Author: Kanayan Tamar

THERE’S A WORD FOR IT: GENOCIDE
By Harry Rosenfeld

Albany Times Union, NY
storyID=631926&category=OPINION&newsdate=1 0/21/2007
Oct 21 2007

>From almost the very beginning, the United States has been clear
about what happened to the Armenians living in Turkey during the
First World War. But when Henry Morgenthau, the U.S. ambassador to the
Ottoman Empire, cabled the State Department in 1915 that "a campaign
of race extermination" was being inflicted on the Armenian minority,
there was no epitomizing word to describe the atrocity that was to
take 1.5 million lives.

It wasn’t until a relentless advocate, Raphael Lemkin, invented a
name for it in 1944 — a name now embodied in the official lexicon
of the United Nations and the world’s governments, as well as among
ordinary people. The name Lemkin came up with, and tirelessly lobbied
the United Nations to formally adopt, was genocide.

Lemkin’s extended family had perished in Hitler’s extermination
campaign only a few years earlier, and he hoped that the descriptive
name would help to prevent future ones. It did not, as demonstrated
by what befell Europe’s Jews and arguably Asia’s Cambodians and
Africa’s Darfurians.

>From 1915 onward, the U.S. government in one form or another of
congressional actions or in presidential statements, has cited the fate
of those Armenians who were deported in a death march by the Turks
as dangerous to the war then being waged. Many officials, including
President Ronald Reagan, had no problem with using the word genocide.

However, when a committee of the House of Representatives made the
latest effort in a series for the U.S. "to accurately characterize
the systematic and deliberate annihilation of 1,500,000 Armenians as
genocide," Realpolitik intruded to block the nonbinding resolution
as it had thwarted past efforts.

In an Op-Ed piece in Friday’s Wall Street Journal, Recep Tayyip
Erdogan, the prime minister of Turkey, accurately wrote that "Turkey
and the U.S. have been friends, partners and allies for decades."

Turkey today indeed is not the country it was under the Ottomans. It is
the most democratic and moderate Muslim country, plays a stabilizing
role in the volatile Middle East and is the supply lifeline for
American troops in Iraq.

All that was being put at risk by the congressional action "that is
acutely offensive and unjust to Turks," the prime minister wrote.

Even today, Turkey officially describes what happened in 1915 as a
tragedy, but one that also took many Turkish lives. The documentation
of the slaughter of the Armenians is voluminous, including some from
Germany, Turkey’s World War I ally. There is little if any support
of the prime minister’s invocation of Turkish suffering at the hands
of a beleaguered Armenian community.

Ninety years later that is where the problem resides and the issue
festers. Even modern Turkey, a much more democratic and less corrupt
regime than in the neighboring Republic of Armenia, is not willing to
acknowledge its own history, although at first there were some limited
efforts to punish some officials held responsible for the genocide.

The House resolution could not have been to make crystal clear the
United States’ position on the Armenian genocide. That has been done
throughout the years. What the stalled resolution more likely was
aimed at was to encourage Turkey to face up to the terrible actions
in its past.

Perhaps even in failure the resolution might serve this purpose,
helping the present rulers to better understand the burden their
country’s past exacts to this day. In contrast, contemporary Germany
has confronted the horrors of its past, acknowledging the murder of
6 million Jews and others, and is the better for it today within its
own borders and among the nations of the world.

There are elements in Turkey working to open their society up to
modify the norms that continue to be a stumbling block in their
country’s efforts to join the European Union. As for the U.S., it has
reciprocated the Turkish commitment to the alliance with encouragement
and support, going to far as to block the congressional resolutions.

This controversy probably will simmer down as others like it have in
days past. But it will reappear time and again, through the efforts
of Armenians scattered around the world who can never forget what
happened to their forbearers and who will find support among people
of conscience.

The resolution stated that it "will help to prevent future
genocides." Experience tells us that it will always take more than
words, but that words can have inherent power and influence, as
witness Lemkin’s coinage.

KARABAKH CONFLICT DEVELOPS IN MIDDLE EAST SCENARIO – AZERI EXPERTS

Zerkalo, Azerbaijan
Oct 12 2007

Azerbaijani experts say that the conflict between Azerbaijan and
Armenia over the breakaway region of Nagornyy Karabakh is developing in
accordance with the Middle East scenario or the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict, as peace talks have been lasting for years without any
results. Russian-language Zerkalo newspaper quoted some experts
participating in a roundtable on the conflict as saying that peace
talks will continue at least for a couple of more years.

"A serious breakthrough in the settlement of the Nagornyy Karabakh
conflict will hardly be made before presidential elections in
Armenia and Azerbaijan" in 2008, the newspaper said. The following
is the text of an unattributed report in Zerkalo newspaper headlined
"The Karabakh conflict develops in accordance with the Middle East
scenario say experts at a closed-door roundtable on the settlement
of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict". Subheadings have been inserted
editorially.

Another closed-door roundtable of experts and political analysts
on the settlement of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, which was
organized by the South Caucasus research centre and Analitika.az
website, has recently taken place. This time experts discussed the
topic called "prospects for the development of the settlement of
the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict in accordance with the Middle
East scenario".

The urgency of this issue proceeds from the statements of most
representatives of international organizations saying that a serious
breakthrough in the settlement of the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict
will hardly be made before the presidential elections in Armenia and
Azerbaijan [in 2008]. This situation has been repeated before. Taking
into consideration the facts that Azerbaijan will see municipal
elections in 2009 and parliamentary elections in 2010 following the
presidential election scheduled for 2008, it is not ruled out that
the break in peace talks may continue for two years.

In view of the abovementioned facts experts were requested to answer
the following questions: 1. How real is it that the peace talks on
the settlement of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over Nagornyy
Karabakh will last for many years like those on the Middle East
[Israeli-Palestinian] conflict? 2. How much does the delay in the
resolution of the conflict for many years meet the interests of the
conflicting parties, that is, Azerbaijan and Armenia? 3. How much does
it meet the interests of the major mediators, which are the co-chairs
of the OSCE Minsk Group [a team of mediators set up in 1992 to mediate
a peaceful resolution], specifically Russia, the USA and the European
Union? 4. How capable is the OSCE Minsk Group in the current format
to achieve a peace deal that would be acceptable to all the parties to
the conflict? 5. Does the formula "the co-chairs and the international
community will support any solution that would be acceptable to all
the parties to the conflict" contribute to the soonest signing of a
peace deal between Armenia and Azerbaijan? 6. If Azerbaijan is really
interested in speeding up a peaceful solution to the conflict, is not
it the time for Baku to take the conflict to the UN Security Council
so that the council can identify clear frameworks for the settlement
of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict and the mandate for the mediators
of the OSCE Minsk Group on the basis of international law?

Breakthrough to be hardly made

Most of the experts believe that the likelihood of a breakthrough
in the peace talks in 2007-2008 is equal to zero. Nevertheless, the
experts did not rule out that a fundamental change in the geopolitical
situation in the region may force Moscow or Washington to put the
issue of the settlement of the conflict toughly to Azerbaijan or
Armenia. It was noted that this option may have both positive and
negative consequences for the sides of the conflict.

Everything will depend on which party the great powers that have
geopolitical interests in the region will use to settle the conflict.

Experts believe that this option is unlikely, but say that a window
will be opened for a short time in 2009 for intensifying peace talks
on the resolution of the conflict.

No military action expected

Experts do not think that a resumption of full-scale military
operations is likely in the forthcoming eighteen months, at least
before the presidential election in Azerbaijan. However, even in
this case it is not excluded that the aggravation of the situation
and a resumption of large-scale military hostilities after a certain
geopolitical situation takes shape in the region will fully meet the
interests of Russia. In this scenario Moscow may do any provocation
to make the sides of the conflict resume war.

Experts say that the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict is already
developing in accordance with the Middle East scenario. It is
impossible to achieve compromises between the parties to the conflict,
while a military solution does not meet the interests of the USA, first
of all. That is why the settlement of the conflict has been handed over
to the OSCE, which has no real leverage to solve the conflict at all.

Russia not interested in solution

In the meantime, the unanimous opinion of the experts is that Russia is
not interested in the settlement of the conflict since it may actually
lose leverage to influence Armenia and Azerbaijan, while the USA is
interested in the resolution of the conflict, but tries to do it more
at the expense of Azerbaijan. Experts say that the development of
the settlement process in accordance with the Middle East scenario is
totally contradictory to the national interests of both Azerbaijan and
Armenia. The formula "time is working in our favour", which is largely
promoted in Azerbaijan and Armenia, is deprived of any logic. At the
current stage the region is of interest to Western powers, first of
all the USA, as a source and corridor of transportation of energy
resources. However, this situation is not going to last forever.

Most of the experts said with regret that, as strange as it may seem,
the current "no peace no war" situation meets the interests of the
ruling elites both in Armenia and Azerbaijan.

OSCE incapable of solving conflict

Seven versus four experts believe that the OSCE Minsk Group with
its present mandate and format is incapable of achieving a peaceful
solution to the conflict. However, it was stressed that it is
hardly ever possible to create a different format that would be more
operational under the current circumstances.

Most of the experts (except two) do not think that the formula "the
co-chairs and the international community will support any solution
that would be acceptable to all the parties to the conflict" contribute
to the soonest signing of a peace deal between Armenia and Azerbaijan
because the sides can not reach agreement on the status of Nagornyy
Karabakh. But agreement on this issue could be an ideal option since
it could deprive the great powers which have geopolitical interests
in the region, first of all Russia, of possibilities to manipulate
the situation on the ground.

Therefore, the experts believe that the status of Nagornyy Karabakh
should be determined at a later stage at the Minsk conference, as was
originally envisioned in the relevant resolutions of the OSCE and UN.

Taking conflict to UN

Finally, the majority of the experts (six versus five) think that it
is appropriate to take the settlement of the Armenian-Azerbaijani
conflict to the UN Security Council and other international
organizations. However, some of the experts believe that this will not
result in any actual output because the states which are represented
in the OSCE Minsk Group (Russia, the USA and France) occupy the seats
in the UN Security Council with the right to veto and they are not
ready yet to identify their unanimous positions on the settlement of
the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict.

It should also be noted that the participants in this permanent
roundtable were such experts and political analysts as Arif Yunusov,
Arastun Oruclu, Ilqar Mammadov, Zardust Alizada, Rasim Musabayov,
Sahin Rzayev, Nair Aliyev, Azad Isazada, Casur Sumaranli, Alakbar
Mammadov and Uzeyir Cafarov. The permanent presenter at the roundtable
is a political observer of Zerkalo newspaper, Rauf Mirqadirov.

Wall Street Journal
Oct 20 2007

The Turkish Front

October 20, 2007; Page A10

Some day, we may look back on this week as a turning point in
America’s relations with its closest Muslim ally, Turkey, and perhaps
for the entire Middle East. Unfortunately, only a seer can say
whether it’ll be a turn for the better.

The ructions over the House’s foray into Ottoman history and Turkey’s
threat to invade northern Iraq don’t look good. But clear-eyed
leaders will spot an opportunity in this crisis to renew an alliance
for this difficult new era. American and Turkish interests overlap,
and the countries need each other as much as they did during the Cold
War.

How Turkey Could Undermine Iraq
The more sober politicians in Washington and Ankara understand this.
Wednesday’s parliamentary approval of a possible Turkish incursion to
chase down Kurdish terrorists in their Iraqi hideouts was remarkable
for its restraint. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan waited more
than a week after the latest strike by the Kurdistan Workers’ Party
(or PKK) killed 13 Turkish soldiers to bring up the measure. No
democratic government could ignore such attacks and the growing
public outrage.

The Turks have also ruled out any rash move into northern Iraq.
Ankara would prefer that the Iraqi Kurds and U.S. squeeze the PKK
hiding in the Qandil mountains and avoid the risks of launching its
own incursion. The vote this week is a wake-up call from the Turks —
not least to the Iraqi Kurds, who have an opening to improve ties
with their most important neighbor.

Meanwhile, with uncanny timing, Congressional Democrats this week
were about to stick a finger in Turkey’s eye. Whether the massacres
of up to 1.5 million Armenians in eastern Anatolia in 1915 constitute
"genocide," as a nonbinding House resolution declares, is a matter
for historians. In the here and now, the resolution would erode
America’s influence with Ankara and endanger the U.S. effort in Iraq.
Worse, Mr. Erdogan’s ability to work with Washington would be
constrained by an anti-American backlash.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi began the week promising to bring the resolution
to the House floor. But she is now having second thoughts — if not
out of good sense, then because her rank-and-file are peeling away as
they are lobbied against the anti-Turk resolution by the likes of
General David Petraeus. Republican Speaker Dennis Hastert tabled a
similar resolution when asked by President Clinton in 2000, and we’ll
soon see if Ms. Pelosi will do the same for a Republican President.

The PKK also reads the papers, and its leaders timed their attacks on
consecutive weekends this month as the resolution moved through the
House. The Marxist separatist group, whose 20-year war has claimed
almost 40,000 lives, would love to divide the U.S. from Turkey.
Unless managed right, the Turkish response this week also imperils
improving bilateral ties between Ankara and Baghdad; the countries
had only recently signed a counterterrorism pact. In Turkey itself,
PKK support is dwindling, and Mr. Erdogan’s ruling party swept the
Kurdish-majority areas in July’s elections.

To avoid the trap set by the PKK, the U.S. needs to press the Iraqi
Kurds to act against them. This doesn’t have to hurt America’s
friendly dealings with the Kurds. But someone has to remind Massoud
Barzani, the president of Iraq’s Kurdish region, that the PKK poses a
grave threat to the economic boom and stability of northern Iraq. His
aggressive rhetoric toward Turkey, and the Kurdish peshmerga
militia’s disinterest in cracking down on the PKK, gives the wrong
impression of complicity with the terrorists. With typical bluster,
Mr. Barzani yesterday said he’d fight the Turks — hardly helpful.

Short of declaring war on the PKK, the peshmerga could easily cut off
supply lines of food and arms into the Qandil mountains. The Turks
want the U.S. to nab a few big PKK fish, which is easier said than
done. But Ankara isn’t unreasonable to expect to see more of an
effort. In return, its troops can stay on their side of the border.

This hasn’t been an easy year for Turkey. For most of it, Mr. Erdogan
and his neo-Islamist party fought a cold war with the country’s
secular establishment, led by the military. His commanding election
victory in July ended that political crisis, only to see Congress and
the PKK distract anew from his primary task, which is building the
Muslim world’s most vibrant free-market democracy.

Turkey wants a unitary, stable and prosperous Iraq, and should know
that any wrong moves in the north could jeopardize that. The Turks
unabashedly support Israel’s right to exist and can’t abide a nuclear
Iran. On these and other issues, Ankara is an indispensable partner
for America. Mr. Erdogan is expected to meet President Bush next
month to discuss Iraqi Kurdistan and probably the Armenian
resolution. The U.S.-Turkey friendship is too important to let it be
ruined by parochial politics in either country.

7919465520.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Azat Artsakh Tert, Republic of Nagorno Karabakh
Oct 19 2007

The NKR President accepted

On October 16th, the NKR President Bako Sahakian accepted the
assessor of Armenian Dentists’ Union of Canada, the head of the
department of public organization "Hand by hand" Zareh Uzunian, the
chairman of International Armenian Doctors’ Union Avetis Poghosian
and the persons accompanied them.The President estimated highly
different programs realized in Artsakh by these organizations and
expressed gratitude for showing permenant assistance to our people.
In their turn, the guests expressed readiness for having henceforth
an active participation in the realization of the programs directed
to the development of the sphere of health of the republic.(Central
Administration of Information of the NKR President’s stuff reported).

TANNER LEADS OPPOSITION TO VOTE ON ARMENIAN ISSUE
By Bartholomew Sullivan

commercialappeal.com , TN
Oct 17 2007

WASHINGTON – U.S. Rep. John Tanner, D-Tenn., has taken the lead asking
the Democratic House leadership not to bring a resolution condemning
the Armenian Genocide of 1915-1923 to a floor vote.

In a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny H.

Hoyer, Tanner and U.S. Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., wrote that the
resolution would inflame relations with Turkey at a time the NATO
member and ally in the Iraq war is critically needed.

"Enactment of (the resolution), which is directed at action of the
Ottoman Empire, would have serious consequences for the United States’
important relationship with modern-day Turkey, a strong NATO ally;
and threaten our operations and our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan,"
they wrote.

Tanner is chairman of the House delegation to the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization Parliamentary Assembly.

President Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and every living
Secretary of State since the Ford administration have asked Congress
to drop the resolution, citing the harm it would do to American-Turkish
relations.

Tanner, whose district includes parts of Millington, Frayser and all
of Tipton County; U.S. Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., whose district
includes parts of eastern Shelby County; and U.S. Rep. Steve Cohen,
D-Tenn., whose district is Memphis, were never sponsors of the
measure. Turkey is the honored country in next year’s Memphis in
May events.

Until recently, the resolution had 225 co-sponsors. Of the 21
congressmen who have withdrawn their support in recent days, two are
from the Greater Memphis area: U.S. Rep. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., whose
district includes DeSoto and Marshall counties; and U.S. Rep. Marion
Berry, D-Ark., whose district includes Crittenden and Mississippi
counties.

The resolution was expected to go to a vote sometime this week,
but Hoyer is now saying he wants to get a floor vote before Congress
adjourns for the year.

ct/17/tanner-leads-opposition-vote-armenian-issue/

SILK REVOLUTION IN KARABAKH
Naira Hayrumyan

KarabakhOpen
17-10-2007 17:46:51

Only a revolution is followed by such total replacements in the
nomenclature. Apparently, a revolution has taken place, not a velvet
revolution, of course, maybe a silk revolution, the former member
parliament Levon Hairiyan says.

At first it was hard to agree with this thought because the
presidential campaign, the unification of all the political forces to
support one candidate, the intensive search for an opposition and its
persecution made think of a total victory of the government forces
in the election. But immediately after the election it became known
that everything is different than it seems.

Although the forces which supported the president came to power with
pledges to carry on the policy of the previous government, after the
election the policy of the past decade underwent a severe criticism,
and sweeping replacements in government took place. The new government
started collaborating with organizations which did not collaborate
with the old government. And so on and so forth.

During today’s meeting of parliament the young prime minister Ara
Harutiunyan severely criticized the social and economic policy of the
past decade. He said the tax and loan policy hurdled the development
of business and construction. Over the past year 230 apartments were
built and 100 were demolished in Stepanakert. And many other "trifles"
committed by the former government.

Moreover, the prime minister presented a government program which
has special focus on anti-corruption efforts. Meanwhile, the former
president had said there is no corruption in Karabakh, and no charges
on corruption have been reported over the past decade.

Hence, the policy of the former government is being rejected. And
considering that the Azat Hayrenik Party is strengthening and the
ruling Democratic Party is weakening, we may be sure to state that
an unnoticed silk revolution has been put up in Karabakh. The Azat
Hayrenik Party only needs to hold the parliament majority and nominate
a speaker. This is not impossible because soon members of parliament
will be elected in two constituencies.

The government which has just come to power needs no
opposition. Especially that those from whom power was taken do not
appear vexed. The Democratic faction voted for the government program
presented by the prime minister from the Azat Hayrenik Party despite
some sharp observations. The ex-opposition ARF Dashnaktsutyun and
Movement 88 were not against either.

Hence, in Karabakh it is difficult to distinguish opposition from
government.

The only thing that we would like to note: the issues for which the
present government is criticizing the ex-government have been raised by
the independent media for a long time now. When this government came
to power, it resisted to this criticism, almost describing reporters
as foes of the nation. Now the same issues are being raised by the
prime minister.

AS GOVERNOR, HUCKABEE NOTED ARMENIAN DEATHS AS ‘GENOCIDE’

Russellville Courier, AR
Oct 17 2007

LITTLE ROCK (AP) – As Arkansas’ governor, Republican presidential
hopeful Mike Huckabee’s action labeling the World War I-era killings
of Armenians by Turks genocide drew no criticism.

That’s not the case for Congress. A decision by the House Foreign
Affairs Committee to send a similar resolution to a full vote drew
condemnation from Turkish officials and sent Turkey’s U.S. ambassador
back to Ankara this week for consultations.

President Bush opposes the bill, worried it would fracture a fragile
relationship with Turkey, a Middle East ally as the war in Iraq
continues.

Then-Gov. Mike Huckabee signed a proclamation declaring a "Day
of Remembrance of the Armenian Genocide" on March 7, 2001. The
proclamation also said the current Turkish government "engages in
a campaign of ‘denial of the Armenian Genocide.’" Huckabee also
proclaimed April 23 as "Turkish Heritage and Children’s Day" and
April 24 as a "Day of Remembrance of the Turkish and Armenian Tragedy."

Leo Stepanian, the son of Armenian immigrants, said he requested
Huckabee sign the recognition. However, the Fort Smith resident remains
indignant over the other proclamations. He said his mother lost four
brothers and his father lost nearly his entire family in the killings.

"It was not a tragedy. It was a genocide," Stepanian said.

Historians estimate up to 1.5 million Armenians were killed by Ottoman
Turks around the time of World War I. Scholars view it as the first
genocide of the 20th century, but Turkey says the toll has been
inflated and that those killed were victims of civil war and unrest.

Alice Stewart, a spokeswoman for Huckabee, said the former governor
had "no intention to make a political point" with the proclamation.

"The 2001 proclamations were like many proclamations requested by
Arkansas citizens," Stewart said.

07

ARAM G. SARGSIAN APPOINTED FIRST VICE-CHAIRMAN OF WORLD ARMENIAN CONGRESS

Noyan Tapan
Armenians Today
Oct 17 2007

YEREVAN, OCTOBER 17, NOYAN TAPAN – ARMENIANS TODAY. By the decision
of Ara Abrahamian, the Chairman of the World Armenian Congress (WAC),
Aram G. Sargsian, the Chairman of the Democratic Party of Armenia
(DPA), was appointed WAC’s First Vice-Chairman. He will coordinate
programs to be implemented with the Armenian structures of the
Diaspora, as well as with international organizations.

According to the report provided to Noyan Tapan by the World Armenian
Congress, the new appointment is conditioned by the necessity to
promote actions aimed at solution of all-national problems.

Below are Aram G. Sargsian’s biographical data:

He was born in 1946 in Yerevan. In 1966, after leaving secondary
school he worked as a worker.

In 1972 he graduated from V. Brusov Institute of Russian and Foreign
Languages. Parallel with his studies he worked as a correspondent
of Yerevan Tyre Factory’s newspaper, Secretary of Young Communists’
League, then as a correspondent of the Komsomolets newspaper.

In 1972-74 he continued his studies in Moscow, where he got the
speciality of a journalist. In 1974 he worked as a correspondent of
the Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper in Moscow.

In November, 1990 he was elected Secretary of the Central Committee
of the Communist Party of Armenia and in June, 1991 First Secretary
of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Armenia.

The Democratic Party of Armenia was created in 1991, the constituent
assembly of which elected Aram Sargsian as the party Chairman.

He formed the National Consent bloc in 1996 jointly with heads of
a number of opposition parties, was registered as a candidate for
presidency.

He worked as an Adviser to the RA President on Foreign Political
Issues since May 1, 1998. In June, 1999 he resigned and was relieved
of that post.

He is married, has three children.

Support Wanes in House for Genocide Vote

By CARL HULSE
The New York Times

WASHINGTON, Oct. 16 – Worried about antagonizing Turkish leaders,
House members from both parties have begun to withdraw their support
from a resolution backed by the Democratic leadership that would
condemn as genocide the mass killings of Armenians nearly a century
ago.

Almost a dozen lawmakers had shifted against the measure in a 24-hour
period ending Tuesday night, accelerating a sudden exodus that has
cast deep doubt over the measure’s prospects. Some made clear that
they were heeding warnings from the White House, which has called the
measure dangerously provocative, and >From the Turkish government,
which has said House passage would prompt Turkey to reconsider its
ties to the United States, including logistical support for the Iraq
war.

Until Tuesday, the measure appeared on a path to House passage, with
strong support from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. It was approved last
week by the House Foreign Affairs Committee. But by Tuesday evening, a
group of senior House Democrats had made it known that they were
planning to ask the leadership to drop plans for a vote on the
measure.

`Turkey obviously feels they are getting poked in the eye over
something that happened a century ago and maybe this isn’t a good time
to be doing that,’ said Representative Allen Boyd, a Florida Democrat
who dropped his sponsorship of the resolution on Monday night.

Others who took the same action said that, while they deplored the
mass killings of Armenians by the Ottoman Empire, the modern-day
consequences in the Middle East could not be overlooked.

`We simply cannot allow the grievances of the past, as real as they
may be, to in any way derail our efforts to prevent further atrocities
for future history books,’ said Representative Wally Herger,
Republican of California.

Representative Mike Ross, Democrat of Arkansas, said, `I think it is a
good resolution and horrible timing.’

The Turkish government has lobbied heavily against the resolution,
which is nonbinding and largely symbolic. But lawmakers attributed
the erosion in support mainly to fears about a potential Turkish
decision to deny American access to critical military facilities in
that nation and its threat to move forces into northern Iraq.

`This vote came face to face with the reality on the ground in that
region of the world,’ said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois,
the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus and an opponent of the
resolution.

The Bush administration and top American generals have been vocal in
warning that passage of the resolution could cause great harm to the
American war effort in Iraq and have put significant pressure on
Republicans to abandon their support for the measure. President Bush
called Ms. Pelosi on Tuesday and asked her to prevent a floor vote.

`The president and the speaker exchanged candid views on the subject
and the speaker explained the strong bipartisan support in the House
for the resolution,’ said Brendan Daly, a spokesman for Ms. Pelosi.

The Democratic leadership was examining the exact level of that
support to gauge its next step, but lawmakers and officials said it
was now unclear whether the resolution could be approved, given
Republican resistance and Democratic defections. `We will have to
determine where everyone is,’ said Representative Steny H. Hoyer of
Maryland, the majority leader.

Ms. Pelosi, who has promised a vote on the resolution if it cleared
the committee, said she was leaving it to its chief backers to round
up votes. `I have never known a count,’ she said.

Backers of the resolution, which has the fervent support of the
Armenian-American community, described the shift as slight and
attributed it to the intense lobbying by the Turkish government, the
administration and their allies. They said they would try to change
the minds of some of those who were wavering.

`This is what happens when you are up against a very sophisticated
multimillion-dollar campaign,’ said Representative Brad Sherman,
Democrat of California, who chided the Turkish government. `Since when
has it become fashionable for friends to threaten friends?’

But he acknowledged there was little margin of error for backers of
the resolution, which had once boasted 225 co-sponsors. `If the vote
were held today, I would not want to bet my house on the outcome,’ he
said.

Mr. Sherman and others noted that at the start of the war Turkey had
refused to let American forces operate >From its territory and that
its intentions toward the northern border of Iraq clearly captured the
attention of Congress.

American military officials in Iraq and in Washington said Tuesday
they were concerned about possible Turkish military raids into
northern Iraq against the Kurdish Workers Party, an ethnic separatist
movement also known as the P.K.K.

At the moment, they said, they did not see many indications that the
Turkish military was preparing for a large-scale incursion into the
insurgents’ mountainous strongholds and expressed hope that diplomatic
efforts under way between Iraqi and Turkish officials would ease the
crisis, which was sparked by a wave of attacks in eastern Turkey that
its government has blamed on the separatists.

`We see no signs that there’s anything imminent by Turkey,’ said one
senior military officer, speaking on condition of anonymity because he
was discussing military contingency planning. `So there’s time for the
diplomacy to work for a few more days, if not weeks.’ But, he added,
the situation could get `ugly’ if Turkey sent troops across the border
and they clashed with Kurdish militias or Iraqi forces.

The biggest fear, several former officials said, is that Turkish
forces could push past the border and head for Kirkuk. Such a move
could force Iraq to respond and the United States to mediate between
two allies, and decide whether to intervene. Such a crisis could also
draw in Iran, which has also had growing problems with Kurdish groups
crossing into its territory from Iraq.

In addition to the potential movement of Turkish forces, opponents of
the resolution continued to point to Turkey’s role as a staging area
for moving American military supplies into Iraq.

`This happened a long time ago and I don’t know whether it was a
massacre or a genocide, that is beside the point,’ said Representative
John P. Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat who is urging Ms. Pelosi to
keep the resolution from the floor. `The point is, we have to deal
with today’s world.’

While the resolution enjoyed more than enough support to pass earlier
this year, about two dozen lawmakers have removed their names from the
official list of sponsors in recent weeks as the vote grew more likely
and the reservations grew more pronounced.

`I think there was genocide in Turkey in 1915 but I am gravely
concerned about the timing,’ said Representative Jane Harman, a
California Democrat. She said she would remain a co-sponsor of the
resolution but at the moment would oppose it reached the floor.

Representative Doug Lamborn, a Colorado Republican who dropped his
backing on Tuesday, said: `Nothing changes the fact that mass killings
and unspeakable acts of brutality occurred. However, passing this
nonbinding resolution at this critical time would be a destabilizing
action when the United States needs the help of its allies, including
Turkey, in fighting the global war on terror.’

David S. Cloud contributed reporting.

TURKEY’S WAR ON THE TRUTH
by Richard Cohen

The Washington Post
October 16, 2007 Tuesday
Regional Edition

It goes without saying that the House resolution condemning Turkey
for the "genocide" of Armenians from 1915 to 1923 will serve no
earthly purpose and that it will, to say the least, complicate if
not severely strain U.S.-Turkey relations. It goes without saying,
also, that the Turks are extremely sensitive on the topic and, since
they are helpful in the war in Iraq and are a friend to Israel, that
their feelings ought to be taken into account. All of this is true,
but I would feel a lot better about condemning this resolution if
the argument wasn’t so much about how we need Turkey and not at all
about the truthfulness of the matter.

Of even that, I have some doubt. The congressional resolution
repeatedly employs the word "genocide," a term used by many scholars.

But Raphael Lemkin, the Polish-Jewish emigre who coined the term in
1943, clearly had in mind what the Nazis were doing to the Jews. If
that is the standard — and it need not be — then what happened in
the collapsing Ottoman Empire was something short of genocide. It
was plenty bad — maybe as many as 1.5 million Armenians perished,
many of them outright murdered — but not all Armenians everywhere in
what was then Turkey were as calamitously affected. The substantial
Armenian communities in Constantinople, Smyrna and Aleppo were largely
spared. No German city could make that statement about its Jews.

Still, by any name, what was begun in 1915 is unforgivable and, one
hopes, unforgettable. Yet it was done by a government that no longer
exists — the so-called Sublime Porte of the Ottomans, with its sultan,
concubines, eunuchs and the rest. Even in 1915, it was an anachronism,
no longer able to administer its vast territory — much of the Middle
East and the Balkans. The empire was crumbling. The so-called Sick
Man of Europe was breathing its last. Its troops were starving, and,
both in Europe and the Middle East, indigenous peoples were declaring
their independence and rising in rebellion. Among them were the
Armenians, an ancient people who had been among the first to adopt
Christianity. By the end of the 19th century, they were engaged in
guerrilla activity. By World War I, they were aiding Turkey’s enemy,
Russia. Within Turkey, Armenians were feared as a fifth column.

So contemporary Turkey is entitled to insist that things are not so
simple. If you use the word genocide, it suggests the Holocaust —
and that is not what happened in the Ottoman Empire. But Turkey has
gone beyond mere quibbling with a word. It has taken issue with the
facts and in ways that cannot be condoned. Its most famous writer,
the Nobel Prize-winning novelist Orhan Pamuk, was arrested in 2005
for acknowledging the mass killing of Armenians. The charges were
subsequently dropped, and although Turkish law has been modified in
some ways, it nevertheless remains dangerous business for a Turk to
talk openly and candidly about what happened in 1915.

It just so happens that I am an admirer of Turkey. Its modern leaders,
beginning with the truly remarkable Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, have done
a Herculean job of bringing the country from medievalism to modernity
without, it should be noted, the usual bloodbath. (The Russians, for
instance, did not manage that feat.) Furthermore, I can appreciate
Turkey’s palpable desire to embrace both modernity and Islam and to
show that such a combination is not oxymoronic.

(Ironically, having a dose of genocide in your past — the United
States and the Indians, Germany and the Jews, etc. — is hardly "not
Western.") And I think, furthermore, that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
should have spiked the House resolution in deference to Turkey’s
immense strategic importance to the United States. She’s the speaker
now, for crying out loud, not just another House member.

But for too long the Turks have been accustomed to muscling the truth,
insisting either through threats or punishment that they and they alone
will write the history of what happened in 1915. They are continuing
along this path now, with much of official Ankara threatening this
or that — crossing into Iraqi Kurdistan, for instance — if the
House resolution is not killed. But it may yet occur to someone
in the government that Turkey’s tantrums have turned an obscure —
nonbinding! — congressional resolution into yet another round of
tutorials on the Armenian tragedy of 1915. Call it genocide or call it
something else, but there is only one thing to call Turkey’s insistence
that it and its power will determine the truth: unacceptable.