Author: Khondkarian Raffi

enian_genocide/print.html

Genocide: An inconvenient truth
The Armenian genocide bill has been attacked by both the right and the
left — and it may make matters worse. But it’s necessary.

By Gary Kamiya

Oct. 16, 2007

It was the first holocaust, one of the worst crimes of the 20th
century. In 1915, during World War I, the ruling political party under
the Ottoman regime ordered the extermination of its Armenian
subjects. At least 800,000 and as many as 1.5 million men, women and
children were murdered or died of disease, starvation and exposure.
The details of the genocide, as laid out in books like Robert Fisk’s
_"The Great War for Civilization"_
( s/review/2005/12/16/fisk/index.html) and
Peter Balakian’s _"The Burning Tigris,"_
( ning_tigris.html) are
harrowing. Lines of men, women and children were roped together by the
edge of a river, so that shooting the first person caused all the rest
to drown. Women were routinely raped, killed and genitally
mutilated. Some were crucified. Children were taken on boats into
rivers and thrown off.

The genocide was not carried out by the Republic of Turkey, which did
not exist yet, but by the ruling party in the final years of the
collapsing Ottoman regime. To this day the Turkish government has
never acknowledged that what transpired was a monstrous and
intentional crime against humanity. Instead, it claims that the
Armenians were simply unfortunate victims of a chaotic civil war, that
only 300,000 to 600,000 died, that Turks actually died in greater
numbers, and that the Armenians brought their fate on themselves by
collaborating with the Russians.

Most historians reject these arguments. The definitive case that what
took place was a genocide has been made by Turkish historian Taner
Akcam, who in the 1970s was sentenced to 10 years in prison in Turkey
for producing a student journal that deviated from the official
line. He sought asylum in Germany, and now is a visiting professor at
the University of Minnesota. In his 2006 book, _"A Shameful Act: The
Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility,"_
( rchive/2006/11/06/061106crbo_books2) Akcam
offers overwhelming evidence that leaders of the ruling political
party, the Committee of Union and Progress, planned the Armenian
holocaust. There was no military justification for the genocide: Some
Armenians did fight against the Ottomans, but relatively few. In fact,
Akcam argues, the genocide was driven by the Ottoman thirst for
revenge after devastating military defeats, the desire to end foreign
interference by the great powers, and above all by the strategic
purpose of emptying the Turkish heartland of Christians to ensure the
survival of a Muslim-Turkish state. Akcam argues that had the
Armenians not been exterminated, Anatolia, the heart of what is now
Turkey, would probably have been partitioned after the war by the
victorious (and rapacious) great powers. The modern state of Turkey
was thus built in large part on the intentional destruction of an
entire people — a moral horror that combines elements of America’s
destruction of Indians and Germany’s extermination of Jews.

The International Association of Genocide Scholars, the leading body
of genocide researchers, accepts that the destruction of the Armenians
fits the definition of genocide and _has called on Turkey_
( releases.php?prid=747) to
accept responsibility. Leading U.S. newspapers, including the New
York Times, accept the genocide description.

Twenty-three nations, including Argentina, Belgium, Canada, France,
Italy, Russia and Uruguay, have also formally recognized that what
transpired was genocide. For decades, Armenian-Americans and human
rights advocates have tried to persuade the U.S. government to
officially recognize that the mass killings constituted a
genocide. But strategic and national security considerations have
always stopped Washington from doing so. For decades, Turkey has been
one of America’s most important strategic allies — first as a bulwark
against the USSR during the Cold War, then as a key partner in George
W. Bush’s "war on terror." The only officially secular state in the
Muslim world, it is the most politically moderate, economically
advanced nation in the region. A NATO member, with close ties to
Israel, home to a U.S. base through which most of the supplies to
American forces in central Iraq are flown, it is an indispensable
U.S. strategic asset.

For these reasons, Washington has never wanted to offend Ankara — and
if there is one sure way to do that, it’s by bringing up the Armenian
genocide.

Although there has been some progress in opening up the subject, it
remains explosive in Turkey. Those who assert that the genocide took
place can be arrested under a notorious law (still on the books) that
makes "insulting Turkishness" a crime. (Nobel Prize-winning novelist
Orhan Pamuk was convicted of violating this law.) In January 2007, the
leading Turkish-Armenian journalist, _Hrant Dink,_
() was murdered because of his
outspokenness on the issue, and state security officials were clearly
involved. The genocide denial is not confined to official discourse:
Most ordinary Turks, who have been taught a whitewashed official
version of the slaughter, also deny it. Akcam and other historians say
that because many of the Young Turks who founded the modern state were
involved in the campaign, and the state was constructed on a mythical
foundation of national unity and innocence, to bring up the Armenian
horror is to threaten Turkey’s very identity.

No American administration has ever dared to cross Turkey on this
subject. But that may finally change. Last week, the House Foreign
Affairs Committee, defying pleas from the Bush administration and a
letter signed by all living secretaries of state, _voted 27-21_
( go_co/us_armenia_genocide)
for a resolution that would make it official U.S. policy to recognize
that the slaughter of the Armenians was an act of genocide. The
resolution is nonbinding, but after years of bitter lobbying, it is
the closest the U.S. government has yet come to acknowledging the
genocide.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has indicated that she will bring it to a vote
before the House, which is expected to pass it; the bill’s fate in the
Senate is less certain.

The mere fact that the House Foreign Affairs Committee passed it,
however, was taken by the Turks as a gratuitous insult. As it has done
every other time this subject has come up, Ankara — and the country
at large — reacted with fury. Furious demonstrators took to the
streets, shouting invective against the United States. Just-elected
President Abdullah Gul said, "Unfortunately, some politicians in the
United States have once more dismissed calls for common sense, and
made an attempt to sacrifice big issues for minor domestic political
games … This unacceptable decision of the committee, like similar
ones in the past, has no validity and is not worthy of the respect of
the Turkish people." Turkey’s ambassador to the United States warned
that the resolution’s passage would be a "very injurious move to the
psyche of the Turkish people"; he was immediately recalled after the
vote to show Ankara’s extreme displeasure. Turkish officials warned
that if the full House voted for the resolution, U.S.-Turkish
relations would be gravely damaged, perhaps for decades.

Considering that in a _Pew global poll_
( cles/brmiddleeastnafricara/393.php?lb=brme&pnt =393&nid=&id=)
taken in June, a staggering 83 percent of Turks said they had a
negative view of America, and an even more staggering 77 percent said
they viewed the American people unfavorably, any further deterioration
in relations would indeed be grave. The _head of Turkey’s military
warned_
( itary/2007-10-14-turkey_N.htm) that
if the House passed the bill, "our military ties with the U.S. will
never be the same again."

There is no doubt that the controversy comes at a delicate time,
because of both internal Turkish politics and the situation in
Iraq. The vote could trigger a Turkish response that would be highly
injurious to American interests, not just in Iraq but throughout the
Middle East. Turkey could close Incirlik Air Base, through which 70
percent of air cargo for U.S. troops in Iraq passes, and refuse to
cooperate with Washington on the war.

But the most dangerous consequence would be a Turkish attack on
northern Iraq. In a piece of exquisitely bad timing, the committee
vote took place against the background of a mounting drumbeat of war
talk from the Gul administration, which is under heavy domestic
pressure to smash Kurdish militant group the PKK. Just days before the
vote, Kurdish militants_ killed 13 Turkish soldiers_
( 75.stm) near the Iraq border,
one of Turkey’s heaviest recent losses in the decades-long
war. Turkish anger at the U.S. is largely based on Turks’ correct
belief that the U.S., desperate to preserve good ties with the Kurds,
is unwilling to confront the Kurdish guerrillas. A major Turkish
invasion of northern Iraq could destabilize the only calm part of the
country, pit two U.S. allies against each other, threaten the American
project in Iraq and destabilize the entire region. The U.S. has been
leaning heavily on Ankara not to invade; the genocide vote could tip
Gul over the edge.

Given these geopolitical concerns, heightened by the fact that the
U.S. is at war, it’s not surprising that some Republicans have accused
Democrats, who have taken the lead on the bill, of endangering
national security. (Some right-wing bloggers have accused Democrats of
using the bill as an underhanded way to sabotage the war.) But
opposition to the bill has come not only from the right but from the
left. Writing in the Nation, Nicholas von Hoffman _mockingly asked,_
( l) "What’s next? A
resolution condemning Napoleon’s invasion of Egypt and the slaughter
visited on the Egyptians at the Battle of the Pyramids?" Von Hoffman
attacked the bill’s sponsors for self-righteous hypocrisy. British
commentator Simon Tisdall _made a similar charge_
( _tisdall/2007/10/righteousness_before_realism.html )
in the Guardian, writing, "Imperial delusions die hard — and once
again the U.S. Congress is trying to legislate for the world."

Most Turkish academics toe the official line on the horrific events of
1915. But even some of those who accept that a genocide took place
believe that passing the bill now is a bad idea. _Yektan Turkyilmaz,_
( emag/issues/111205/yektan1.html)
a graduate student at Duke University, has the distinction of having
been arrested by the Armenian KGB because his research led them to
assume he was a Turkish spy. In fact, he is part of a new generation
of Turkish scholars who reject their country’s propaganda about what
happened to the Armenians. In a phone interview from Duke, Turkyilmaz
said, "This bill strengthens the hand of the extremists in Turkey, the
xenophobes, the extreme nationalists. Yes, Turkish society has to face
its past, to prevent any sort of repetition in the future. If I
believed that this bill would force the Turkish government to
acknowledge the truth, I would support it. But it won’t."

For his part, "A Shameful Act" author Taner Akcam acknowledges the
force of these pragmatic arguments — but rejects them.

"Look, we can make a list of reasons why this resolution will make
matters worse," Akcam said in a phone interview from his office at the
University of Minnesota. "First, it explicitly politicizes the
problem. Second, it makes a historic problem a diplomatic fight
between the United States and Turkey.

Third, it increases the aggressive attacks of the Turkish government
against those inside and outside the country. Fourth, it increases the
animosity and hatred against Armenians generally in Turkey. Fifth, it
can never solve the problem. It aggravates the problem.

"OK, so we’ve made this list," Akcam went on. "But what is the answer?
Whoever is against the resolution must show an alternative to the
Armenian people.

Unless you give an alternative policy, saying ‘Shut up and stop’ is
not a policy. The Armenians don’t have any options. As long Turkey
criminalizes the past, as long as Turkey kills journalists, as long as
Turkey drags its intellectuals from court to court, as long as Turkey
punishes the people who use the G-word, as long as Turkey doesn’t have
any diplomatic relations with Armenia, as long as Turkey threatens
everybody in the world who opens the topic of historical wrongdoing,
it is the legitimate right of a victim group to make its voice heard."

Akcam dismisses the argument that the time was not yet ripe for the
resolution. "You can use the timing argument forever and ever. Who
will decide when the timing is right?"

But Akcam argues that a long-term solution requires much more than a
U.S. resolution. He says two steps are necessary: Turkey and Armenia
must establish normal relations, and Turks must learn that confronting
their history does not threaten their Turkish identity, but
strengthens it. This means that Turks should look at the conflict not
as a zero-sum game in which any Armenian gain is a Turkish loss, but
as a necessary part of the process of becoming a democratic
nation. It’s an approach to resolving bitter historical grievances
called _"transitional justice,"_
( sitional_Justice) and it has been
effective in helping resolve historical grievances between Germany and
the Czech Republic, within South Africa and in other places.

The Armenians, too, need to rethink their approach, Akcam said. In the
new paradigm, the Armenian diaspora would present its policy not as
being totally against Turkey, but for a new democratic Turkey. "Until
now this was a conventional war between Turkey and Armenian diaspora,
and congressional resolutions were the effective weapon in this
conventional war," Akcam said. "What I’m saying is we should stop
thinking in these conventional ways."

The U.S. could play an important role in helping both parties break
the impasse, Akcam said, but it is hampered by its lack of credibility
in the Middle East. He points to what he calls a "stupid distinction
between national security and morality. If you follow the whole
discussion in Congress, on the one side you have the moralists, who
say that Turkey should face what it did. This doesn’t convince most of
the people in the Middle East because we know that these are the guys
torturing the people in Iraq, these are the guys killing the Iraqi
civilians there, these are the guys who haven’t signed the
_International Criminal Court_
( _Criminal_Court) agreement.

"On the other side are the realpolitikers," Akcam went on, referring
to the Bush administration and the foreign-policy establishment, like
the secretaries of state who signed the letter opposing the
resolution. "They say the bill jeopardizes the national interests of
the United States, Turkish-U.S. relations, interests of U.S. soldiers
in Iraq."

Akcam argues that both elements must be present to have an effective
foreign policy. "The fact is that realpolitik, the U.S. national
interest in the Middle East, necessitates making morality, facing
history, a part of national security. The basic problem between Turks
and Armenians is that they don’t trust each other because of their
history." Akcam’s point is that unless the U.S. is willing to look
unflinchingly at the region’s history, and try to broker deals that
address legitimate grievances, it will not be able to achieve its
realpolitik goals.

"If America really has a strong interest in its national security and
the security of the region, it should stop following a national
security concept that accepts human rights abusers," Akcam said. "It
doesn’t work, it makes things worse in the region. And it supports
perpetrators who have committed crimes in the past and are committing
crimes today."

In the end, the debate over the Armenian genocide bill boils down to
two questions: Is it justified, and is it wise? The answer to the
first question is an unambiguous "yes." It is both justified and long
overdue. The Armenian genocide is a clear-cut case of genocide, and
the fact that the U.S. has avoided calling it by its rightful name for
decades is shameful. Crimes against humanity must be
acknowledged. Hitler infamously said, with reference to the Poles,
"Who, after all, is today speaking of the destruction of the
Armenians?" Historical memory must not be sold away for a few pieces
of silver. No one would countenance allowing Germany to deny its guilt
for killing 6 million Jews. Why should Turkey be let off the hook for
a slightly earlier holocaust that took the lives of as many as 1.5
million Armenians?

The second question is trickier. As opponents argue, and even
supporters like Akcam acknowledge, the bill may backfire in the short
run. That outcome could be acceptable, as long as it doesn’t backfire
in the long run. Which raises the central question: What policies
should the U.S. adopt to prevent the resolution from having long-term
negative consequences?

It comes down to a question of moral credibility, something the
U.S. is in notably short supply of in the Middle East. One of the
stranger reversals wrought by Bush’s neoconservative foreign policy
has been the rejection by much of the left of a morality-based foreign
policy. Angry at the failure of the neocons’ grand, idealistic
schemes, some on the left have embraced a realism that formerly was
associated with the America-first right. But by throwing out morality
in foreign policy because of the neocon debacle in Iraq, these
leftists are in danger of throwing out the baby with the
bathwater. The problem with Bush’s Middle East policy hasn’t been that
it’s too moralistic — it’s that its morality has been flawed and
incoherent.

As Akcam argues, what is really needed are not just moral
congressional proclamations, but actions that back them up. Of course
the U.S. cannot and should not resolve all the problems of the
world. But like it or not, we are the world’s superpower, and we have
the ability to use that power for good as well as ill. What is needed
is active U.S. engagement to broker fair resolutions to the festering
conflicts in the region — between Turks and Armenians, Turks and
Kurds, and Israelis and Palestinians. If the resolution was part of a
new U.S. approach to the Middle East, one in which we acknowledged
and acted to redress the historical injustices suffered by all the
region’s peoples, not just by our allies, the Armenian genocide bill
could stand as an example not of American grandstanding but of
American courage.

— By Gary Kamiya

Le Figaro, France
Vendredi 12 Octobre 2007

Les relations américano-turques s’enveniment

par Laure MarcHAND

C’EST UN COUP dur de plus pour les relations américano-turques, déjà
malmenées depuis quelques jours par les velléités turques d’envoyer
des troupes dans le nord de l’Irak pour faire la chasse aux rebelles
kurdes. Mercredi, une commission de la Chambre des représentants
américaine a adopté, par 27 voix contre 21, un texte reconnaissant le
génocide arménien, perpétré en 1915 sous l’Empire ottoman. Ankara a
aussitôt réagi avec virulence. Le président de la République,
Abdullah Gül, a fustigé une décision « inacceptable ». Le
gouvernement l’a également condamnée fortement, via un communiqué : «
Il est inacceptable que la nation turque soit accusée d’une chose qui
n’a jamais eu lieu dans l’histoire.

(…) L’approbation de cette résolution est une initiative
irresponsable qui, à un moment très délicat, va compliquer les
relations entretenues depuis des générations avec un ami et un allié,
ainsi que le partenariat stratégique . » Ce vote, en dépit de la
farouche opposition de la Maison-Blanche, tombe en effet
particulièrement mal dans le calendrier et risque d’envenimer encore
un peu plus les désaccords entre Ankara et Washington sur les moyens
à donner à la lutte contre la guérilla du Parti des travailleurs du
Kurdistan (PKK). Premiers signes d’un durcissement, le rappel, dès
hier, de l’ambassadeur turc aux États-Unis pour des consultations,
ainsi que l’envoi dès lundi prochain, après la fête qui marque la fin
du ramadan, d’une motion au Parlement turc pour obtenir
l’autorisation d’une intervention militaire transfrontalière, valable
un an. Le premier ministre Recep Tayyip Erdogan a déclaré qu’il
s’agissait d’« une question sérieuse qu’il faut tenir à l’écart de
tout sentimentalisme ». Mais c’est un moyen pour Ankara de tenir tête
diplomatiquement à Washington, opposé à ce que la Turquie s’immisce
dans le jeu irakien et ne déstabilise un peu plus le pays. Et à
hausser le ton avant que le texte, voté mercredi en commission, ne
soit soumis à l’approbation de la Chambre des représentants
américaine en novembre. « Tout sauf une surprise » Tout en cherchant
à calmer l’ire de son allié au sein de l’Otan, l’Administration de
George Bush tente de faire pression sur les membres de la Chambre. «
L’accès aux domaines aérien et routier turcs risque d’être vraiment
compromis si la résolution passe et que la Turquie réagit aussi
fortement que ce à quoi nous nous attendons », a mis en garde le
secrétaire d’État à la Défense, Robert Gates. La Turquie occupe une
position stratégique clef dans le dispositif américain : 70 % de la
logistique destinée à ses troupes en Irak transite par la base
aérienne d’Incirlik, dans le sud de pays. Ankara brandit la menace de
la fermer. Les États-Unis souhaitent également pouvoir utiliser le
territoire turc au moment de leur retrait d’Irak. Pour Arda Batu,
professeur de relations internationales à l’université de Yeditepe à
Istanbul, cette crispation des relations bilatérales « est tout sauf
une surprise. Elle intervient alors que les ressentiments entre les
deux parties se sont manifestés à de nombreuses reprises depuis
plusieurs années ». Le refus du Parlement turc, en 2003, d’autoriser
les États-Unis à passer par la Turquie pour ouvrir un front nord en
Irak a marqué le début de la mésentente. Depuis, escarmouches et
divergences ont rythmé les relations diplomatiques : arrestation en
2003 de onze agents turcs en Irak par les Américains qui les ont
exhibés avec un sac sur la tête, ce qui a été vécu comme une
humiliation en Turquie. Visite d’une délégation du Hamas à Ankara en
2006… La dernière opposition frontale a été la signature d’un
accord énergétique avec l’Iran cet été. Les intérêts stratégiques des
deux partenaires dans la région s’éloignent. Et pour ne rien
arranger, la diplomatie turque montre des signes de faiblesse, quand
il ne s’agit pas de maladresse. Egmen Bagis, le conseilleur de Recep
Tayyip Erdogan, à la tête d’une délégation parlementaire envoyée
cette semaine aux États-Unis pour plaider la cause turque contre la
reconnaissance du génocide arménien, ne s’est pas embarrassé de
précaution oratoire. Il a déclaré que le projet de résolution était «
juste bon à être jeté à la poubelle » . « Le gouvernement perd son
temps sur des questions intérieures sans intérêt, comme le référendum
sur l’élection présidentielle (le 21 octobre), estime Arda Batu. Il y
a urgence à se concentrer sur la politique étrangère, nous sommes
dans une situation géographique très délicate à gérer. »

Noyan Tapan News Agency, Armenia
Oct 12 2007

ANDRANIK MIHRANIAN EXCLUDES THAT PRESIDENT KOCHARIAN CAN BECOME PRIME
MINISTER AFTER END OF HIS TENURE

YEREVAN, OCTOBER 12, NOYAN TAPAN. Exact repetition in Armenia of the
developments proceeding in Russia’s domestic policy, in particular,
the fact that President Robert Kocharian will wish to become a Prime
Minister like Vladimir Putin is excluded. Andranik Mihranian, a
political scientist from Russia, stated at the October 12 press
conference.

According to him, the situation is absolutely different in Armenia.
According to A. Mihranian, similar processes would take place in
Armenia if R. Kocharian during the years of his tenure acquired the
image of "people’s father" like "political figure V. Putin enjoying
confidence of 70-80% Russians and loved by the people." And in
Armenia, as A. Mihranian said, there are people, who have their
resources and structures irrespective of the President. "Certainly,
President’s participation in political processes is of much
importance, but it is not decisive."

Excluding the possibility of Kocharian’s becoming a Prime Minister,
the political scientist at the same time found it difficult to say
what political role Kocharian will assume, motivating this by the RA
President’s reserved character. According to him, R. Kocharian should
remain in the political sphere, as he has enough experience to be an
active politician in solution of important issues regarding his
people.

In A. Mihranian’s opinion, as a result of the parliamentary elections
held in May the Republican Party "has no other variant but to offer a
candidate for presidency of its own." According to him, everybody
knows the name of that candidate, "this name is known even in
Moscow."

Author: Petrosian Susanna
Editor: Eghian Robert

CNN International
Oct 12 2007

Timing of genocide resolution questioned

WASHINGTON (CNN) — With tensions rising between the United States
and Turkey over a resolution that labels the World War I-era massacre
of Armenians by Turkish forces "genocide," many are asking why the
House is debating the resolution now.

Rep. Tom Lantos says passage of the genocide resolution would help
restore America’s moral authority.

The House Foreign Affairs committee voted 27-21 Wednesday to approve
the nonbinding resolution, which declares that the deportation of
nearly 2 million Armenians from the Ottoman Empire between 1915 and
1923 — resulting in the deaths of 1.5 million — was "systematic"
and "deliberate," amounting to "genocide."

The Democratic leadership has not scheduled a final vote.

Administration officials have lobbied against the resolution, saying
good U.S-Turkish relations are vital to U.S. forces in Iraq. The
Pentagon says 70 percent of the military’s cargo heading into Iraq
either flies into or over Turkey.

But House Democrats view the resolution as part of their mandate to
restore America’s moral authority around the world.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Thursday said arguments that Turkey is too
vital an ally to alienate has delayed the resolution for too long.
Watch Speaker Pelosi defend the timing of the debate »

"I’ve been in Congress for 20 years. And for 20 years, people have
been saying the same thing." Pelosi said Thursday. "There’s never a
good time. And all of us in the Democratic leadership have
supported… reiterating the Americans’ acknowledgement of a
genocide."

"As long as there is genocide, there is need to speak out against
it," she added.

An one of the chief supporters of the resolution, House Foreign
Affairs Chairman Tom Lantos, D-California, was unmoved by the
administration’s arguments that Turkey would block the use of U.S.
airbases on Turkish soil.

"The Turkish government will not act against the United States
because that would be against their own interests," he told CNN. "I’m
convinced of this."

Lantos, the only member of the House who is a Holocaust survivor,
says passage of the resolution would also help to bring a moral
dimension back to U.S. foreign policy.

"One of the problems we have diplomatically globally is that we have
lost our moral authority which we used to have in great abundance,"
Lantos said. "People around the globe who are familiar with these
events will appreciate the fact that the United States is speaking
out against a historic injustice. This would be like sweeping slavery
under the rug and saying slavery never occurred."

But Democrats are not united behind the measure, Armed Services
Committee Chairman Ike Skelton, D-Missouri, has sent a letter to
Pelosi on Thursday opposing the resolution, saying the resulting
backlash threatened by Turkey could disrupt "America’s ability to
redeploy U.S. military forces from Iraq," a top Democratic priority.

And the top Republican in the House, Minority Leader John Boehner,
R-Ohio, said Thursday that bringing the resolution up for a final
vote would be "totally irresponsible."

"The fact is that Turkey is a very good ally of the United States.
They are critical to our security, not only her to but our troops
oversees," Boehner said. "Let the historians decide what happened 90
years ago."

cide.resolution/

Anatolia News Agency, Turkey
Oct 12 2007

Turkey to "retaliate" for US Armenian resolution – Turkish politician

Washington, DC, 12 October: Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development
(AK) Party Deputy Chairman Egemen Bagis said that the losing party
regarding the approval of the US House committee resolution is not
Turkey but Armenia and the relations between Turkey and the United
States.

Bagis, who is also a foreign policy adviser to Prime Minister Recep
Tayyip Erdogan, held a press conference in Washington, DC, regarding
the approval of a resolution on Armenian allegations on the incidents
of 1915 by the US House of Representatives committee on foreign
affairs.

Bagis said Turkey’s efforts will continue to avert the bill to be
brought to a vote in the full house, noting that they appreciated US
administration’s endeavours against the resolution.

"Turkish people regrets it and they are disappointed. It will not be
easy to ameliorate it," he said and added that Turkey will closely
monitor US attitude on terrorist organization PKK [Kurdistan Workers’
Party], especially after this move by the house, which he regards as
a "game in American domestic politics" to react to US administration
over the war in Iraq.

Egemen Bagis also delivered a speech at the Carnegie Endowment, a
think-tank organization in Washington, DC, and said Turkey will
retaliate against the resolution.

"It will be decided in Ankara. If the house passes the resolution, it
will definitely be retaliated," he said.

DTP PROPOSES LIFTING OF CONTROVERSIAL ARTICLE 301

The New Anatolian, Turkey
Oct 11 2007

Democratic Society Party (DTP) Sirnak Deputy Hasip Kaplan on Wednesday
presented a bill aiming at lifting the controversial Article 301 of
the Turkish Penal Code.

Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK) criminalizes insulting
the republic, the state, the judiciary and the military however, the
part that has received the most criticism is the penalties imposed
for insulting "Turkishness."

Many authors and journalists were prosecuted for insulting
"Turkishness" based on Article 301. Insulting "Turkishness" has
usually meant opposing the state version of events on issues like
the alleged Armenian genocide and terrorism. Among those prosecuted
were novelist Orhan Pamuk and Elif Þafak, journalists Hrant Dink,
and academics Baskýn Oran and Ibrahim Kasoglu.

DTP’s Kaplan demanded the lifting of the Article 301 noting that the
lift of the article will maintain social peace and guarantee freedom
of expression.

Kaplan said the implementation of this article created unacceptable
consequences in terms of freedom of speech and events that threatened
the social peace.

Dink was murdered on Jan. 19 this year as his trial on insulting
"Turkishness" was ongoing and a teenager with nationalist tendencies
is on trial for reportedly committing the murder.

The Justice and Development (AK) Party government considers amending
the controversial Article 301 of the penal code that penalizes
insulting "Turkishness" before the release of Turkey’s European Union
Progress Report in early November.

Many see Article 301 as a violation of the freedom of expression and
the EU has been demanding its removal in order for Turkey to continue
its membership process.

Ruling AK Party plans to maintain the article in the Turkish Penal
Code but aims at replacing the word "Turkishness" with "Turkish nation"
and make the justice minister’s approval a requirement for any inquiry
to be started under Article 301.

Last year, various nongovernmental organizations met to propose
changes to the article, but failed to reach consensus due to the fact
that while some wanted the article’s removal, others wanted cursory
changes to it.

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is known to have objected to
the total removal of the article, citing similar versions of it in
European countries. He said he was open to changes in the article.

–Boundary_(ID_d+v3SqErA9Dbw7lvtBukLw)–

‘ARMENIAN GENOCIDE’ BILL MOVES AHEAD, AMERICANS IN TURKEY WARNED
By Patrick Goodenough – CNSNews.com International Editor

CNSNews.com, VA
Oct 11 2007

(CNSNews.com) – Turkey’s government on Thursday reacted strongly to
a congressional panel’s approval of a bill calling the mass killings
of Armenians in Ottoman Turkey "genocide."

American citizens in Turkey have been urged to take precautions in
case of anti-U.S. protests over the emotion-laden issue.

Turkish President Abdullah Gul called the move "unacceptable," telling
the semi-official Anatolia news agency in a midnight statement that
some U.S. politicians had "ignored appeals for common sense and
once again moved to sacrifice big issues to petty games of domestic
politics."

Despite concerted and highly visible administration lobbying
against the move, the House Foreign Affairs Committee passed by a
27-21 vote a non-binding resolution saying that the World War I-era
killings constituted a "genocide" that should be acknowledged fully
in U.S. foreign policy towards Turkey, along with "the consequences
of the failure to realize a just resolution."

Historians say an estimated 1.5 million Armenians were killed in
and after 1915, as the Ottoman Empire crumbled. Turkey maintains
that between 250,000 and 500,000 Armenians, and at least as many
Muslims, died in civil strife and war-related deaths, and it denies
the genocide claims.

Opponents of the bill, including President Bush, Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and a host of former
secretaries of state and defense, Republican and Democrat, argue that
the measure jeopardizes relations with an important ally at a time
Turkey’s cooperation in Iraq and Afghanistan are crucial.

Bush said at the White House before Wednesday’s vote that passage of
the resolution "would do great harm to our relations with a key ally
in NATO and in the global war on terror."

After meeting with the president and Rice, Gates told reporters at
the White House that 70 percent of U.S. air cargo headed for Iraq —
including 95 percent of new mine-resistant vehicles — goes through
Turkey, and Turkish reaction to the resolution could put those supply
lines in jeopardy.

In a debate the pitted pragmatism against principle and did not fall
along party lines, lawmakers on the committee Wednesday weighed the
warnings of possible consequences against a symbolic but significant
expression of support for the victims of the atrocities.

In an opening statement that acknowledged the difficult decision,
committee chairman Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.), a Holocaust survivor,
said the choice was a sobering one.

"We have to weigh the desire to express our solidarity with the
Armenian people and to condemn this historic nightmare through the
use of the word ‘genocide’ 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 than they are currently paying," he said.

Republican Rep. Chris Smith (N.J.), a supporter of the bill, tackled
the administration’s position head-on, referring to "a conspiracy of
obfuscation and expediency [that] tries to muffle any acknowledgment
of the Armenian genocide."

"During the Holocaust the international community waffled and
slithered away from responsibility. It did it again in Rwanda, in
Bosnia, and it is doing it even as we speak in Darfur," he said.

"American foreign policy must never be complicit in another
government’s denial of genocide."

Opposing the bill in similarly forceful terms, fellow Republican
Rep. Dan Burton (Ind.) said it could endanger U.S. troops in Iraq
and Afghanistan.

"We’re in the middle of two wars," he told the meeting. "We have
troops out there who are at risk. And we’re talking about kicking an
ally in the teeth. It is crazy."

The resolution will now go to the full House for a vote; a similar
bill is in the Senate.

Egemen Bagis, a foreign policy advisor to Turkish Prime Minister
Recep Tayyip Erdogan, told Turkish private NTV television Thursday
the focus would now move to preventing the measure from reaching the
House floor or passing once there.

When a similar bill reached the House in October 2000, then Speaker
Rep. Dennis Hastert withdrew it minutes before a scheduled vote,
after President Clinton warned it would harm ties with Turkey.

Current Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi, who has been the target of
energetic lobbying for and against the bill in recent weeks, and
Majority Leader Steny Hoyer met with Turkey’s ambassador Wednesday,
but Hoyer said afterwards he expected a floor vote before the House
adjourns for the year on November 16.

Cooperation at risk

After the vote, the State Department quickly issued a statement
expressing "regret," saying passage of the bill "may do grave harm
to U.S.-Turkish relations and to U.S. interests in Europe and the
Middle East."

Spokesman Sean McCormack reiterated the administration’s position
that the bill will not improve Turkish-Armenian relations or advance
reconciliation between them, and said that the U.S. government supports
"a full and fair accounting of the atrocities that befell as many as
1.5 million Armenians."

Turkish politicians from the president and prime minister down have
been warning that passage of the resolution could impact relations with
the U.S., which are already under strain over cross-border terrorism
perpetrated in southeastern Turkey by Kurdish separatists based in
northern Iraq (see related story).

Turkey has in the past shown itself willing to stop military
cooperation with allies over foreign policy disputes.

When the U.S. Congress in 1975 imposed an arms embargo on Turkey over
its invasion of northern Cyprus the previous year, Ankara responded
by closing all U.S. military operations except for the restricted
use of one airbase. The embargo was lifted in 1978, and Turkey lifted
the restrictions.

More recently, when the French National Assembly voted a year ago to
make it a crime to deny that the killings of Armenians were genocide,
Turkey suspended military ties with France, and military cooperation
has yet to resume (That vote in Paris also reflected the sensitivity
of the issue — 106 deputies voted for the resolution and 19 against,
but 448 chose not to vote at all.)

Late Wednesday, hundreds of Turkish protestors marched to the
U.S. Embassy in Ankara, where a warden’s message has been issuing
warning American citizens about the possibility of "reaction in the
form of demonstrations and other manifestations of anti-Americanism
throughout Turkey."

The statement recalled that French interests in Turkey were targeted
after French lawmakers passed the bill on the issue last October.

It cautioned U.S. citizens living in or visiting Turkey to be alert,
avoid large gatherings, and especially places known to be frequented
by Americans.

asp?Page=/ForeignBureaus/archive/200710/INT2007101 1b.html

ARMENIA HAILS CONGRESSIONAL PANEL’S VOTE ON GENOCIDE BILL
By Ruzanna Khachatrian and Ruzanna Stepanian

Radio Liberty, Czech rep.
Oct 11 2007

Armenia’s political establishment on Thursday welcomed the genocide
resolution approved by a U.S. congressional panel the previous day to
describe the World War I-era killings of Armenians in Ottoman Turkey
as genocide.

Opening the parliament session, Speaker Tigran Torosian expressed
gratitude to the American congressmen for showing "high moral
qualities" and withstanding "various pressures."

The Foreign Affairs Committee of the U.S. Congress’ House of
Representatives on Wednesday approved Resolution 106 by 27 votes to 21.

The text of the resolution opposed by the Bush administration
and various Turkish lobbyist groups in the United States says the
killings of up to 1.5 million Armenians was a genocide that should be
acknowledged fully in U.S. foreign policy towards Turkey, along with
"the consequences of the failure to realize a just resolution."

The measure is likely to be sent on to a vote in the full
Democratic-led House, where a majority has already signed on to the
resolution. A parallel measure is in the Senate pipeline.

Armenian lawmaker David Harutiunian highly evaluated the huge work
done by the Armenian organizations and said the resolution was unlikely
to bring in any "essential change" in the Armenia-Turkey relations.

"Even if there is some change, it will be of a very temporary nature.

I said a few years ago that Turkey would itself recognize the genocide
in the next ten or fifteen years and I have the same conviction today,"
he told RFE/RL.

Armen Rustamian, from the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, thinks
the resolution will be instrumental in changing Turkey’s approaches
to the matter.

"I think it will make Turkey revise its stereotypes and show a serious
approach to the Armenian genocide issue. I am sure gradually Turkey
itself will understand that this resolution marks the beginning of
Turkey’s modernization and reform," Rustamian told RFE/RL.

"Similar recognitions increase the Armenian people’s trust towards
the international community and towards the idea of justice. In this
sense, it is, of course, praiseworthy. I don’t think there will be
any tangible consequences," Stepan Safarian of the opposition Heritage
faction commented.

And Mher Shahgeldian, of the opposition Orinats Yerkir party, said:
"It is already a wave that will sooner or later gain even greater
momentum in the world."

Armenian Assembly of America (AAA) Armenia and Karabakh country
director Arpi Vartanian called the approval of Resolution 106 a "moral
victory" taking into account the huge pressure and threats from Turkey.

"The same resolution was discussed and voted on two years ago with 40
for and 7 against votes. But Turkey had not mounted such a large-scale
campaign back then. That’s why I would call it a great victory,"
Vartanian told RFE/RL.

Vartanian is optimistic about the prospect of the resolution in the
full House, but at the same time does not rule out that its passage
may be thwarted under huge Turkish pressure.

"Great efforts are being made to thwart the resolution, but we, too,
must continue our efforts to ensure its passage," she said.

ARMENIAN INDEPENDENCE CELEBRATED IN CORDOBA

Panorama.am
21:30 09/10/2007

Celebrations for the occasion of 16 years of Armenian independence were
held by the Armenian community of Cordoba, Argentina. The celebrations
were sponsored by the Armenian embassy of Argentina.

Nearly 400 Cordoba natives were present at the events, including
political figures, benefactors, businessmen, artists, and journalists.

According to the foreign ministry news department, Armenian community
president Rafael Simonyan and Armenian embassy representative Khoren
Derderyan gave welcoming remarks. During ceremonies, a film dedicated
to Armenia was shown. Songs by the "Mkhitar" choir were included in the
film. Performances by the "Dziran" and "Torgom" choirs also took place.

During the ceremonies, a book presentation for "El Grito Armenio"
(Cry of Armenia), by Mariano Marivya, was held.

BUSH TO CONGRESS: DON’T CROSS TURKS ON ARMENIANS
by Frank James

Baltimore Sun
blog/2007/10/bush_to_congress_dont_cross_tu.html
O ct 10 2007

Much of the world acknowledges the genocide of as many as 1.5 million
Armenians by Ottoman Turks between 1915 and 1923 , a genocide that’s
often called the first in a century of genocides–the 20th century.

But it’s taboo to talk about the genocide in Turkey where many Turks
deny the mass murders ever happened.

And apparently, because of increasing pressure from Turkey, it’s now
taboo as well for the U.S. Congress to pass a resolution calling on
Bush Administration foreign policy to take account of the Armenian
genocide.

President Bush came as close as a president comes to publicly begging
Congress not to pass the resolution.

House Resolution 106, which is to be considered this afternoon by
the House Foreign Affairs Committee, starts thusly:

Calling upon the President to ensure that the foreign policy of the
United States reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity
concerning issues related to human rights, ethnic cleansing, and
genocide documented in the United States record relating to the
Armenian Genocide, and for other purposes.

That language seems straightforward enough. But the Turkish government
so fiercely opposes the resolution that U.S. officials have clearly
been warned that the resolution’s passage could jeopardize Turkish
cooperation on Iraq.

That would be disastrous for U.S. troops in Iraq since much of the
materiel and oil that keeps them going passes through Turkey, the
U.S.’s longtime and NATO member.

So worried is the Bush Administration, that President Bush appended
some remarks about his opposition to the resolution to comments he
made this morning on the South Lawn on a completely different matter,
improvements to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act:

Bush said:

On another issue before Congress, I urge members to oppose the Armenian
genocide resolution now being considered by the House Foreign Affairs
Committee. We all deeply regret the tragic suffering of the Armenian
people that began in 1915. This resolution is not the right response
to these historic mass killings, and its passage would do great harm to
our relations with a key ally in NATO and in the global war on terror.

To drive home the message he sent Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
and Defense Secretary Robert Gates out to underscore the difficulties
that would be created for U.S. efforts in Iraq if Turkey decides to
stop cooperating with the U.S. SEC. RICE: We have just come from
a meeting with the president and from a meeting with our team in
Iraq and in the field, and we just wanted to make a brief comment
about the Armenian Genocide Resolution that is before the House
of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee today. And we are
all in agreement that the passage of this resolution would be very
destabilizing to our efforts in the Middle East, very destabilizing to
our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, because Turkey, as an important
strategic ally, is very critical in supporting the efforts that we
are making in these crucial areas.

I just want to note that General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker
brought up the issue of this Armenian Genocide Resolution, as did
Admiral Fallon, and ask that we do everything that we could to make
certain that it does not pass.

I’m going to turn to Secretary Gates. But let me just say that this is
not because the United States fails to recognize the terrible tragedy
of 1915, the mass killings that took place there, that President Bush
had spoken about this issue repeatedly throughout his presidency. We
have encouraged the Turkish government to work with the Armenian
government to put together a way to overcome and reconcile these
horrible — this horrible past and these terrible differences. We
believe that there is some improvement in Turkish- Armenian relations.

So this is not to ignore what was a really terrible situation. And
we recognize the feelings of those who want to express their concern
and their disdain for what happened many years ago. But the passage
of this resolution at this time would indeed be very problematic
for everything that we are trying to do in the Middle East because
we are very dependent on a good Turkish strategic ally to help with
our efforts.

And maybe I could turn to Secretary Gates for a couple of comments.

SEC. GATES: Just a word or two. The reason that the commanders raised
this issue as our heavy dependence on Turkey in terms of resupply in
Iraq — about 70 percent of all air cargo going into Iraq comes —
goes through Turkey; about a third of the fuel that they consume goes
through Turkey or comes from Turkey. They believe clearly that access
to airfields and to the roads and so on in Turkey would be very much
put at risk if this resolution passes and the Turks react as strongly
as we believe they will.

Just one other small fact is that, as you know, we’re airlifting these
MRAPs, these Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, right now into
Iraq; 95 percent of those MRAPs going into Iraq right now are flying
— are being flown in through Turkey. And so our heavy dependence on
the Turks for access is really the reason the commanders raised this
and why we’re so concerned about the resolution.

Since what’s on the table in the House is a resolution that doesn’t
need a presidential signature, not a bill making law, the president
can’t exercise a veto like he has recently on legislation he has
found objectionable.

All he can do is jawbone Congress and raise the prospect of the U.S.

military being punished if Turkey retaliates, which the administration
clearly believes is likely judging by the urgency it attaches to
this issue.

To many minds, the situation the U.S. finds itself in with Turkey is
akin to being blackmailed.

"Is Turkey blackmailiing the U.S.?" a reporter asked White House
Press Secretary Dana Perino at today’s press briefing.

"Absolutely not," she said.