Dent, Rest Of Congress Must Revisit ‘Genocide’ Vote

DENT, REST OF CONGRESS MUST REVISIT ‘GENOCIDE’ VOTE
Abdullah Bozkurt

Allentown Morning Call, PA
ll-left_col-a.6099834oct21,0,1390206.story
Oct 21 2007

"Turkish people, including Turks in the Lehigh Valley, are very
sensitive on this issue. Their thousands of years of history show
how tolerant they are of other cultures and faith groups."

The headline on Professor Brian Mello’s op-ed column on Oct 16 was
misleading, as it said only Turkey holds the key to the Armenian
issue. As the saying goes, it takes two to tango, and this complex
dispute definitely needs more than two to find a solution.

It is disheartening to follow the developments regarding Congress’s
resolution calling for recognition of Armenian claims that goes back
nine decades. It does great disservice not only to the U.S. vital
interests in the region, but also is counterproductive to dialogue
undertaken by both the Turkish and Armenian governments in recent
years. This highly contested issue does not belong in a political
body whose members are open to influences by special interest groups
and lobbyists.

In the House of Representatives, It is obvious that Speaker Nancy
Pelosi is trying to pay lip-service to her constituency back in
California, with no regard to U.S. security interests in the volatile
region at the expense of only democratic Muslim ally, Turkey. Should
the resolution pass a floor vote, the only party that can claim victory
would be the Armenian diaspora, and it would be a symbolic gesture to
voters of Armenian descent. The diaspora has never allowed the case
to come before a properly constituted and competent international
court. Instead, they prompt parliamentary and other bodies to
"recognize the genocide."

Turkish people, including Turks in the Lehigh Valley, are very
sensitive on this issue. Their thousands of years of history show
how tolerant they are of other cultures and faith groups. When the
Spanish inquisition happened, Turks welcomed Jews. In World War II,
they opened the door to Jewish professors fleeing from Germany. At
the time, Ottoman Turks were issuing decrees granting protected status
to Orthodox churches and other Christian denominations in their domain.

Prominent British historian Professor Norman Stone wrote a great
op-ed piece published in the Chicago Tribune on Oct. 16. He said,
"In 1914, when World War I began in earnest, Armenians living in
what is now Turkey attempted to set up a national state. Armenians
revolted against the Ottoman government, began what we would now call
‘ethnic cleansing’ of the local Turks. Their effort failed and caused
the government to deport most Armenians from the area of the revolt
for security reasons." He also notes that large Armenian populations
of Istanbul, Izmir and Aleppo were not affected by the deportation.

Internal Ottoman documents talk of "deportation" in the context of
widespread Armenian nationalist risings in the early spring of 1915.

The Russians and the French used Armenian regiments and legionnaires.

The Ottomans themselves in 1916 put on trial about 1,300 men for
crimes during the deportation of the Armenians in 1915, convicted
many and executed some, including a governor.

Why don’t we leave the issue to accredited and respected historians
to sort it out rather than politicizing the records? What is it that
we are afraid of finding out? In recent years, the Turkish government
offered to establish a joint historical committee composed of neutral
and independent historians with impeccable records of integrity to
investigate claims and examine records.

Turks even suggested opening all internal state documents preserved
in national achieves for 100 years. But, the Armenian side refused to
take part in that review. The resolution in Congress does not mention
these facts, but rather lays blame on one side only — Turks. I
encourage our congressman Charlie Dent to revisit his vote, as many
of his colleagues did last week. I understand he wants to please the
Armenian community in preparation for his upcoming congressional race
in the 15th District, but his vote would hurt Turkish Americans in
his constituency, and is deemed offensive by many.

Abdullah Bozkurt of Bethlehem is president of the Lehigh Dialogue
Center. Its Web site is

http://www.mcall.com/news/opinion/anotherview/a
www.lehighdialogue.org

The Role Of Constructive Opposition To Communists

THE ROLE OF CONSTRUCTIVE OPPOSITION TO COMMUNISTS

KarabakhOpen
21-10-2007 18:52:04

Yesterday President Bako Sahakyan met with the members of the Central
Committee of the Communist Party of Artsakh and its leader Hrant
Melkumyan.

The president emphasized the importance of regular political
consultations and contacts with all the political forces, the General
Information Department reported.

The representatives of the party highly appreciated the determination
of the president to "shape a new political culture" and said to take
part in the process as "constructive opposition."

Apparently, considering the absence of opposition, the role of the
"constructive opposition" was decided to hand out to the Communist
Party. It is quite convenient – the ideology of the Communists
is opposition to the liberal policy of the government, besides,
the Communists in Karabakh have neither wish nor possibility for a
"non-constructive" revolution.

PKK Pushes Turkey To Brink With Fresh Attacks

PKK PUSHES TURKEY TO BRINK WITH FRESH ATTACKS
Suna Erdem in Istanbul, for Times Online

Times Online
October 21, 2007

The prospect of Turkey invading northern Iraq drew closer today after
Kurdish rebels killed at least 12 soldiers in an ambush, blowing up
a bridge near the Iraqi border as a military convoy crossed.

The Turkish Prime Minister flew back to Ankara for an emergency summit
with military leaders after the attack, in which another 16 troops
were injured in heavy fighting and, according to unconfirmed reports,
a further 10 were missing, believed kidnapped. In a separate incident
in the same province today at least 17 people were injured when a
mine blew up a wedding convoy.

The provocative upsurge in violence comes days after the Turkish
Parliament gave the authorisation to press ahead with a threatened
cross-border military incursion into Iraq, despite warnings from
Washington and Brussels.

Turkey blames US and Iraqi authorities for failing to clamp down on
the activities of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), which has been
using its guerilla bases in the mountains of the autonomous Kurdish
region of northern Iraq to mount increasingly intense attacks on
Turkish targets in recent weeks.

"We are determined to respond to these events in a level-headed manner.

What must be done will be done…We are not giving any thought to
what others might say," Mr Erdogan said as he prepared to fly to the
capital, Ankara, to join President Abdullah Gul and senior officials
for the summit.

"We are very angry at the moment."

Turkey’s Government is under strong public and military pressure to
take action against the PKK in northern Iraq. There are reportedly
between 60,000 and 100,000 troops deployed along the border to try
to stop the rebels crossing back into Turkey. Mr Erdogan has already
ordered plans for some sort of cross-border action days after 13
Turkish troops were killed in an overnight ambush earlier this
month. That ambush sparked nationwide condemnation as the soldiers’
funerals turned into marches demanding retaliation.

Turkey’s Nato ally, the United States, and the Baghdad government
are worried about the prospect of Turkish troops destabilising the
only relatively peaceful part of the country. But anger at a recent
US congressional vote to blame Ottoman Turks for genocide against
Armenians in World War One has deafened Turkish ears to calls for
calm from Washington.

Western diplomats and analysts, however, believe Turkey is reluctant
to go ahead with an operation that would cause diplomatic and economic
headaches.

According to Mr Erdogan, Turkey has mounted 24 previous cross-border
incursions with little lasting effect.

The Turkish General staff said in a statement that 23 guerrillas
were killed during the overnight attack on a military convoy in the
border region of Hakkari’s Daglarca district. The statement said 63
‘targets’ were under heavy fire as clashes continued into the day,
and an air-backed military operation was launched in the area.

The PKK claimed that it had had the upper hand in the fighting. "There
were clashes between the two sides. We killed a large number of
them. We took a group of Turkish soldiers as prisoners," said Abdul
Rahman al-Chadirchi, a leading member of the PKK.

Jalal Talabani, the Iraqi President and himself a Kurd, warned
Ankara that it’s demands that Iraq should flush out the PKK were
unrealistic. Iraq’s armed forces would be unable to impose its will
on the Kurdish separatists in the north where the might of the large
and well-equipped Turkish army had failed, he said.

Massoud Barzani, the President of the autonomous Kurdish region of
Iraq, warned meanwhile that if Turkey moved in, the Kurdistan regional
government would be compelled to defend its people.

A resolution too far

The Economist
October 20, 2007
U.S. Edition

A resolution too far;
Turkey and Armenia

The fallout in Turkey from a congressional vote in America

A congressional vote in Washington that could jeopardise Turkey’s
path westwards

THE Turks are a proud, prickly people, easily offended by criticism.
That much is clear from the row over a resolution, passed by a
committee of the United States House of Representatives on October
10th, calling the slaughter of Armenians by Ottoman Turks in 1915
genocide. The full House has yet to vote on the resolution. But
Turkey has reacted angrily, recalling its ambassador. It is talking
of cutting military ties and even denying the Americans use of the
Incirlik airbase that is vital for the supply of their troops in Iraq
(see pages 33-35).

As such threats demonstrate, Turkey is not just an angry ally. It is
also a vital one, with a population of 75m and the world’s
19th-biggest economy. It is a strategically important hinge between
Europe and Asia; it has the biggest army in NATO after America’s; it
forms a crucial energy corridor to the West; and it borders on such
awkward places as Iran and Syria as well as Iraq. Moreover, it is a
rare example in the Muslim world of a lively, secular democracy. Yet
internal tensions are exacerbated when clumsy outsiders intervene.

This year has seen a series of clashes between the army and
secularists on one side and the mildly Islamist Justice and
Development (AK) government led by Recep Tayyip Erdogan on the other,
culminating in a big AK win in the election in July. Mr Erdogan is
trying manfully to keep Turkey on the path towards membership of the
European Union, even though many Europeans have become openly
hostile. He also wants to preserve good relations with America
despite renewed fighting with guerrillas of the Kurdistan Workers’
Party (PKK), some based in the Kurdish region of northern Iraq. This
is a bad moment for America to pick a fight over something that
happened 90 years ago, before modern Turkey even existed.

That is not to deny it is a good idea for countries to face up to
their past, especially when it was as violent as that of the Ottomans
in the early 20th century. Germany has been admirably open about
admitting the sins of the Nazi period; Japan has been less candid. It
would be good for modern, democratic Turkey to come to terms with the
terrible treatment of Armenians in the first world war (as also, in
later times, of other minorities, including Greeks, Alevis and
Kurds). In recent years, there have been encouraging signs: a few
historians’ conferences, an attempt to improve relations with
Armenia, growing acceptance of the Kurdish language and occasional
talk of amending Article 301 of the penal code. This makes "insulting
Turkishness" a criminal offence and is used to shut down discussion
of the Armenian genocide.

But the adoption of a highly political resolution in America’s
Congress is the worst possible way to encourage more steps in the
right direction. Rather, it would serve only to fan the flames of
Turkish nationalism and leave liberals within Turkey who want more
open debate about the past even more exposed. Those in Congress who
are pushing this resolution have little interest in Turkey or even
Armenia, but a lot in the wealthy Armenian-American constituents who
are lobbying them. It is telling that many Turkish Armenians, and
even the Patriarch of the Armenian church of Istanbul, have not
welcomed the House resolution.

Recognising the damaging repercussions in Turkey as well as for
Turkish-American relations, the Bush administration has been fighting
to stop the resolution’s passage. It has mustered all eight living
former secretaries of state, both Democrat and Republican, to argue
against it. This is testimony to the strategic importance of Turkey.
But it also reflects the especially sensitive time. This week the
Turkish parliament gave its approval for a possible cross-border
military incursion into northern Iraq to root out PKK terrorists
based there.

That would be another blunder. The Turks’ frustration over northern
Iraq is understandable. In the past two weeks alone, some 20 Turkish
soldiers have been killed by the PKK. Repeated requests to the Iraqis
and local Kurdish authorities to clamp down on the group have been
ignored. Yet an invasion would not only upset the most stable region
of Iraq but also be unlikely to work, as even some Turkish generals
recognise. It would be better for the Americans to do more to counter
the PKK in northern Iraq – and for Turkey to renew its earlier efforts
to improve the lot of Kurds in its south-east.

Keeping Turkey on its pro-Western course is vital, not just for Iraq,
but for the sake of all Turks, including the country’s own big
Kurdish population. Recent rows have helped to turn Turkish public
opinion sharply against both the European Union and the United
States, a situation that countries such as Iran and Russia are all
too ready to exploit. Pressure to scrap Article 301 and allow open
debate in Turkey should continue. But the House resolution is not the
way to do it.

AntiAmerican American-Armenians

ANTIAMERICAN AMERICAN ARMENIANS

BostonNOW, MA
Oct 17 2007

It really disturbs me that ancient ethnic feuds have to put our troops
at even greater risk in Iraq simply because some Armenians who don’t
seem to have completely gotten off the boat yet insist on condeming
the Turks for something that happened to their ancestors more than 90
years ago. Who are we to make Congess condemn a people for something
that happened then if children in Vietnam and Cambodia now are still
being born with birth defects (thanks to Dow Chemical) and are still
having their limbs blown off from freshly-laid land mines (thanks to
Motorola)? Are there no limits to our smug, arrogant, self righteous
and terminally stupid hypocrisy?

While we’re at it maybe someone should also lobby Congress to hector
Israel for Joshua’s sack of Jericho.

comments at
07/10/17/antiamerican-american-armenians

http://www.bostonnow.com/blogs/thomasbleswer/20

Tierras De Armenia Company Intends To Build Agricultural Processing

TIERRAS DE ARMENIA COMPANY INTENDS TO BUILD AGRICULTURAL PROCESSING PLANT IN ARMAVIR MARZ

Noyan Tapan
Oct 17 2007

YEREVAN, OCTOBER 17, NOYAN TAPAN. Tierras de Armenia company
(Argentina) will build an agricultural produce processing plant in
the village of Arevadasht (Armavir marz). The company’s technical
advisor Daniel Tardito said at the October 17 press conference that
20 million dollars is needed for construction of the plant. It is
envisaged putting it into operation in 2009.

Tierras de Armenia company, which is owned by famous
Argentinian-Armenian businessman Eduardo Eurnekian, purchased a
2,300-hectare land plot in the same place three years ago and planted
fruit trees there, making investments of 30 million dollars. The
first crop of grapes has already been harvested.

In the words of D. Tardito, the company currently employs more than
700 local residents, while the operation of the plant will allow to
create new jobs.

Conveniently Bad Timing

CONVENIENTLY BAD TIMING
By Jeb Hensarling

National Review Online Blogs, NY
Oct 16 2007

The cost of passing this nonbinding resolution is far greater than
its benefits.

This week, the antiwar faction of the Democrat Congress reached a
new low in their effort to put forth controversial legislation that
further complicates our military efforts in Iraq and could have
potentially devastating effects on the men and women of our military.

Once again, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has come down with a case of
conveniently bad timing. Last week, the House Foreign Affairs Committee
dug 80 years into history and passed a non-binding resolution that
condemned what is now the nation of Turkey (at the time, the Ottoman
Empire) for genocide for the mass killings of Armenians. The Turkish
ambassador to the U.S., Nabi Sensory, was immediately recalled to
Ankar for "consultations" – not exactly a minor diplomatic maneuver,
rather a giant warning flare.

The ins and outs of successful diplomacy are extremely complicated,
and to be successful, a nation must never take its eye off of the big
picture. We are a nation at war, and right now America’s big picture
is the safety of our citizens and the men and women serving abroad.

Turkey has been a key ally during the War on Terror, and has helped
our cause by facilitating critical supply routes into Iraq and
Afghanistan. We rely heavily on Incirlik, an air-force base located
near the Iraqi-Turkish border, as a gateway into Iraq. Access to this
base is the closest and most efficient means of shipping supplies
to Iraq. Currently, nearly 70 percent of all air cargo supplies for
American forces in Iraq go through Turkey, including 95 percent of
the mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles that shield American
troops from harm.

Make no mistake, by condemning a strategic ally for crimes that
were committed early in the last century, the Democrat Congress
jeopardizes our relations with a key ally during a time of War. We
need not look back far into history to see the ramifications of such
action. Last year, Turkey broke all military ties with France after
its parliament passed legislation that made the denial of Armenian
genocide a crime. Similar action today by the Turks would threaten
the wellbeing of our soldiers in the region and greatly undercut
American efforts in Iraq.

If public opinion serves as an indicator, we should expect the
Turkish government to respond in similar fashion. According to the
first nationwide survey conducted in Turkey (conducted by Terror Free
Tomorrow), 78 percent of Turks oppose the congressional resolution,
and nearly 75 percent say that House passage of the Armenian resolution
will worsen their opinion of the United States. That’s not all. Perhaps
most telling of all is that nearly 80 percent of Turks would support
a "strong response" by their government if this resolution is passed
by Congress – including suspension of diplomatic relations with the
United States.

With all of these realities before us, it is perplexing to understand
why Democrat leaders continue to push for the immediate consideration
of this nonbinding resolution. There is no question that a great
human tragedy occurred last century in what is now Turkey, and
an accurate history should be written. But first, we should note
that no one responsible is alive today. Second, we should question
whether now is the time for Members of Congress to assume the role
of historians. Responsible members of Congress have one question
to consider: Is passing a nonbinding resolution (meaning, it simply
expresses the opinion of Congress) worth risking American access to
key supply routes into Iraq, and destabilizing the Kurdish portions
of that nation?

It seems clear that the cost of passing this nonbinding resolution
is far greater than its benefits. We are a nation at war, and our
first concern must always be the brave men and women of our armed
forces, who I believe are done a great disservice by this symbolic
House vote. This is just the latest example of anti-War-on-Terror
Democrats in the House being either oblivious or indifferent to the
welfare of American forces serving in harm’s way.

Is it appropriate for Congress to act so irresponsibly that it would
purposely consider legislation which could cause direct harm to the men
and women of our armed forces? This is the question that Speaker Pelosi
must consider; while the resolution that will be brought to the floor
will be largely symbolic, its repercussions most certainly will not be.

– Congressman Jeb Hensarling is chairman of the Republican Study
Committee, a group of over 100 conservative Republicans in the House
of Representatives.

m/?q=YWZmNmUwN2U3OThlNmY4OTI2ZDM0OTI5ZGNjODFiYmE=

http://article.nationalreview.co

Whom Does It Help To Call It Genocide?

Hartford Courant
Oct 14 2007

Whom Does It Help To Call It Genocide?

By NICHOLAS VON HOFFMAN
October 14, 2007

Thank God! We have been waiting almost 100 years for the U.S. House
of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee to do it and at long
last they did – those statesmen and stateswomen! They voted to
declare the 1915 massacres of Armenians by the Turks an official
genocide.

Now, don’t you feel better? Isn’t the world a better place for this
courageous act on the part of our legislators? Aren’t we all freer?
Stronger? Safer? More long-lived? Healthier? Richer? Wiser and better
sexually adjusted?

What’s next? A resolution condemning Napoleon’s invasion of Egypt,
and the slaughter visited on the Egyptians at the Battle of the
Pyramids? And how about a little legislative attention for the Romans
killed by Hannibal at the Battle of Cannae in 216 B.C. Better look
into that one, too, guys.

Do you think that the House Foreign Affairs Committee might, after it
has righted any number of ancient wrongs, look into what in the world
is going on right now, under their own noses? This very committee has
a direct responsibility for the death of 600,000 Iraqis and the
flight of some 2 million more from their homes. Does that bear a
little looking into?

While they are putting the genocide label on others, would the
gentlemen and gentleladies of the committee consider putting some
sort of label on themselves?

The horrific murders of the Armenians occurred almost a century ago.
However, the murders in Iraq are going on now, fellas. Does that fact
suggest that you might have more urgent business than chewing over
crimes of yesteryear?

The answer is no, thanks to the Armenian lobby. Many persons of
Armenian extraction live in vote-rich California, which explains why
these politicians have flung themselves into the study of bygone
events. As usual, the congressional panderers stalk the halls of the
Capitol.

No countervailing Turkish lobby exists in California, but in Turkey,
people are riled up over their being called names by disreputable
American politicians. So we are faced with two dangers to
counterbalance each other.

Danger No.1 is what will happen if Congress does not pass a
resolution calling the events of 1915 genocide. That might result in
a couple members of the California congressional delegation losing
their jobs a year from November. Danger No.2 is what happens if they
go ahead with their genocide resolution. The Turks could kick the
United States out of our Air Force Base at Incirlik, which the
military needs to carry on its shenanigans in Iraq. The Turks could
do quite a few other things that we would not like to see them do.
But it seems to Congress that it is better to cave in to another
pressure group.

Committee chairman Tom Lantos, a Democrat from California, hit it on
the head when he said, "We have to weigh the desire to express our
solidarity with the Armenian people … against the risk that it
could cause young men and women in the uniform of the United States
armed services to pay an even heavier price."

So Lantos and the rest voted for the resolution and for our young
people in uniform paying "an even heavier price."

And those Congress people on Capitol Hill can’t understand why their
poll ratings are even lower than George W. Bush’s.

Nicholas von Hoffman is a columnist for the New York Observer. This
article was distributed by Agence Global, an op-ed service.

entary/hc-runovergenocide1014.artoct14,0,7677188.s tory

http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/comm

Bush’s Politics of Terror and Turkey’s Genocide of Armenians

Political Affairs Magazine, NY
Oct 13 2006

Bush’s Politics of Terror and Turkey’s Genocide of Armenians

By Norman Markowitz

A House committee yesterday passed a resolution to condemn the
genocide carried out against the Armenian minority in the Ottoman
Turkish Empire between 1915 and 1917 during World War I.

Twenty-one nations by my last reading have formally recognized this
organized mass murder as genocide, and scholars generally regard it
as the second most studied genocide in modern history, after of
course the genocide of the Jewish people of Europe by Nazi Germany
and its fascist allies. That genocide, carried out with the railroad
cars and gas chambers of what were industrial killing factories saw
the murder of a minimum of six million people whom the Nazis
considered Jewish according to their racist ideology, along with many
millions of other civilians who were murdered either for racist
reasons or because they were anti-fascists.

The genocide was carried out against the Armenian minority by Pan
Turkish racists and militarists (of the `Young Turk’ movement praised
by major capitalist states as `modernizers’ before the war) in
control of the collapsing Ottoman empire. As many as 1.5 million
people were killed. But the fact that the perpetrators were largely
forgotten after some fairly limited actions against a few of them
after the war and the events largely buried outside of the Armenian
Diaspora (along with a far less developed record keeping in the
Ottoman empire than in Nazi Germany) makes it more difficult to say
how many people perished.

In effect, the nationalist military leader Mustapha Kemal, known to
the world knows at Attaturk, successfully fought off various armies
in the collapsing empire, took power over what became modern Turkey,
and after the war continued the extreme nationalism of the `Young
Turks.’ He combined that nationalism with a fierce anti-clericalism
and coercive social reforms, and remains to this day the center of a
huge personality cult in Turkey that connects secularism with an
authoritarian nationalist tradition contemptuous of a any form of
cultural pluralism for non-Turkish minorities in the present Turkish
state.

That regime has made aggressive denial of the Armenian genocide into
a prop for its anti-Kurdish policy and its general policy of
suppressing liberal and humanistic criticisms of its treatment of
minorities and denial of civil liberties.

It is indisputable that there was a policy of mass forced
deportations of Armenians established by law. The state viewed
Armenians as a "threat to national security" during a war that the
Ottomans were clearly losing. The law ordered the confiscation of
Armenian property, special units acting as killing squads against
Armenian civilians, and policies that led to mass starvation among
the Armenians herded like animals in death marches.

These events were big news in the neutral U.S. and allied countries
in 1915. Henry Morgenthau, Sr., U.S. ambassador to Turkey, and father
of Franklin Roosevelt’s Secretary of the Treasury (who during the war
fought against the developing Holocaust against the Jewish people of
Europe) played an important and courageous role in disseminating
information about the planned atrocities to U.S. sources and the
atrocities, particularly the mass starvation, became widely known and
commented upon in the U.S.

The allied powers condemned the actions of Turkey’s military, and the
New York Times wrote in 1915 that the murders were "systematic" and
"organized by the government." Britain and France and Czarist Russia,
the allied powers, had good reason to condemn the mass murder.
Turkey’s wartime allies, the German and Austro-Hungarian Empires, on
the other hand, kept silent about the news of mass atrocities against
Armenians. Ironically, some of the best documents historians have
found that confirm the genocide are from German and Austrian sources
who were on hand to witness what was going on as allied reporters
were excluded.

One could go on and on, looking at the international denunciations of
Ottoman mass murder, the previous history of anti-Armenian prejudice
which preceded the state organized mass murder, the specific Ottoman
military disasters that were the immediate cause, the humanitarian
campaigns in the U.S. and other countries to save the Armenians, the
Turkish government’s initial denials, portraying the Armenians as
subversive agents and tools of its historic Czarist Russian enemies,
with whom it was now at war, the receding of the policy in the wake
of international condemnation and deepening military disaster, and
the post WWI very limited attempts to punish perpetrators.

But what is at stake here is the opportunism and the hypocrisy of the
Bush administration and previous U.S. governments whose example it is
now following. The Bush administration playing crude politics with
what was a genocide that prefigured the World War II genocide of the
Jewish people of Europe. (It sought to round up and exterminate
through starvation, forced marches, forced labor battalions and
murder detachments the scattered minority population of a large
multinational empire stretching from Suez to the Balkans.)

The nationalist Turkish government created by Attaturk, often in
reality a de facto military dictatorship with political parties
serving the military and threatened with removal if they challenged
military prerogatives, has for generations refused to acknowledge the
genocide, sought in recent years to sponsor genocide denial
scholarship, and use diplomatic and economic forms of blackmail and
retaliation against those nations which have formally condemned the
genocide That is what the present government, in which a clerical
party plays a leading role, is doing at the moment.

The official Turkish government positions minimizing both the number
of Armenians killed and explaining the killings as a regrettable
response to anti-Turkish Armenian rebellions in which Turks also died
are not worthy of serious discussion (even though the Turkish
government has bought scholars who do will make some version of those
arguments). The fact that some left forces in Turkey, opposed to U.S.
imperialism rhetorically, have found it useful for themselves to
identify with the Turkish nationalism of Attaturk and support the
genocide denial argument of right-wing Turkish nationalists is also
not worthy of serious discussion (such opportunism is both
unprincipled and almost always politically unsuccessful for left
parties and movements).

The Bush administration, in opposing the House resolution has in
effect taken the Turkish government position. "We deeply regret the
tragic suffering of the Armenian people that began in 1915," Bush
said, "but this resolution is not the right response to these
historic mass killings and its passage would do great harm to a key
ally in NATO and to the war on terror."

Morally and ethically, although those are not terms one would usually
use for the Bush administration, this would be like a U.S. cold war
government, having established a West German state after World War II
in which German militarists and open supporters of the Hitler regime
played a much more direct and leading role than they did in reality
and contended that the genocide against the Jewish people during
World Wa rII was greatly exaggerated and also the result of Jewish
pro Soviet and pro Communist activities against Germany (a version of
Hitler’s contentions) supported that West German government’s
campaign to keep the U.S. Congress from passing a resolution
denouncing the Holocaust.

The Turkish government, which has praised Bush’s position, has used
its denials over the generations to, in effect, bolster and sustain
deep racist prejudices against Armenian people, prejudices which are
very similar to the historic prejudices that existed against Jewish
minorities in European states, that is, members of a minority
religion loyal to their own members, controlling the economy, the
traditional scapegoats for the problems and failures of Muslims and
Turks.

One could of course mention that the Bush administration, which has
done so much to aid fundamentalist Christians and undermine the
separation of church and state, has now counseled against the U.S.
Congress joining other civilized nations in a formal condemnation of
a genocide carried out against a Christian minority. One might also
mention that Bush is by no means the first to do this – successive
U.S. governments in effect winked at the Armenian genocide as part of
a policy of supporting Turkey as a NAT0 state and military ally
against the Soviet Union through the cold war era.

The racist denial of language and other cultural rights to Turkey’s
Kurdish Muslim minority was also not a problem for these governments
as for that matter Saddam Hussein’s persecution of the Iraqi Kurdish
minority was no problem for the Reagan administration when they
supported his regime in the1980s in its war against Iran. (Iran of
course had and has its own history of abuse against its Kurdish
minority, but this has never been an issue in U.S. policy toward Iran
and isn’t today.)

But the issue should be to support and pass this resolution and then
have Bush speak to the world, if he would dare, in condemning it. How
can Turkey become a state that is worthy of support if it continues
to support and subsidize genocide denial internationally and take
repressive actions against those Turkish citizens who acknowledge the
Armenian genocide? How can Turkey be in the long run an ally against
the ultra-right clerically based terrorist groups in the region if it
sustains policies of separation and ethnic religious hatred that
these groups feed upon? It does the Turkish people no good to
continue to wink these historic crimes against humanity in order to
use the Turkish military for U.S. ends, which essentially has been
the policy of successive U.S. governments.

Theodore Roosevelt, a former Republican president called the mass
killings against Armenians "the greatest crime of the war." In
reality, it there was a much greater international outcry against the
Armenian genocide during World War I by the Allied powers and neutral
states than there was against the WWII genocide directed against the
Jewish people of Europe (perhaps because the victims were Christians)
and this may have played a role in limiting the extermination policy.

But the existence of a post World War I Turkish state, in which
nationalism and military elites have played a leading role, led to a
situation where these real crimes against humanity can be denied or
at least hidden by the government of the United States for its own
geopolitical reasons. And that is not a small thing. In 1931, Adolph
Hitler, two years before the establishment of the Nazi dictatorship
said "we intend to introduce a great resettlement policy….remember
the extermination of the Armenians." In 1939, in advocating a policy
of mass killing in Poland to take the "Living Space" for Germans, he
said privately to his officers, "who, after all speaks today, of the
annihilation of the Armenians.

Who does? Civilized people throughout the world for whom human rights
aren’t an empty slogan. But not the Bush administration, its State
Department, and its policy planners who have gone from one disaster
after another in the Middle East and everywhere else.

Hopefully, the U.S. Congress will remember.

Norman Markowitz is a contributing editor of Political Affairs.

iew/5990/1/289/

http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articlev

Armenia holds Serbia 0-0 in European Championship qualifier

International Herald Tribune, France
Oct 13 2007

Armenia holds Serbia 0-0 in European Championship qualifier
The Associated PressPublished: October 13, 2007

YEREVAN, Armenia: Armenia held Serbia to a scoreless draw Saturday,
denting the visitor’s hopes of qualifying for the European
Championships.

It was Serbia’s third consecutive draw, giving it 17 points after 11
games. Armenia has 9 in as many games.

Armenia had several scoring chances, but Ara Hakobyan missed an empty
net off Levon Pachajyan’s cross into the box in the 84th minute. A
minute later, Armenia goalkeeper Roman Berezovski deflected Bosko
Jankovic’s shot from six meters.

Armenia had a final chance two minutes into second-half injury time,
but Robert Zabelelyan missed the target after beating goalkeeper
Vladimir Stojkovic one-on-one.

Lineups:

Armenia: Roman Berezovski; Sargis Hovsepyan, Robert Arzumanyan, Karen
Dokhoyan, Alexander Tateosian, Levon Pachajyan, Artur Voskanyan
(Romik Khachatryan, 70), Ararat Arakelyan, Artavazd Karamyan, Hamlet
Mkhitaryan (Aram Hakobyan, 82), Samvel Melkonyan (Robert Zabelelyan,
62).

Serbia: Vladimir Stojkovic; Antonio Rukavina, Milan Stepanov, Dusko
Tosic, Nenad Kovacevic, Zdravko Kuzmanovic (Zoran Tosic, 61), Dejan
Stankovic, Milos Krasic (Bosko Jankovic, 73), Marko Pantelic (Danko
Lazovic, 62),