britannique n’ait pas subi, sur son sol, un choc aussi violent que la
France en 14-18, puis en 1940, contribue à une moindre érosion de
l’esprit “militaire” de 1914. On le constate lors des pèlerinages
britanniques sur les lieux: le continuum patriotique n’a pas connu de
rupture majeure. Il s’exprime jusqu’en 1982, lors de la guerre des
Malouines, cette dernière guerre de l’honneur menée par une société
occidentale au XXe siècle. Du côté allemand, c’est évidemment tout à
fait différent. Lors des cérémonies solennelles du 11 Novembre 1998,
à Paris, Jacques Chirac et Lionel Jospin n’ont pas réussi à
s’associer le chancelier Schröder pour la bonne raison que l’on
commémorait en Allemagne le 9 novembre 1938, date de la Nuit de
cristal. C’est très significatif. L’ombre portée du nazisme, de la
Seconde Guerre mondiale et de l’extermination des juifs bloque tout
processus empathique à l’égard de 14-18. La culpabilité globalise le
passé et suscite la coupure mémorielle. Le cas russe est également
différent. La mémoire est absolument occultée: la Grande Guerre n’y
est que l’épiphénomène d’un autre événement matriciel, la révolution
bolchevique de 1917.
Qu’en est-il des pays du centre et de l’est de l’Europe? Beaucoup de
ces pays n’existent qu’à l’issue de la guerre. Le conflit est donc
pour eux fortement identitaire, ce qui n’est pas simple pour autant.
En Pologne, au musée de l’Armée de Varsovie, il est impossible
d’avoir une vue globale. Une vitrine présente les soldats enrôlés
sous le drapeau russe, une autre ceux qui ont combattu dans l’armée
allemande, une autre encore ceux qui portaient l’uniforme
austro-hongrois. L’Autriche, démembrée en 1918, complètement
enclavée, devient une tête sans corps. Dans les Balkans, la Première
Guerre n’est qu’un moment dans une longue séquence de violence liée
au choc ininterrompu des nationalismes d’existence. Des luttes du
XIXe siècle contre l’Empire ottoman aux atroces guerres balkaniques
de 1912-1913 – qui donnent lieu au premier rapport humanitaire de
l’Histoire, établi par la Fondation Carnegie – jusqu’à la guerre de
Yougoslavie des années 1940, puis celle de la décennie 1990, la
violence extrême s’établit comme une constante, dans une chronologie
souvent vécue comme dépourvue de solution de continuité. Il n’y a eu
ni démobilisation culturelle ni pause de la conflictualité.
Pourquoi ne s’interroge-t-on jamais sur la perception de nos voisins
européens? Nous francisons en effet sans cesse la commémoration de
14-18, comme s’il ne s’était rien passé ailleurs, ce qui empêche de
comprendre la portée réelle de cette guerre. Prenez l’exemple du film
Capitaine Conan (Bertrand Tavernier), qui se passe en Roumanie mais
met en scène des soldats français. Le fait que l’action a lieu sur le
front d’Orient et que les Français ne soient pas en uniforme bleu
horizon, dans leur guerre à eux, sur leur territoire à eux, explique
largement l’échec public du film. Le film de Jean-Pierre Jeunet Un
long dimanche de fiançailles va en revanche dans le sens de la
victimisation à la française, le réalisateur franchissant même un
seuil inédit lorsqu’il déclare: “J’ai l’impression d’être mort
là-bas, dans une autre vie.” On passe de “mon arrière-grand-père est
mort en 14” à “je suis mort en 14”. Là, de mon point de vue, on
sombre dans une indécence totale.
Ne croyez-vous pas que, pour certains, il y a un moyen de se créer un
drame intime en se repeignant en victime? Nous sommes en effet dans
la “concurrence des victimes”. En novembre 1998, le maire de Craonne
accueille Lionel Jospin pour la célébration du 80e anniversaire de
1918 et déclare: “Il s’est produit sur le Chemin des Dames le premier
crime contre l’humanité resté impuni.” Faisant bon marché de
l’Histoire, il ignore que le génocide des Arméniens s’est produit
auparavant, en 1915. Sans parler du massacre des Herero, en Namibie
actuelle, perpétré sur un ordre explicite d’extermination donné par
le commandement allemand, et qui aboutit à l’élimination de 80% de
cette population entre 1904 et 1906. Peu importe, et Le Monde
reproduit sans aucune distance ses propos, faisant sien cet amalgame
insupportable: l’opération de translation des grandes exterminations
du XXe siècle vers les soldats de la Grande Guerre, victimes d’un
“crime contre l’humanité”. En quelque sorte, les tranchées se
transforment subitement en camps d’extermination. On trouve même des
“historiens” pour dénoncer un Etat français prétotalitaire… On
oublie que les poilus étaient des acteurs et pas seulement des
victimes. Et a-t-on jamais vu les victimes d’un génocide rentrer chez
elles pour une permission et revenir au front ensuite?
Tout le monde veut sa part d’horreur! Sans doute parce qu’elle fut
totale… 14-18 marque l’invention de la guerre totale. Et l’un des
critères de la guerre totale, c’est la rupture de la barrière
d’étanchéité entre population en armes et population civile. Il faut
distinguer quatre phases. D’abord, les grandes invasions de l’été
1914, qui se traduisent par des massacres de masse immédiats, en
Belgique et dans le nord de la France, en Prusse-Orientale, en
Serbie. Puis la phase des tranchées, véritables murailles en creux,
qui contribue à “essentialiser” l’ennemi: derrière la tranchée
adverse, il n’y a plus seulement des soldats, mais l’ennemi tout
entier. D’où le recours aux bombardements stratégiques: on considère
comme légitime de frapper, sans bénéfice militaire, des populations
civiles. La totalité de la population adverse est devenue l’ennemi,
et c’est un phénomène absolument nouveau dans l’histoire militaire
occidentale moderne. La Seconde Guerre mondiale ne fera que prolonger
cette vision en radicalisant encore la violence. Ensuite, le lien
entre le fait guerrier et l’extermination totale d’une population
perçue comme une cinquième colonne, devant être éliminée, qui culmine
avec le génocide des Arméniens. C’est un fait indiscutable et un legs
dont la dimension “performative” est très importante. Hitler avait
parfaitement souvenance non seulement de l’extermination des
Arméniens, mais aussi du silence qui l’avait entourée, lui qui
déclarera: “Qui, après tout, parle de l’anéantissement des
Arméniens?” Enfin, il y a des formes de violence complètement
anomiques, particulièrement celles des soldats démobilisés. On les
connaît moins, mais le cas de l’autodémobilisation de l’armée russe à
l’automne 1917, qui voit 1 million de soldats rentrer chez eux, ne
doit pas être oublié. En quelques semaines, les “capotes grises”
massacrent leurs officiers, puis ravagent tout sur leur passage en
s’en prenant, dans les villes, tout spécialement aux juifs. Cette
autodémobilisation ne se fait donc pas dans le refus de la violence;
elle en constitue au contraire une surrection radicalisée.
Et l’antisémitisme allemand? Il puise beaucoup dans la Grande Guerre.
Dans une Allemagne considérée souvent comme moins antisémite que la
France en 1914, une enquête est lancée à la fin de 1916 pour établir
le degré de présence au front des juifs allemands. Bien qu’elle ait
prouvé que le patriotisme des juifs était sans faille, elle ne fut
pas publiée, accréditant la conclusion inverse. Puis, après novembre
1918, l’antisémitisme apparaît comme le produit de la défaite
refusée, défaite prétendument provoquée par le “coup de poignard dans
le dos” des communistes et des socialistes, eux-mêmes assimilés aux
juifs. C’est là que s’établit le lien avec la Shoah. Car,
fondamentalement, le nazisme est une liturgie de la Grande Guerre
recommencée, la référence constante de Hitler. Le legs
éliminationniste à l’égard des juifs appartient au bilan de la
Première Guerre mondiale.
On parle toujours de l’Europe, mais la Grande Guerre a aussi
contribué à redessiner la carte du reste du monde. Songez aux
dominions de l’Empire britannique: Australie, Nouvelle-Zélande,
Afrique du Sud, Canada. 14-18 constitue véritablement l’acte de
naissance de ces pays, qui gagnent leur identité nationale à
l’occasion de la terrible saignée à laquelle ils consentent.
Et c’est la montée en force des Etats-Unis… A dire vrai, les
Etats-Unis sont déjà la première puissance économique du monde avant
1914. Mais, militairement, ils ne représentent encore rien. Les 2
millions de soldats américains qui sont en France à la fin de 1918
sont équipés et formés par les Français et les Britanniques – la
différence est énorme avec le débarquement de 1944. Mais, en se
battant aussi vaillamment que les Français et les Britanniques aux
premiers jours du conflit, tandis que ces derniers ont quatre ans de
tranchées derrière eux, ils marquent leur différence. Opposés à des
Allemands fourbus, épuisés eux aussi par des années de combat, ils
obtiennent des résultats étonnants. La relative facilité des succès
américains, dans la phase finale de la guerre, a joué un rôle
considérable dans l’American self-esteem. Lorsque le président Wilson
arrive à Paris en décembre 1918, il bénéficie d’un triomphe public.
L’exemplarité, la conception morale, la dimension de croisade, qui
caractérisent l’idéologie américaine jusqu’à nos jours, trouvent
largement leur source dans la Première Guerre mondiale. C’est, pour
l’Amérique, le modèle même de la guerre juste (les Etats-Unis
n’étaient d’ailleurs pas alliés, mais “associés” à la France et à la
Grande-Bretagne). Ils prétendaient ne vouloir tirer aucun bénéfice de
cette opération prétendument désintéressée, menée pour le bien de
l’humanité.
Diriez-vous que les choses ont bien changé? L’Occident est porteur
d’un modèle de guerre d’une très grande violence. Or, après 1945, il
ne s’est plus appliqué cette violence à lui-même; ils l’a
externalisée, en Corée, en Algérie, au Vietnam, en Irak… D’où notre
fallacieux sentiment de déprise de la guerre. Il nous semble qu’un
conflit ne peut plus survenir au sein même de l’aire occidentale. Du
coup, nous déréalisons l’expérience de guerre et nous ne comprenons
pas son retour sous d’autres formes, comme celle du terrorisme, par
exemple, qui nous paraît d’une totale illégitimité. Nous ne voulons
pas admettre qu’il s’agit là d’une autre forme de confrontation que
celle dont notre modèle guerrier est porteur. C’est là, à mon avis,
que nous sommes désormais loin, très loin, de la Grande Guerre.
–Boundary_(ID_FKG/XJq00HEH2qM+BdnzmQ)–

Armenian Assembly of America
122 C Street, NW, Suite 350
Washington, DC 20001
Phone: 202-393-3434
Fax: 202-638-4904
Email: [email protected]
Web:
PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 8, 2004
CONTACT: David Zenian
E-mail: [email protected]
REPS. KNOLLENBERG AND PALLONE CALL FOR ACTION
TO STOP AZERBAIJANI MANIPULATIONS AT THE UNITED NATIONS
Washington, DC – The Armenian Assembly this week commended Congressional
Caucus on Armenian Issues Co-Chairs Reps. Joe Knollenberg (R-MI) and Frank
Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ) for urging the Bush Administration to prevent Azerbaijan
from manipulating the Nagorno Karabakh peace process though “disruptive”
actions at the United Nations.
The Co-Chairs, in a joint letter to Secretary of State Colin Powell Monday,
said the United States should renounce and secure the retraction of a UN
General Assembly resolution introduced last week by Baku that urges the
removal of Armenians from Nagorno Karabakh – a move that could only derail
the peace process spearheaded by the Organization for Security and
Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and the Minsk Group co-chaired by the United
States, France and Russia.
Similar warnings and opposition were also voiced by the member states of the
European Union and the Minsk Group, which, in separate statements last week
spoke out against the Baku-introduced UN General Assembly draft resolution
on “The Status of Occupied Territories of Azerbaijan.”
Both the EU and the OSCE Minsk Group agreed that such a resolution will be
detrimental to efforts aimed at finding a lasting settlement to the Nagorno
Karabakh peace process.
The draft resolution was added to the agenda of the 59th session of the UN
General Assembly last week with the support of only 43 of the 191 member
states of the United Nations. Most of the 43 nations, including Turkey, who
voted in favor of considering the resolution, were from the Organization of
Islamic States. The United States, along with 98 other countries, abstained.
The Armenian Assembly, in meetings last week with U.S. officials most
closely involved in the Nagorno Karabakh peace process, urged the government
to publicly oppose Azerbaijan’s attempt to introduce a Nagorno Karabakh
resolution before the UN General Assembly.
“It is long past time for the U.S. to be more forceful with Azerbaijan, to
indicate what is not helpful to a peaceful and just resolution of the
Karabakh conflict and to demonstrate that there are consequences to actions
that frustrate regional peace, security and prosperity,” Assembly Board of
Directors Chairman Anthony Barsamian said.
In their joint letter to Secretary Powell, Reps. Knollenberg and Pallone
said U.S. interests in the Caucasus “are best served by the continuation of
dialogue on the outstanding issues related to Nagorno Karabakh within the
OSCE framework, not by fragmentation of this orderly process.”
The joint letter to Secretary Powell said in full:
Dear Mr. Secretary:
We are writing to share with you our alarm over the prospect that
Azerbaijan’s continued efforts at the United Nations to manipulate the
Nagorno Karabakh conflict will, if unchecked, undermine our clearly
articulated national interest in the stability of the Caucasus.
We refer, of course, to Azerbaijan’s recent introduction of an ill-advised
resolution on the “Situation in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan.” 
This intentionally disruptive resolution threatens the principles and
procedures of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)
as well as the Minsk Group mediation effort, co-chaired by the United
States, France and Russia, to resolve the Karabakh conflict.  Azerbaijan’s
proposal represents a hostile declaration against the entire peace process,
aimed only at fostering increased divisiveness.  Its consideration can only
set back the cause of peace.
We are deeply concerned that the OSCE Minsk process cannot survive
Azerbaijan’s destabilizing tactics.  Continued tampering with this process
will inevitably produce a chain reaction resulting in its demise.  We cannot
afford to allow Azerbaijan to continue to disrupt the work of the OSCE,
which, as you know, has been recognized by the UN itself as the lead arbiter
in this conflict.
We value the vital role the United States plays as an honest broker in the
Nagorno Karabakh peace process.  In this capacity, given our commitment to
keep the parties talking and moving forward, it is necessary for the United
States to act forcefully against destabilizing steps that will unravel the
peace process.  Our interests are best served by the continuation of
dialogue on the outstanding issues related to Nagorno Karabakh within the
OSCE framework, not by the fragmentation of this orderly process.
Efforts to reinforce stability and reduce the risk of conflict are in the
best interests of the U.S. and the South Caucasus region.  To this end, we
urge that the United States forcefully renounce this proposal, secure its
retraction, and impress upon the Azerbaijani government that it should drop
such counter-productive tactics in favor of a serious and lasting commitment
to the OSCE Minsk Group process.
Thank you for your consideration of our views.  We stand ready, of course,
to assist you in addressing this matter in the interest of the American
people.
Sincerely,
Joe Knollenberg                 Frank Pallone, Jr.
Member of Congress              Member of Congress
The Armenian Assembly of America is the largest Washington-based nationwide
organization promoting public understanding and awareness of Armenian
issues. It is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt membership organization.
###
NR#2004-096
–Boundary_(ID_O7oJTAkTfmcGjUWuMDumkg)–

NATO SECRETARY GENERAL LOOKING FOR PARTNERS IN CAUCASUS
Azg
9 Nov 04
Serge Sargsian: No Issue of Becoming NATO Members Included in
RA Political Agenda. Relations between RA and NATO Canâ~@~Yt Have
Negative Impact on Russian-Armenian Relations
Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, NATO Secretary General, who paid a short
visit to Armenia within the framework of his regional visit, stated
in the course of the press conference held after the meeting with RA
President Robert Kocharian that “Armeniaâ~@~Ys relations with NATO
are developing very well.”
President Kocharian told Scheffer that Armenia is ready to
deepen relations with NATO. According to the press release of RA
Presidentâ~@~Ys press office, Kocharian stated that recently Armenia
has enlarged the cooperation with NATO. “Armenia has already its
representative at NATO, we try to participate in a number of programs
more actively,” he said.
In late June it was fixed in the joint communiqué adopted at NATO
Istanbul summit that NATO is going to pay special attention to the
South Caucasus and the Central Asian regions. Already on September
15, Brussels appointed NATOâ~@~Ys special representative for these
regions. Robert Simons was accompanying Scheffer during his visits
to Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia.
NATO Secretary General informed the journalists that NATO is not going
to compete with any country or organization in this region. During his
meeting with the students of the Yerevan State University, Scheffer
said that NATO needs partners in this region.
He said that the Organization is conducting peacemaking activities in
Kosovo and Afghanistan and, in particular, emphasized Armeniaâ~@~Ys
contribution to the peacemaking activities in Kosovo. NATOâ~@~Ys role
in the peacemaking activities will be enlarged. Scheffer said that the
Organization is deepening its relations with the countries that can
contribute to the settlement of such global issues as those related
to mass destruction arms and anti-terrorist struggle. Scheffer said
that one canâ~@~Yt fight against such enemies alone. That is why it
is necessary that the anti-terrorist struggle should be conducted by
joint efforts.
Scheffer noticed in the talk with the journalists that Armenia took a
principal step expressing its determination in signing an Individual
Partnership Action Plan with NATO. He emphasized that Armenia should
independently decide on its priorities and represent them to NATOâ~@~Ys
consideration.
Itâ~@~Ys worth mentioning that only Georgia is cooperating with
NATO on Individual Partnership Action Plan among the South Caucasus
countries. On November 5, during a short talk with journalists, Serge
Sargsian, RA Defense Minister, said that the government should approve
the program, it also concerns the reforms in the armed forces, while
the Individual Partnership Action Plan means deepening Armeniaâ~@~Ys
relations with NATO.
Answering question put by Azg Daily Sargsian said that there is no
issue of becoming a NATO member on the foreign political agenda of
Armenia, and the deepening of Armenia-NATO relations canâ~@~Yt have
any negative impact on the Armenian-Russian relations.
Scheffer noticed during the meeting with the journalists that the
three South Caucasus countries have different positions in the issue
of becoming NATO members. According to him, if President Mikheil
Saakashvili directly announces about his countryâ~@~Ys determination
to become a NATO member, he heard nothing similar in Armenia. In this
respect, Scheffer repeated that deepening of Armenia-NATO relations
does not mean that it is directed against a third country. “I
havenâ~@~Yt come here to compete with anyone,” he said.
During the meeting with the students, Scheffer stated that NATO
has no plan on establishing a military station in any of the South
Caucasus countries. He reminded that Georgia has unsolved issues in
the South Ossetia, Armenia in Nagorno Karabakh. He added that NATO
isnâ~@~Yt going to interfere in these conflicts. Earlier Scheffer
told the journalists: “NATO is for brief settlement of Nagorno Karabakh
conflict. The alliance has no determination to deal with the settlement
of the conflict. We believe that OSCE Minsk group should play the
main role in achieving the settlement.”
In Tbilisi, during a joint press conference with Mikheil Saakashvili,
Scheffer said that Russia and NATO have very good relations, but,
henceforth, the alliance will also demand from Russia to meet the
commitments undertaken in OSCE Istanbul assembly in 1999. Itâ~@~Ys
worth reminding that, according to the commitments of Istanbul
assembly, Russia should begin negotiations with Tbilisi around the
deadlines of dislocating Batumiâ~@~Ys 12th and Akhalkalakâ~@~Ys 62d
military bases.
According to Civil online newspaper, Saakashvili announced that Georgia
is getting closer and closer to NATO. The president said probably
till 2009 Georgia will become a NATO member-country. Scheffer said
in his turn that he is realistic and optimistic, but he added that
he will speak of no deadlines in the issue of Georgiaâ~@~Ys membership.
At Yerevan State University, Scheffer said the Organization considers
the South Caucasus as one region, but it applies individual principal
in relations with each republic. “Armenia can develop relations with
NATO without decreasing its relations with other countries. NATO is
Russiaâ~@~Y partner,” Scheffer said.
NATO Secretary general announced in Yerevan that the alliance is not
going to play an active part in the issue of securing the safety of
Baku-Tbilisi-Jeihan oil pipeline.
By Tatoul Hakobian
–Boundary_(ID_SgvIg2g5ipZyWkU/dImwkw)–
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Omaha World-Herald (Nebraska)
November 6, 2004, Saturday
Educators here to learn, teach
by Emily Gersema
LINCOLN — A group of Eurasian educators is here for a month to learn
about civics education, but they’re teaching Nebraska students,
professors and administrators a lesson about the freedoms that many
Americans take for granted.
“I think it probably improves our outlook on the world,” said Larry
Dlugosh, professor and chairman of educational administration at the
University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
The group of 21 educators from the former Soviet countries of
Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan are visiting schools in Nebraska,
including some in Omaha and Lincoln, to study how Americans teach
children about civic rights and responsibilities.
The UNL program is funded by an $ 83,450 grant from the U.S.
Department of State. The countries have been getting support from the
United States to make the transition into independent states since
the Soviet Union was dissolved in 1991.
The foreign educators’ situation is especially unique because Armenia
and Azerbaijan have been in conflict for nearly two decades. Although
the countries declared a cease-fire in 1994, their relationship
remains tense.
But the educators said their countries have worked side by side for
several years to improve education for children in their nations.
“There have been conferences in Georgia,” said Tatev Margaryan, who
works for an educational policy organization in Armenia.
Programs like this “are a rich experience for us,” said Liana
Ayvazyan, a vice principal for an Armenian school.
Already, Rasmiya Badirov said she intends to connect her students in
Azerbaijan with some of the students she’s met in Nebraska.
“We are going to do cross-cultural projects,” Badirov said. “I think
it would be beneficial for our students to learn U.S. culture.”
Joe McNulty, a UNL professor of education administration who applied
for the grant project, said some Nebraska educators will visit the
countries in the spring.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Columbus Dispatch (Ohio)
November 4, 2004 Thursday, Home Final Edition
’79 HOSTAGE CRISIS RAISED TENSIONS IN U.S.
by Jeb Phillips, THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
Twenty-five years ago today, people who looked Middle Eastern had
reason for concern in central Ohio.
A Middle Eastern student was stabbed in the Ohio State University
area after being taunted. Another’s apartment was firebombed. An
Oriental-rug dealer displayed a sign in the front window of his
store: “We are Americans and we are proud of our country.”
In some ways, these and other incidents were a precursor of what
would come after Sept. 11, 2001. But this was what followed Nov. 4,
1979, after militant Islamic students had seized the U.S. Embassy in
Tehran, Iran. For 444 days, the students held 52 Americans hostage,
including Bert C. Moore of Mount Vernon, who died in 2000.
Middle Easterners, particularly Iranians, living in the United States
saw for the first time how their U.S. neighbors could see them as the
enemy, even if they deplored what was happening in their homeland.
“It was a very stressful time,” said Behzad Bavarian, an Iranian who
attended OSU from 1978 to ’84 and is now an engineering professor at
California State University in Northridge.
A month after the embassy takeover, Jolah Bomjon Schuck, then a
24-year-old Ohio Wesleyan student, was walking with her brother near
OSU when they were confronted by a gang of young men, according to a
Dispatch story. The men asked if they were Iranian. When they nodded
yes, one man brandished a knife and stabbed Schuck in the leg as she
tried to flee.
Loyalties were complicated, said Nozar Alaolmolki, an Iranian who is
a political science professor at Hiram College in northeastern Ohio.
At the time of the hostage crisis, he was a young professor traveling
between Iran and Ohio.
“The problem here was the tendency to feel Iranians were all alike,”
he said.
Some Iranians in the United States, especially students, supported
the hostage-takers, he said. They felt the United States had
installed Iran’s shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlevi, whom they viewed as
corrupt. A revolution just before the hostage crisis sent the shah
into exile and put the Ayatollah Khomeini in de facto power.
The shah came to the United States in October 1979 for medical
treatment. That angered Khomeini’s followers and fueled the embassy
takeover.
Dozens of Iranians, including many students, demonstrated Downtown in
support of the hostage-takers and against U.S. imperialism. They felt
that Khomeini’s rise was good for their country, Alaolmolki said.
Some workers in Downtown office buildings spit on them.
“(The students) wanted to establish a republic,” Alaolmolki said of
those celebrating the embassy takeover. But in his estimation, the
students were proved wrong in supporting Khomeini’s oppressive
regime.
Iranian students who objected to the embassy takeover were painted
with the same broad brush as those who supported it. All Iranian
students in the United States had their visas examined to make sure
they were in compliance. At least 14 “deportable aliens” were found
at OSU.
In September 1980, an officer of the an Iranian student association
at OSU said that someone tossed a Molotov cocktail at his apartment
building, The Dispatch reported.
The unease spread to people Americans thought looked Iranian.
Walter Menendian, 64, who is of Armenian heritage but was born in the
United States, said that Iranian rugs made up about 15 percent of
sales at his family store, K.A. Menendian Oriental Rugs on W. 5th
Avenue in Columbus. He and his relatives could feel opinion turning
against anything that even seemed Iranian, including their business.
So they put the patriotic sign in the store window.
“We thought it couldn’t hurt,” said Menendian, now retired.
Still, the tension caused by the hostage crisis did not rise to the
level of suspicion and “us-against-them” feeling that arose after
Sept. 11.
“The hostage crisis was remote,” Alaolmolki said. “On 9/11, the
visual evidence here was vivid.”