PRESS RELEASE
March 15, 2007
U.S.-Armenia Public Affairs Committee (USAPAC)
1518 K Street, NW, Suite M
Washington, DC 20005
Contact: Ross Vartian
Telephone: 202-783-0530
USAPAC Urges Congress to Reassess Relations with Turkey
Washington DC – USAPAC urged members of Congress to `fundamentally
question Turkey’s actions and ultimately its value to the West’ in a
letter sent to members of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on
Europe and shared with members of the Congressional Caucus on Armenian
Issues.
In a letter addressed to Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Robert Wexler
(D-FL), USAPAC Executive Director Ross Vartian stressed that
`U.S. interests would be better served by dealing with Turkey as it is
rather than as it is assumed to be.’ On March 15, Congressman Wexler
called a Subcommittee hearing on `U.S.-Turkish Relations: Challenges
Ahead’ with participation of Administration officials.
The full text of the letter appears below.
The U.S.-Armenia Public Affairs Committee is a 501(c)(4) tax-exempt
and not-for-profit organization established to advance
Armenian-American interests.
March 14, 2007
The Honorable Robert Wexler
Chairman
Europe Subcommittee on Foreign Affairs
257 Ford House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Mr. Chairman:
Thank you for calling for a hearing on `U.S.-Turkish Relations and the
Challenges Ahead’ before your Subcommittee. The U.S.-Armenia Public
Affairs Committee agrees that it is important to carefully reassess
U.S. policy goals with respect to Turkey.
Turkey is frequently touted by some in the U.S. public policy making
community as a potential regional leader and ally of the United
States. Consequently, Turkey’s relations with all contiguous and
non-contiguous states in the region must be part of any thorough
review of the present U.S.-Turkey relationship. Turkey’s priority
concerns with U.S. actions and potential actions should also be part
of this important review. Recent Turkish government statements
include the following criticisms of the United States: condemnation of
congressional consideration of resolutions reaffirming the U.S. record
on the Armenian Genocide; allegations of U.S. failure to deal with
the Kurdistan Worker’s Party (PKK); allegations of U.S. support for
Kurdish control of Kirkuk; and, condemnation of any consideration by
the U.S. of plans that would result in a largely self-governing
Kurdistan.
In each case, the Turkish government has threatened to take actions
against U.S. interests in the event that the above concerns are not
addressed to Turkey’s satisfaction. For the past four weeks,
successive waves of senior Turkish officials have come to Washington
setting forth possible consequences if the U.S. does not continue to
succumb to Turkey’s wishes. Should Congress uphold the incontestable
fact of the Armenian Genocide, Turkey threatens diplomatic, economic
and military reprisals. Should the U.S. fail to control events in
Iraqi Kurdistan according to Turkey’s demands, then Turkey warns that
it will do what is necessary to deal with the issue. In both
instances, Turkey fails to take into account the damage that would be
done not only to its own interests, but to the U.S.-Turkey
relationship as well.
A review of U.S.-Turkey relations should take into account what the
U.S. has asked Turkey to do in recent years. All too frequently,
Turkey has rejected American proposals, thwarting U.S. policy
objectives in the region. This includes blocking a northern front for
the Iraq war; rejecting U.S. requests to normalize relations with the
Republic of Armenia; refusing to support the isolation of Hamas;
failing to treat its Christian, Jewish and Kurdish minorities
according to its international obligations and in keeping with its
European Union (EU) aspirations; and, not repealing its laws that
preclude free speech.
It is the oft-declared policy of the U.S. that it is in our
increasingly vital national interest for the states and independent
republics of the South Caucasus to be at peace with one another and to
continue their development as integrated, market-oriented, democratic
nations. The Caucasus region is envisioned as a future east-west and
north-south bridge connecting Europe, Russia, the Middle East, and
Central Asia. Relevant Turkish policies and trends today thwart these
objectives.
Despite recurring calls from the U.S. and the EU, Turkey keeps its
border with Armenia closed in violation of U.S. and international law.
Turkey repeatedly and summarily rejects Armenia’s offers of normalized
relations without preconditions. Turkey obstinately refuses to come
to terms with its genocidal legacy. Furthermore, Turkey joins with
Azerbaijan in excluding Armenia from all significant regional
commercial and infrastructure projects and provides substantial and
growing military assistance and training to Azerbaijan as that nation
proceeds with a projected multi-billion dollar and multi-year arms
build up against Armenia.
The EU, the European Parliament and select member states have
consistently and repeatedly urged Turkey to normalize relations with
Armenia and to deal with its Ottoman past as part of its EU
integration process. Turkey has virtually ignored six years of Bush
Administration appeals to normalize relations with its neighbor
Armenia.
Nevertheless, despite Turkey’s intransigence, despite Turkey’s
genocidal history, despite Turkey’s continued discrimination against
its citizens of Armenian descent, and despite Turkey’s aggressive
stance towards the Republic of Armenia, Armenia continues to offer
open borders and full relations without preconditions. Armenia
continues to support Turkey’s accession to the EU provided that Turkey
complies with all ascension criteria. And Armenia continues to offer
confidence building measures in transition to full and normal
relations.
The Bush Administration has regularly stated that Turkey is a staunch
ally of the United States, and that Turkey is a democratic, secular
and EU ready nation – a bridge between the West and moderate Islam.
While this declaration may describe a distant and perhaps attainable
goal, it is not an accurate or contemporaneous description of Turkey.
At the launch of the war in Iraq, Turkey refused a stunned United
States aid for an essential northern front, and closed access to
military bases constructed and maintained with generous U.S. support.
These hostile actions were taken notwithstanding the cooperation of
some Members of Congress and Senior Bush Administration officials to
block consideration of the Armenian Genocide resolution in 2004 and
2006. These hostile actions were taken despite the fact that the Bush
Administration quashed the exposure of illegal Turkish interference in
America’s elective and legislative processes. And, these hostile
actions were taken despite the fact that the Bush Administration fired
and silenced FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds and others that warned or
knew of Turkey’s illegal activities.
Turkey has relentlessly pressured the U.S. and Iraqi governments to
take action against the PKK, and to prevent Kurdish control of Kirkuk,
thereby forestalling any prospect of a self-governing Kurdistan. In
warning the U.S., Turkey included a not so veiled military threat that
Turkey would not sit idly by and watch Kirkuk ceded to the Kurds. In
response, the United States strongly cautioned Turkey against any
unilateral military action, noting that such intervention could
destabilize northern Iraq, the most secure part of that country.
Turkey has not taken the military option off the table.
Turkey’s actions and statements are contributing to growing anti-U.S.
and anti-Israel public opinion in Turkey and the surrounding region.
Turkish officials continue to accuse the U.S. and Israel of current
acts of genocide in Iraq and Palestine. And Turkey continues to
assign blame to Jews, Christians and ethnic minorities for its
internal and external problems. The 2006 human rights practices
report, which was released earlier this month by the State Department,
indicated that a variety of newspapers and television shows in Turkey
continued to feature anti-Christian and anti-Jewish messages, and that
anti-Semitic literature is reportedly common in bookstores.
In a press conference last month following a meeting in Ankara with
visiting Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Prime Minister Erdogan
urged Israel as well as the Quartet – the United States, the European
Union, the United Nations and Russia – to give the new Palestinian
government a chance. Erdogan said that, `I have stressed that the new
Palestinian government is a hope=85 It is not possible to solve this
with Mahmoud Abbas alone and there is a need for a strong government
that stands on its own feet. The formation of a consensus government
could positively affect the process.’
Recently, Hamas agreed to join a national unity government with Abbas’
more moderate Fatah movement. Israel and the Quartet have reserved
judgment, insisting that any Palestinian government must first
recognize Israel, renounce violence and accept previous peace deals.
Additionally, the United States, Israel and European Union ban contact
with Hamas, which they label a terror group. Turkey was harshly
criticized by its Western allies when Ankara hosted a Hamas delegation
in February 2006.
As a result of recent events, the United States has never been as
unpopular in Turkey as it is today. Surveys indicate that only about
one in 10 people have any sympathy or respect for our country.
Gallup, for example, has just released the results of its second
in-depth survey of Muslims in mainly Islamic countries, like Turkey.
The first survey was conducted in 2001 and 2002, and the second,
follow-up survey in 2005 and 2006. What the data shows is not
reassuring to Americans. The percentage of Turks holding `unfavorable
views’ of the United States has risen – from 33 to 62 percent in
Turkey. By comparison, in the same period the figure in Iran fell
from 63 to 52 percent.
Coincidently there has been a sharp decline in support in Turkish
public opinion for the country’s European Union membership. Surveys
indicate that only about a third of the population is still positive
toward the prospect of joining the EU.
Increasing Turkish animosity towards the U.S., Armenia and others has
fostered a dangerous environment for U.S. citizens and for minorities
living in Turkey.
The Turkish government has been unable, even unwilling, to protect its
Armenian minority, who along with other minorities in Turkey, are
regularly victims of ultranationalist, xenophobic and anti-western
sentiments and measures. The latest casualty of Turkish intolerance
and persecution was Hrant Dink, the courageous Turkish-Armenian
publisher, who was assassinated for speaking the truth about the
Armenian Genocide. The Turkish government failed miserably in its
responsibility to guard Hrant Dink from the countless death threats he
received for invoking the Armenian Genocide. In fact they did the
opposite, continually prosecuting him under Article 301 of the Turkish
Penal Code for his courageous commentary. In the last several weeks,
public calls for the murder of Archbishop Mesrob II, the Patriarch of
Constantinople of the Armenian Apostolic Church, the spiritual leader
of Turkey’s Armenian community, have become more frequent.
Sadly, this bigotry is even extended to Turkish citizens who speak out
for Armenians and other minorities. The price is high. They are
prosecuted for disputing Turkish laws that deny them their inalienable
right to free speech. Tragically, free speech advocates are still
similarly ostracized and intimidated. Among those targeted are Nobel
Laureate Orhan Pamuk, internationally renowned novelist Elif Shafak
and historian Taner Akçam. Progressive, reformist, pro-western, Turks
are under siege, and the U.S. has not done enough to support this
vital segment of Turkish society.
What is even more damaging to Turkey and its prospects for further
reform and possible EU ascension has been its government’s
incompetence in confronting the `deep state,’ comprised of assorted
ultranationalists who adamantly oppose a pluralistic, democratic,
EU-integrated nation. Prime Minister Erdogan has acknowledged that
his government had not done enough to crack down on the deep state.
Returning to the matter of the Armenian Genocide, Erdogan has
constantly and inaccurately stated that Turkey is ready for a
`political settling of accounts with history,’ provided that the
Republic of Armenia responds and accepts his invitation to establish a
historians commission to study the events of 1915.
That accounting has already been done. A March 7, 2000, public
declaration by 126 Holocaust Scholars affirmed the Armenian Genocide
and urged Western democracies to officially recognize it. On June 12,
2006, many of these same scholars sent a letter to Prime Minister
Erdogan criticizing his government for the ongoing efforts to avoid
the truth and the attempt to re-write history through the
establishment of needless historical commission. On October 1, 2006,
the International Association of Genocide Scholars again appealed to
those who would deny the Armenian Genocide to fully acknowledge the
truth. Copies of all three documents are attached.
Mr. Erdogan’s suggested historical commission has been exposed for
what it is – another attempt by Turkey to bury the truth.
Again, despite Turkey’s disingenuous invitation to leave allegedly
unsettled history to the historians, Armenia has responded with a more
realistic proposal. Armenia’s President Kocharian has proposed that
an inter-governmental commission be created to discuss all important
bi-lateral issues, and reiterated the Armenian government’s suggestion
`to establish diplomatic relations, open the borders and commence a
dialogue between the two countries and peoples.’ A copy of President
Kocharian’s letter is attached. Regrettably, Turkey has declined to
respond.
It is incumbent upon the U.S. public policy community to fundamentally
question Turkey’s actions and ultimately – its value to the West in
view of trends within Turkey and in consideration of Turkey’s actions
as outlined above. Your upcoming hearing represents an important
opportunity to reaffirm U.S.-Turkish ties that are based upon enduring
shared values and mutual interest – and to critically review the
deterioration of this relationship from an American perspective.
U.S. interests would be better served by dealing with Turkey as it is
rather than as it is assumed to be.
Sincerely,
Ross Vartian
Executive Director
U.S.-Armenia Public Affairs Committee
Cc: Members, Europe Subcommittee on Foreign Affairs
Enclosures:
—————————- ————————————————
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GENOCIDE SCHOLARS
EXECUTIVE BOARD:
President
Israel W. Charny
Institute on Holocaust & Genocide
POB 10311
91102 Jerusalem, Israel
[email protected]
First Vice-President
Gregory Stanton
Genocide Watch
POB 809
Washington, DC 20044, USA
[email protected]
Second Vice-President
Linda Melvern
London, England, UK
[email protected]
Secretary-Treasurer
Steven Leonard Jacobs
University of Alabama
Dept. of Religious Studies
212 Manly Hall, Box 870264
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0264, USA
[email protected]
Tel: 205-348-0473
Fax: 205-348-6621
ADVISORY COUNCIL:
Joyce Apsel, USA
[email protected]
Peter Balakian, USA
[email protected]
Jerry Fowler, USA
[email protected]
Alex Hinton, USA
[email protected]
William Schabas, Ireland
[email protected]
Eric Weitz, USA
[email protected]
Immediate Past President
Robert Melson, USA
[email protected]
EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS OF COUNCIL:
Legal Consultant
Michael J. Bazyler, USA
[email protected]
Liaison Holocaust & Genocide
Programs, & Website Manager
Stephen Feinstein, USA
[email protected]
European Liaison
Eric Markusen, Denmark & USA
[email protected]
Editor, Newsletter & Bulletin Board
Marc I. Sherman, Israel
[email protected]
An Open Letter Concerning Historians Who Deny the Armenian Genocide:
October 1, 2006
As the major organization that studies genocide, we write this
letter to address the issue of professional scholars who support the
Turkish government’s position that what happened to the Armenians in
1915 was not planned by the Ottoman government and did not constitute
genocide.
Scholars who deny the facts of genocide in the face of the
overwhelming scholarly evidence are not engaging in historical debate,
but have another agenda. In the case of the Armenian Genocide, the
agenda is to absolve Turkey of responsibility for the planned
extermination of the Armenians – an agenda consistent with every
Turkish ruling party since the time of the Genocide in 1915.
Scholars who dispute that what happened to the Armenians in the
Ottoman Empire in 1915 constitutes genocide blatantly ignore the
overwhelming historical and scholarly evidence. Most recently, this is
the case with the works of Mr. Justin McCarthy and Mr. Guenter Lewy,
whose books engage in severely selective scholarship that grossly
distorts history. As noted genocide scholar Deborah Lipstadt has
written: `Denial of genocide whether that of the Turks against the
Armenians, or the Nazis against the Jews is not an act of historical
reinterpretation . . . . The deniers aim at convincing innocent third
parties that there is an other side of the story . . . when there is
no other side.’
As scholars Roger Smith, Eric Markusen, and Robert Jay Lifton
noted in their article `Professional Ethics and the Denial of the
Armenian Genocide’ (Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Spring ’95),
scholars who engage in denying genocide are motivated by various
factors, including careerism. A Reuters report (3/24/05), `Turkey
enlists US scholar to fight genocide claims,’ underscores the degree
to which Mr. McCarthy works with the Turkish government in its effort
to undermine the truth about the Armenian Genocide.
We believe it is important to note that in serving the Turkish
government, Mr. McCarthy and others like him bolster a government with
a long-standing history of abusing minorities, intellectuals, and the
principle of free expression. In the 1990s, according to Human Rights
Watch and PEN International, Turkey had jailed or detained more
writers than any other country in the world. Today Turkey has put on
trial some of its most distinguished writers like Orhan Pamuk for
mentioning the Armenian Genocide and hundreds of other writers are
facing jail sentences for expressing their intellectual ideas. For
scholars to support a state with a record of this kind raises profound
questions about their professional ethics.
Whatever the agendas or tactics are of the few non-Turkish
historians who support the Turkish government’s version of history,
their claims are the same: 1) all the documents that scholars have
used for decades to write about the Armenian Genocide are forgeries or
otherwise unreliable; 2) the Young Turk regime did not intend to
destroy the Armenian population – the massive deaths were a result of
war, not genocide; 3) these were hard times for the Ottoman Empire and
many Turkish people, especially soldiers, died, as did Armenian
civilians, from famine, disease, wartime chaos, not from systematic
slaughter; 4) the Armenians are to blame for their fate because they
were a Fifth Column allied with Turkey’s enemy, the Russians, who were
fighting against the Ottoman Empire in World War I, somehow even
justifying the massacre of Armenian women and children.
We believe it is important to underscore the scholarly record on
the Armenian Genocide.
The documentation on the Armenian Genocide is abundant and
overwhelming. The Armenian Genocide was the most well-known human
rights issue of its time and was reported regularly in newspapers
across the United States and Europe. The Armenian Genocide is
abundantly documented by thousands of official records of the United
States and nations around the world including Turkey’s wartime allies
Germany, Austria, and Hungary; by Ottoman court-martial records; by
eyewitness accounts of missionaries and diplomats; by the testimony of
survivors; and by decades of historical scholarship.
There are over four thousand U. S. State Department reports in the
National Archives, written by neutral American diplomats, confirming
what U.S. Ambassador Henry Morgenthau called `a campaign of race
extermination.’
Additional evidence is in the British Parliamentary Blue Book, `The
Treatment of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire 1915-16,’ compiled by
Lord Bryce and Arnold Toynbee; in Austrian and German foreign office
records (Turkey’s wartime allies), now available as books; and in the
Ottoman Parliamentary Gazette which recorded the confessions of
government and military officials during the Constantinople war-crimes
tribunal held after World War I. Mr. Lewy claims the Gazette records
are invalid, even though their authenticity has been validated by
meticulous scholarship. Add to this overwhelming body of official
evidence, thousands of pages of eyewitness accounts from relief
workers, missionaries, and survivors, and it is indisputable that the
Armenian Genocide is a proven history.
On April 24, 1915, under cover of World War I, the Young Turk
government of the Ottoman Empire began a systematic, well-planned and
organized genocide of its Armenian citizens – an unarmed Christian
minority population. More than a million Armenians were exterminated
through direct killing, starvation, torture, and forced death
marches. The rest of the Armenian population fled into permanent
exile. Thus an ancient civilization was expunged from its homeland of
2,500 years.
The Armenian Genocide is corroborated by the international scholarly,
legal, and human rights community:
1) Polish jurist Raphael Lemkin, when he coined the term
genocide in 1944, cited the Turkish extermination of the Armenians and
the Nazi extermination of the Jews as defining examples of what he
meant by genocide.
2) The killings of the Armenians is genocide as defined by
the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of
the Crime of Genocide.
3) In 1997 the International Association of Genocide
Scholars, an organization of the world’s foremost experts on genocide,
unanimously passed a formal resolution affirming the fact of the
Armenian Genocide.
4) 126 leading scholars of the Holocaust including Elie Wiesel and
Yehuda Bauer placed a statement in the New York Times in June 2000
declaring the `incontestable fact of the Armenian Genocide’ and urging
western democracies to acknowledge it.
5) The Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide (Jerusalem), and the
Institute for the Study of Genocide (NYC), have affirmed the
historical fact of the Armenian Genocide.
6) Every book on comparative genocide in the English language contains
a segment on the Armenian Genocide. Leading texts in the international
law of genocide such as William A. Schabas’s Genocide in International
Law (Cambridge University Press, 2000) cite the Armenian Genocide as a
precursor to the Holocaust and as a precedent for the law on crimes
against humanity.
Roger Smith, Eric Markusen, and Robert Jay Lifton wrote in
`Professional Ethics and the Denial of the Armenian Genocide’
(Holocaust and Genocide Studies): `Where scholars deny genocide in the
face of decisive evidence . . . they contribute to false
consciousness that can have the most dire reverberations. Their
message, in effect, is . . . mass murder requires no confrontation,
but should be ignored, glossed over. In this way scholars lend their
considerable authority to the acceptance of this ultimate crime.’
Sincerely,
Professor Israel Charny
President
International Association of Genocide Scholars
Professor Robert Melson
Past President
International Association of Genocide Scholars
Gregory Stanton
Vice-President
International Association of Genocide Scholars
—————————————- ————————————
INTERNATIONA L ASSOCIATION OF GENOCIDE SCHOLARS
EXECUTIVE BOARD:
President
Israel W. Charny
Institute on Holocaust & Genocide
POB 10311
91102 Jerusalem, Israel
[email protected]
First Vice-President
Gregory Stanton
Genocide Watch
POB 809
Washington, DC 20044, USA
[email protected]
Second Vice-President
Linda Melvern
London, England, UK
[email protected]
Secretary-Treasurer
Steven Leonard Jacobs
University of Alabama
Dept. of Religious Studies
212 Manly Hall, Box 870264
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0264, USA
[email protected]
Tel: 205-348-0473
Fax: 205-348-6621
ADVISORY COUNCIL:
Joyce Apsel, USA
[email protected]
Peter Balakian, USA
[email protected]
Jerry Fowler, USA
[email protected]
Alex Hinton, USA
[email protected]
William Schabas, Ireland
[email protected]
Eric Weitz, USA
[email protected]
Immediate Past President
Robert Melson, USA
[email protected]
EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS OF COUNCIL:
Legal Consultant
Michael J. Bazyler, USA
[email protected]
Liaison Holocaust & Genocide
Programs, & Website Manager
Stephen Feinstein, USA
[email protected]
European Liaison
Eric Markusen, Denmark & USA
[email protected]
Editor, Newsletter & Bulletin Board
Marc I. Sherman, Israel
[email protected]
12 June 2006
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan
TC Easbakanlik
Bakanlikir
Ankara, Turkey
FAX: 90 312 417 0476
Dear Prime Minister Erdogan:
We are sending again the letter we wrote to you on June
13, 2005 because we are dismayed that your government is still asking
the Armenian government to establish a so-called objective commission
to study the fate of the Armenian people in 1915. We are concerned
that your request is a political ploy designed to deny the facts of
the Armenian Genocide when, outside of your government, there is no
doubt about the facts. Our previous letter follows:
We are writing you this open letter in response to your
call for an `impartial study by historians’ concerning the fate of the
Armenian people in the Ottoman Empire during World War I.
We represent the major body of scholars who study genocide
in North America and Europe. We are concerned that in calling for an
impartial study of the Armenian Genocide you may not be fully aware of
the extent of the scholarly and intellectual record on the Armenian
Genocide and how this event conforms to the definition of the United
Nations Genocide Convention. We want to underscore that it is not
just Armenians who are affirming the Armenian Genocide but it is the
overwhelming conclusion of scholars who study genocide: hundreds of
independent scholars, who have no affiliations with governments, and
whose work spans many countries and nationalities and the course of
decades. The scholarly evidence reveals the following:
On April 24, 1915, under cover of World War I, the Young
Turk government of the Ottoman Empire began a systematic genocide of
its Armenian citizens – an unarmed Christian minority population. More
than a million Armenians were exterminated through direct killing,
starvation, torture, and forced death marches. The rest of the
Armenian population fled into permanent exile. Thus an ancient
civilization was expunged from its homeland of 2,500 years.
The Armenian Genocide was the most well-known human rights
issue of its time and was reported regularly in newspapers across the
United States and Europe. The Armenian Genocide is abundantly
documented by thousands of official records of the United States and
nations around the world including Turkey’s wartime allies Germany,
Austria and Hungary, by Ottoman court-martial records, by eyewitness
accounts of missionaries and diplomats, by the testimony of survivors,
and by decades of historical scholarship.
The Armenian Genocide is corroborated by the international
scholarly, legal, and human rights community:
1) Polish jurist Raphael Lemkin, when he coined the term
genocide in 1944, cited the Turkish extermination of the Armenians and
the Nazi extermination of the Jews as defining examples of what he
meant by genocide.
2) The killings of the Armenians is genocide as defined by
the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of
the Crime of Genocide.
3) In 1997 the International Association of Genocide Scholars,
an organization of the world’s foremost experts on genocide,
unanimously passed a formal resolution affirming the Armenian
Genocide.
4) 126 leading scholars of the Holocaust including Elie
Wiesel and Yehuda Bauer placed a statement in the New York Times in
June 2000 declaring the `incontestable fact of the Armenian Genocide’
and urging western democracies to acknowledge it.
5) The Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide
(Jerusalem), and the Institute for the Study of Genocide (NYC) have
affirmed the historical fact of the Armenian Genocide.
6) Leading texts in the international law of genocide such
as William A. Schabas’s Genocide in International Law (Cambridge
University Press, 2000) cite the Armenian Genocide as a precursor to
the Holocaust and as a precedent for the law on crimes against
humanity.
We note that there may be differing interpretations of
genocide – how and why the Armenian Genocide happened, but to deny its
factual and moral reality as genocide is not to engage in scholarship
but in propaganda and efforts to absolve the perpetrator, blame the
victims, and erase the ethical meaning of this history.
We would also note that scholars who advise your
government and who are affiliated in other ways with your
state-controlled institutions are not impartial. Such so-called
`scholars’ work to serve the agenda of historical and moral
obfuscation when they advise you and the Turkish Parliament on how to
deny the Armenian Genocide.
We believe that it is clearly in the interest of the Turkish people
and their future as proud and equal participants in international,
democratic discourse to acknowledge the responsibility of a previous
government for the genocide of the Armenian people, just as the German
government and people have done in the case of the Holocaust.
Approved unanimously at the sixth biennial meeting of
THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GENOCIDE SCHOLARS (IAGS)
June 7, 2005, Boca Raton, Florida
Israel Charny
Contacts: Israel Charny, IAGS President; Executive Director, Institute
on the Holocaust and Genocide, Jerusalem, Editor-in-Chief,
Encyclopedia of Genocide, 011-972-2-672-0424; [email protected]
Gregory H. Stanton
Gregory H. Stanton, IAGS Vice President; President, Genocide Watch,
James Farmer Professor of Human Rights, University of Mary Washington;
703-448-0222; [email protected]
———————————- ——————————————
March 7, 2000
126 HOLOCAUST SCHOLARS AFFIRM THE INCONTESTABLE FACT OF THE ARMENIAN
GENOCIDE AND URGE WESTERN DEMOCRACIES TO OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZE IT
At the Thirtieth Anniversary of the Scholars’ Conference on the
Holocaust and the Churches Convening at St. Joseph University,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, March 3-7, 2000, one hundred twenty-six
Holocaust Scholars, holders of Academic Chairs and Directors of
Holocaust Research and Studies Centers, participants of the
Conference, signed a statement affirming that the World War I Armenian
Genocide is an incontestable historical fact and accordingly urge the
governments of Western democracies to likewise recognize it as
such. The petitioners, among whom is Nobel Laureate for Peace Elie
Wiesel, who was the keynote speaker at the conference, also asked the
Western Democracies to urge the Government and Parliament of Turkey to
finally come to terms with a dark chapter of Ottoman-Turkish history
and to recognize the Armenian Genocide. This would provide an
invaluable impetus to the process of the democratization of Turkey.
Below is a partial list of the signatories:
Prof. Yehuda Bauer
Distinguished Professor
Hebrew University
Director, The International Institute of Holocaust Research
Yad Vashem, Jerusalem
Prof. Israel Charny, Director
Institute of the Holocaust and Genocide, Jerusalem
Professor at the Hebrew University,
Editor-in-Chief of The Encyclopedia of Genocide
Prof. Ward Churchill
Ethnic Studies
The University of Colorado, Boulder
Prof. Stephen Feinstein, Director
Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies
University of Minnesota
Prof. Saul Friedman, Director
Holocaust and Jewish Studies
Youngston State University, Ohio
Prof. Edward Gaffney
Valparaiso University Law School
Prof. Zev Garber
Los Angeles Valley College
Prof. Dorota Glowacka
University of King’s Collage
Halifax, Nova Scotia
Dr. Irving Greenberg, President
Jewish Life Network
Prof. Herbert Hirsch
Virginia Commonwealth University
Prof. Irving L. Horowitz
Hannah Arendt Distinguished Professor
Rutgers University, NJ
Rabbi Dr. Steve Jacobs
Temple Sinai Shalom
Huntsville, Alabama
Associate Editor of The Encyclopedia of Genocide
Prof. Steven Katz
Distinguish Professor
Director, Center for Judaic Studies
Boston University
Prof. Richard Libowitz
Temple University
Dr. Marcia Littell
Stockton College
Exec. Director, Scholars’ Conference
On the Holocaust and the Churches
Franklin Littell
Emeritus Professor
Temple University
Prof. Hubert G. Locke
Washington University
Co-founder of the Annual Scholar’s Conference
On the Holocaust and the Churches
Dr. Elizabeth Maxwell
Executive Director of the International Scholarly
Conference on the Holocaust, London, England
Prof. Erik Markusen
Southwest State University, MN
Prof. Saul Mendlowitz
Dag Hammerskjold Distinguished Professor
of International Law
Rutgers University
Prof. Jack Needle, Director
Center for Holocaust Studies
Brookdale Community College
Lincroft, NJ
Dr. Philip Rosen, Director
Holocaust Education Center of the Delaware Valley
Prof. Alan S, Rosenbaum
Dept. of Philosophy
Cleveland State University
William L. Shulman, President
Association of Holocaust Organizations City University of New York
Prof. Samuel Totten
The University of Arkansas
Assoc. Editor of The Encyclopedia of Genocide
Prof. Elie Wiesel
Andrew W. Mellon Professor in the Humanities
Boston University
Founding Chairman of the United States
Holocaust Memorial Council
Nobel Laureate for Peace
I hereby declare that the originals of these one hundred and twenty-six
signatories are on file in my office. All affiliations supplied are for
identification purposes only.
Dr. Stephen Feinstein, Director,
Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies
University of Minnesota
————————————— ————————————-
April 25, 2005
H.E. Recep Tayyip Erdogan
Prime Minister
Republic of Turkey
Ankara
Dear Prime Minister,
I’m in receipt of your letter. Indeed, as two neighbors, we both must
work to find ways to live together in harmony. That is why, from the
first day, we have extended our hand to you to establish relations,
open the border, and thus start a dialogue between the two countries
and two peoples.
There are neighboring countries, particularly on the European
continent, who have had a difficult past, about which they
differ. However, that has not stopped them from having open borders,
normal relations, diplomatic ties, representatives in each other’s
capitals, even as they continue to discuss that which divides them.
Your suggestion to address the past cannot be effective if it deflects
from addressing the present and the future. In order to engage in a
useful dialog, we need to create the appropriate and conducive
political environment. It is the responsibility of governments to
develop bilateral relations and we do not have the right to delegate
that responsibility to historians. That is why we have proposed and
propose again that, without pre-conditions, we establish normal
relations between our two countries.
In that context, an intergovernmental commission can meet to discuss
any and all outstanding issues between our two nations, with the aim
of resolving them and coming to an understanding.
Sincerely,
Robert Kocharian
<end>