KOCHARIAN BLAMES TURKEY AS ARMENIANS MARK GENOCIDE ANNIVERSARY
By Emil Danielyan and Astghik Bedevian
Radio Liberty, Czech Rep
April 24 2006
President Robert Kocharian said on Monday that modern-day Turkey is
responsible for the 1915 genocide of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire
as Armenia somberly marked the 91st anniversary of the start of the
mass killings and deportations.
Hundreds of thousands of people silently marched to a hilltop
memorial in Yerevan and laid flowers by its eternal fire in an annual
remembrance of some 1.5 million victims of what many historians believe
was the first genocide of the 20th century. Some of them carried
Armenian flags and banners denouncing Turkey’s long-standing claims
that the massacres occurred on a much smaller scale and therefore
did not constitute a genocide.
The day-long procession began, as usual, with a prayer service in
memory of the dead that was led by the head of the Armenian Apostolic
Church, Catholicos Garegin II, in the presence of President Robert
Kocharian, members of his government and other senior officials.
The heads of foreign diplomatic missions in Yerevan were the next to
lay wreathes at twelve bending columns that encircle the eternal fire
on Tsitsernakabert Hill overlooking the city center. Among them was
U.S. Ambassador to Armenia John Evans, the first American official
since President Ronald Reagan to publicly refer to the 1915-1918
massacres as genocide. “The Armenian Genocide was the first genocide of
the 20th century,” he declared in a February 2005 speech in California.
The U.S. government, which has so far avoided officially recognizing
the genocide for fear of antagonizing Turkey, disavowed Evans’s
remarks, saying that they reflected only his personal opinion. The
State Department reportedly plans to recall the envoy, a move which
would enrage the influential Armenian community in the United States.
Armenia’s leadership, meanwhile, reaffirmed its pledge to seek
worldwide recognition of the genocide in collaboration with Diaspora
Armenian lobbying groups in the West and to continue to raise the
issue in its dealings Turkey. “Our pain is all the more intense as we
are forced to struggle for the recognition and condemnation of that
black page of our history,” Kocharian said in a traditional April
24 written address to the nation. “As the defender of the interests
of the Armenians living in the homeland and around the world, the
Republic of Armenia will continue that struggle.”
Kocharian indicated that Ankara’s unrepentant stance on the issue
amounts to complicity in the genocide. “Ottoman Turkey and its legal
successor bear full responsibility for this crime,” he said.
Armenian leaders have refrained in the past from implicating the
existing Turkish state in the 1915 genocide. Kocharian’s statement
was welcomed as an “interesting news” by a spokesman for the Armenian
Revolutionary Federation, a nationalist governing party that favors
a firm Armenian stand on the issue. Giro Manoyan told RFE/RL that he
thinks Kocharian thus held Ankara responsible for “carrying out the
final phase of the genocide.”
Armenia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Arman Kirakosian, for his part
was quoted on Monday by the Turkish daily “Zaman” as saying that the
authorities in Yerevan “believe the Turkish people are not responsible
for the events of 1915.” “The Turkish administration at that time is
the responsible party,” Kirakosian said, according to “Zaman.”
In a famous 1987 resolution, the European Parliament denounced the
mass killings as a genocide but said “the present Turkey cannot be
held responsible for the tragedy experienced by the Armenians of the
Ottoman Empire.”

WHO IS AT THE TURN OF INTERESTS? US, RUSSIA AND NEW REALITY ON THE BORDER WITH IRAN
Regnum, Russia
April 24 2006
An unprecedented stir is up over Nagorno Karabakh. It seems that the
Armenian-Azeri presidential meeting in Rambouillet, on February 10-11,
has broken the very logic and the very format of the peace talks,
the OSCE Minsk Group has been mediating for as many as 15 years so far.
The remarkable meeting of Robert Kocharyan and Ilham Aliyev in France,
when the sides – as the Armenian President said – failed to agree
on “one key issue,” was followed by a meeting of the mediators in
Washington on March 9 – a rendezvous that gave the process quite an
sudden turn. For some unknown reasons, the OSCE MG co-chairs began
acting autonomously, and the Russian co-chair Yuri Merzlyakov –
the most passively of all. US Assistant Secretary of State for
Europe and Eurasia Daniel Fried visits the region on March 13-16 and
March 20 the co-chairs meet in Istanbul without Merzlyakov. Then,
the Armenian and Azeri FMs are invited to Washington, and Fried’s
deputy Matthew Bryza visits Yerevan and Baku. In the meantime, the
Armenian FM goes to Moscow, while the US and French co-chairs come
to Yerevan and Baku. Then comes the climax: the visit of the Iranian
DM to Baku, the consultation of the regional (Turkey, Azerbaijan,
Georgia) ambassadors of Russia and the Russian Deputy FM in Yerevan
(Moscow makes a kind of diplomatic gesture by holding such a meeting in
Yerevan), and the preparations for Ilham Aliyev’s visit to Washington.
This chronology will help us to see what may happen in the Karabakh
peace process in connection with the growing activity of the US and
the prospects of the key regional factor – the Iranian nuclear problem.
Much has been said and written about Washington’s plans and
specific efforts to involve Iran’s neighbor Azerbaijan in its future
anti-Iranian coalition and to use that country’s territory as a base
for its relevant actions. The US has been and is making these efforts
with persistence it would better apply for better purposes. For the
first time, US sources said that the final agreement on the matter
was reached during the “noiseless” visit of US Secretary of Defense
Donald Rumsfeld to Baku on April 12, 2005. They obviously hurried with
the news as Baku was stalwartly resisting. Baku’s motives are clear
and come from its full insight into Washington’s plan to put Tehran
down. With all mercantile interests put aside, the Bush administration
just wants Baku to be an accomplice in its in-depth destabilization
of the whole Black Sea-Caspian Sea region. Whatever its outcome,
this operation will be hardly pleasant for the South Caucasus –
and hardly short – considering the US’ endless campaign in Iraq.
But this is obviously the least concern for Washington, who is already
so keen on its Great Game that it no longer sees states and nations
around. Even more, since recently – more precisely, after the scandals
over the tortures in Abu Ghraib, CIA jails in some “democratized”
countries and phone tapping in the US – the Bush administration began
acting bluntly. They are no longer bothering with the fading-out
democracy flag – now their stakes are on the power of arms and bucks.
The interweaving aspects of the Karabakh and Iranian problems give
experts a certain foreboding: the almost simultaneous escalation of
diplomatic activity over the problems, the magic-like up-and-downs
in Azeri-Iranian relations, Tehran’s changeability towards Yerevan
and Baku, the unambiguous statements of the Iranian DM in Baku (he
expressed hope in Baku on April 20 that in Washington Azeri President
Ilham Aliyev will explain to the Americans that they should think
over their attitude towards Iran and said that Iran is ready to
help Azerbaijan to settle the Karabakh conflict) – all this looks
like somebody is trying to mix these two problems and to serve this
fire-damp mixture on one plate to the Azeri leadership.
If so, we should also think about what trumps the US may have promised
to Azerbaijan in exchange for its “anti-Iranian loyalty.” In fact,
there might be several promises: not to interfere in the internal
political affairs of that country, to help to return the territories
controlled by the Armenians and, later, to solve the Karabakh problem
itself – and also, probably, to become the security guarantor and
the stable buyer of the Azeri oil and to do everything possible for
the international markets not to notice the catastrophic shortage
of that oil. i.e. to do its best to involve Kazakhstan in the oil-
and gas-transit projects of Azerbaijan and Turkey. Quite a lot, as
we see. We can’t be sure, but the US may offer another attraction
for Azerbaijan’s national consciousness – the factor of Southern
Azerbaijan and the possibility of territorial enlargement at the
expense of Iran. This may seem a utopia, at the first glance, but
who could imagine some ten years ago that there would be a de facto
Kurdish state in the north of Iraq? But how to act in case of failure
– how to solve the ensuing conflict with Iran? Here Azerbaijan has
little choice.
Let’s note that though bigger than Armenia’s, Azerbaijan’s military,
diplomatic and human resources are still not enough for it to solve
the Karabakh problem independently from the general geo-politics.
Today, it’s, in fact, all the same for the Azeri authorities how the
problem will be solved. What they actually care for is the internal
political stability, and the Karabakh problem is the key threat to it.
Meanwhile, it was the father of the present Azeri president, Haydar
Aliyev, who first said that “Karabakh is lost for us.” On July 22,
2002, while receiving the founders of the Baku Press-Club in his
palace, Aliyev made a number of avowals. The full text of Aliyev’s
interview was published by Zerkalo daily on July 23, 2002. In
particular, Aliyev said that as the first secretary of the Central
Committee of the Communist Party of the USSR “he did much to help
Nagorno Karabakh to develop, but, at the same time, he tried to change
the local demography.” “Nagorno Karabakh asked for an institute. I
decided to open one, but on condition that it would have three sectors
– Azeri, Russian and Armenia. We opened the institute and began sending
Azeris from nearby districts there rather than to Baku. We also opened
a big shoe factory. Stepanakert had no sufficient labor force, so we
began sending there Azeris from places around the region. By doing this
I tried to increase the number of Azeris and to reduce the number of
Armenians,” Aliyev said. He also noted that “when I left Azerbaijan,
the situation there got worse – Armenia’s influence grew bigger, and
our authorities did nothing and missed the moment.” “When in Feb 1991
I was elected deputy from Naxcivan and came to Baku and said in the
parliament that Nagorno Karabakh was already lost,” Haydar Aliyev said.
Returning to our topic, let’s try to describe the consequences the
war in Iran may have for Armenia.
The armed crisis in Iran, the preventive strikes on or the military
invasion of the US and the “accomplice-countries” in that country and
the possible consequences this may have for Armenia are a question that
can knock out any Armenian politician. They in Armenia have no answer
to this question – they just well realize how serious this threat
is. The possibility of a US-Azeri or any other conspiracy over the
Karabakh-Iranian problem as a whole is an even bigger trap for the
Armenians. We can hardly imagine them to rule out this possibility
at all. The region is too small, and there is just one step from
Iran (and, most importantly, from its regions where the ethnic Azeri
majority is several times bigger than the whole population of Armenia)
to Karabakh.
Yes, it’s not calm in Armenia, and not only because of the
daily shuttle visits of US politicians and diplomats. In fact,
any destabilization will reveal the real balance of forces in the
region and will blow up the whole foreign political doctrine of
Armenia. The country will have to instantly choose which camp to
join. The situation is going beyond short-term predictability, which
means the end of the epoch of complimentarity – a wait-and-see policy,
a policy of balance between the interests of macro-players.
Yerevan seems to have already taken the first steps in this
direction… not without Moscow. In the chronology we give in the
preamble shows that after the usual OSCE MG format broke up and the
Russian co-chair went into the shadow, it was only the Armenian FM
that visited Moscow. But this was overshadowed by an unprecedented
meeting of the Russian ambassadors to Georgia, Azerbaijan and
Turkey and Russian Deputy FM Grigory Karasin in Yerevan. Even in
calmer times such a meeting would look intriguing. The N1 topic
before and after the military exercises in Nagorno Karabakh was
the Armenian-Russian military cooperation. Apr 19 the chief of the
general staff of Armenia’s armed forces Mikayel Haroutyunyan said that
“Armenia and Russia should conduct joint exercises more frequently and
should involve the Karabakh armed forces therein.” In the meantime,
Armenian Defense Serzh Sargsyan said in an interview to Krasnaya
Zvezda newspaper that Armenia would welcome the training of Russian
military students in highland conditions.
Such statements during military exercises in Nagorno Karabakh can’t
but have a serious implication. The region is facing hard times, and
for Armenia things are even harder. The fact is that it’s Azerbaijan
and not Armenia the US is talking with – including about the Karabakh
problem. Even more, the US has already made it clear that it is
concerned over the growing presence of Russia in the South Caucasus.
On April 14, the chairman of the subcommittee on foreign operations
Jim Kolbe said that the US is actually concerned for Russia’s
growing presence in the South Caucasus. And where is Russia present
most of all? Certainly, Kolbe’s hint was at Armenia. But the US’
concern is in no way for Russia’s economic growth in Armenia, and
it’s quite remarkable that the statement was made in Baku. Earlier
the UK special representative Bryan Fall clearly said that there
are states and organizations who would not object to replacing the
Russian military bases in Armenia.
Is a local war in Karabakh possible? It is – as war is still regarded
as one of the possible ways to resolve the dragging conflict. But
who will it benefit? The benefits are many, but they depend on what
the beneficiaries want. Let’s consider some of the possible scenarios:
The US involves Azerbaijan in a local war with Armenia and deploys
its military bases in the Azeri territory to protect its oil-gas
interests and, at the same time, pressures on Iran from the north.
This scenario fits well into the US’ strategic plan of Iran’s
military-political encirclement.
The US persuades Azerbaijan and Armenia into starting a new local
war and actively puts it down to Armenia’s disadvantage, thereby
showing Yerevan the inutility of the Russian presence. This scenario
will allow the Americans to force the Russians further out of the
South Caucasus. Objectively, if Azerbaijan attacks Armenia, Russia
will have to help its strategic partner and CSTO ally. But given
Armenia’s communication blockade and Russia narrow operation scope
(due mostly to the US’ efforts in Georgia), the Russian help may prove
ineffective. This may urge Armenia to change its national security
course towards the Atlantic system.
The mediators in the Karabakh peace process (the US, Russia and France)
and the parties to the conflict agree to start a local war for giving
back to Azerbaijan the territories occupied by the Armenian side,
and, as Armenian FM Vardan Oskanyan put it, “for legalizing the
self-determination of Nagorno Karabakh” – with no internal political
shocks in Armenia and Azerbaijan. Thereby the mediators keep their
promise to resolve the conflict in 2006.
Azerbaijan goes into battle voluntarily, with no coercion, to see
itself and to show to its people the final of the conflict. This is
the least probable scenario – for this adventure will bring Azerbaijan
to nothing but a new long bloodshed with Armenia and new instability
in the region.
The US and Russia are beginning to re-share the region again – Russia
gives OK to the US’ strikes on Iran, the US uses the region as a base,
but agrees not to torpedo Russia’s policy and economic interests in the
South Caucasus. This is also quite possible, especially as Iran has,
in fact, rejected all Russia’s initiatives to solve the nuclear problem
and may in the future become Moscow’s real rival in the region, an
alternative energy policy-maker and a potential nuclear bomb-owner. On
the other hand, Russia needs the US’ non-interference in its relations
with the post-Soviet republics, especially with Ukraine and Georgia.
Conclusion
In fact, there may be a few more scenarios. In any of them a new war
in Karabakh will lead to a new reality in the whole region.
Obviously, the US and Europe have quite different positions on Karabakh
– the US is openly trying to use this factor in its own plans and
projects and to slow down the flow of solutions by the European
mediators. Washington needs the Karabakh conflict at this crucial
historical point. In fact, it wants to use the Karabakh factor in its
plans against Iran by implicating Baku in something that may end in a
catastrophe for the whole region. Experts perfectly see that the US’
key priority is Iran and all the other factors and countries will be
made subservient to it.
Speaking of Russia, we should keep in mind that in the present
historical period its regional policy is based on two platforms –
Iran and Armenia. Russia still is dominant over the balance of forces
in the conflict zone and, knowing this, one can hardly imagine how
the US will come to terms with Azerbaijan. Possibly, in cooperation
with Russia. However, the key question here is in what cooperation?
The MG co-chairs are visiting the region separately, their states
are at variance on Iran and, obviously, on Armenia, too. Can a new
war reconcile them? Or, perhaps, they can still agree by harmonizing
their positions on Armenia? There is, at least, one fact that gives
us such hope – Azerbaijan is getting involved in the anti-Iranian
processes separately from its strategic ally Turkey. Today Ankara is
very busy with the Kurdish problem, which is being actively kindled
by the selfsame US. While Baku is weighing the “pros” and “cons,”
the Turkish army is planning a big campaign in the south-east of its
own country. The headquarters of the Turkish land troops are being
moved closer to the borders with Iraq, Iran and Syria for organizing
the large-scale decisive blow on the Kurdish armed units.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

DENYING GENOCIDE
Daily Free Press , MA
April 24 2006
Before Adolf Hitler invaded Poland, he posed a famous question to
his generals: “Who today remembers the Armenians?”
Only a couple of decades after it occurred, the world had largely
forgotten about the Armenian genocide, a campaign of mass slaughter
carried out by the Turkish government. Hitler believed that the world
would similarly forget about the Jews he intended to exterminate.
Fortunately, the world has not forgotten about the Armenians
entirely. Here in Massachusetts, organizations are joining the state
legislature in marking today’s anniversary of the beginning of the
campaign against the Armenians in 1915.
But efforts to commemorate the atrocities of the past are hampered by
those who insist that they never happened. In this case, apologists
contend that more than a million Armenian deaths were not the result
of genocide, but rather additional casualties of World War I.
There’s pressure on our society to lend credence to these groups who
would deny reality. One high-profile lawsuit against the Massachusetts
Department of Education argues that teachers should be required to
include both sides of this debate in their curricula as a matter of
academic freedom.
In fact, there is no debate. All credible evidence from the academic
community indicates that the Armenian genocide did occur. But when a
few people try to stand up and deny that evidence, we act as if there
is a significant disagreement. A large part of the blame must fall
with the media, which believes it has a responsibility to present both
sides of the issue fairly. In most cases, this is the journalist’s
job. But when one side has such an obvious claim to the truth, the
media has a responsibility to call a spade a spade.
Sadly, this problem is not confined to genocide. Almost every
legitimate scientist acknowledges that global warming is a current
and growing threat, and that it’s the result of greenhouse gases
produced by human activity. But when some individuals — namely,
pseudo-experts funded by corporate interests — claim that the causes
of “climate change” are up for debate, we feel obligated to present
this alternate viewpoint. Similarly, proponents of Intelligent Design
suggest that ID deserves to be taught alongside evolution in science
classes as an “alternate theory.” ID may be valid as a philosophical
or religious belief, but there is absolutely no reason to treat it
as a legitimate alternative to accepted science.
Allowing a tiny minority of people to distort the facts creates the
semblance of debate. As a society, we must not give this minority any
more attention than it deserves. There comes a time when the need
for balance becomes less important than the need for truth. In the
case of the Armenian genocide, that time is now.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

RALLY CALLS FOR GENOCIDE RECOGNITION
Stacy Welkowitz
Daily Free Press , MA
April 24 2006
U.S. Rep. Edward Markey (D-Massachusetts) speaks at the launch of
the new coalition kNOw Genocide on Friday afternoon.
Calling for Massachusetts residents to formally recognize genocide,
approximately 175 people gathered in front of the Statehouse Friday
afternoon to witness the launch of a new coalition, kNOw Genocide,
following an assembly in the House Chamber for Armenian Genocide
Commemoration Day in honor of those who died in the Armenian genocide
of 1915.
According to their website, kNOw Genocide is a group founded in
opposition to those who deny cases of genocide, calling denial a
crime in itself. The group also organized the support of 12 coalition
members, including the Armenian Assembly of America, Irish Immigration,
the Jewish Community Relations Council, Rwanda Outlook and Genocide
Intervention Network.
U.S. Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) said politicians today and throughout
history have neglected to recognize the events of 1915, calling upon
President George W. Bush to publicly acknowledge the Armenian as
well as present-day genocide. Although President Woodrow Wilson’s
administration condemned the Armenia genocide as it was occurring,
Markey said Bush has not publicly called for the Turkish government
to label the 1915 atrocities as “genocide.”
“It is time, President Bush, for you to stand up and to say that there
was a genocide that occurred in Armenia,” Markey said. “It is time,
President Bush, for you to stand up and to do something about the
genocide in Darfur.”
Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey, Attorney General Thomas Reilly and Sen. Steven
Tolman (D-Boston) all publicly pledged their support for the new
coalition. As the grandson of Armenian genocide survivors, Rep. Peter
Koutoujian (D-Newton) with Rep. Rachel Kaprielian (D-Watertown) —
the granddaughter of Armenian genocide survivors — and Tolman will
file “landmark” legislation calling for Massachusetts to divest
in companies that have holdings in Sudan where the Janjaweed, a
government-sponsored militia, have been massacring residents of the
Darfur region since 2003. In September 2004, the State Department
labeled the massacre in Darfur as “genocide.”
“This piece of legislation would force our divestment in business
interests in Sudan and anywhere else where genocide occurs, even if
it forces us to bury our heads in our hands,” Koutoujian said. “It
is first in the nation and I hope and believe it will become a model
for every other state in this nation and for this nation itself to
model itself after it.”

ARMENIAN WOMAN SENDING GRANDCHILD TO TURKISH SCHOOL LOOKS TO THE FUTURE
By Selcuk Gultasli, Brussels
Zaman Online, Turkey
April 24 2006
Some Armenians oppose the Armenian Diaspora builds the identity on
Turkish hatred and they try to maintain friendship with Turkey.
Maria Rosa Ayoriyan, an Armenian from Gaziantep registered her
grandchild at Herkul College established by Turkish entrepreneurs in
Buenos Aires last month.
She sent a touching message to both Armenians and Turks, saying:
“What has happened is in the past. We should look ahead and leave the
past in the past. It is not possible to separate Turks from Armenians
and vice versa. We have lived together with Turks for years. We took
brides from Turks and also bestowed our daughters to them. Our cuisine,
conventional proprieties and customs are very similar. We speak the
same language.”
Ayorian says she took her grandchild to the Turkish school despite
the disapproval of some Armenians.
She believes a group of people are trying to separate the two nations
by force, adding that what happened during a time of war should
be forgotten.
In asked why she chose a Turkish school, Ayorian says, “I believe my
grandchild will learn good manners and universal values there.”
Armenians and Turks are two nations of the same land and culture;
only the religion is different.
Her grandfather, Kirkor Nazaryan, was a lawyer in Gaziantep, a
southeastern Turkish city, and she still speaks a little Turkish.
A kindergarten and a primary school are currently operating at Herkul
College founded by the Turkey-Argentina Friendship Foundation.
The school has 95 students and offers education in both English and
Spanish languages.
Mrs. Ayorian is referred to as “Aunt Maria” by school officials. She
calls Turks the “men of honor” and says her father and grandfather
spoke positively about Turks.
;alt= &trh=20060424&hn=32402

FRENSO: NEVER TO FORGET: AN ARMENIAN HERO IS HONORED, AND THE 1915 GENOCIDE IS COMMEMORATED.
By Vanessa Colon / The Fresno Bee
Fresno Bee, CA
April 24 2006
Dozens of Armenian-Americans gathered Sunday to remember their one
true hero: Soghomon Tehlirian.
Many Valley residents, wearing black, gray or dark blue, stopped by the
Masis Ararat Cemetery, where solemn music played, to honor Tehlirian
and commemorate the 91st anniversary of the Armenian genocide.
Tehlirian became a hero for many Armenians on March 15, 1921, when
he assassinated Talaat Pasha, a Turkish official who played a role
in carrying out the genocide between 1915 and 1923.
During that time period, 1.5million Armenians were slaughtered under
the Ottoman Empire. The modern-day republic of Turkey spun out of
the empire.
The Turkish government doesn’t refer to the massive killings as a
genocide. Turkish officials repeatedly have said that thousands of
Turks as well as Armenians died during World WarI.
“Nearly 91 years ago today our parents and grandparents were
slaughtered. … It was not a civil war,” said Ara Kassabian, board
member of the Armenian Cultural Foundation.
Today, Martyrs Day, is a secular holiday that recalls the start of
the killings of Armenians who were arrested and taken from their
homes in Constantinople before dawn on April 24, 1915.
Many families of Armenian heritage will reflect on their past and
take part in activities remembering their ancestors.
Black and white photos of Armenian families, for instance, were
displayed Sunday around Tehlirian’s monument. The memorial features
a golden eagle gripping a snake with its claws.
A few people sat under a blue tent as they watched a group of Boy and
Girl Scouts carry the American and Armenian flags at the beginning
of the ceremony.
Armen S. Martin, an attorney in Los Angeles, said having Turkey and
the United States recognize the genocide remains a struggle.
A patch signifying the Armenian genocide is worn by Nayiri Moumdjian,
18, of Fresno, a member of the Armenian scouting group Fresno
Homenetmen Sassoon Chapter, Troop 12.
Craig Kohlruss / The Fresno Bee Martin said U.S. Ambassador to Armenia
John Evans got into trouble after using the term genocide and believes
Evans could lose his position because of his remarks.
“As Americans we are outraged by this. As Armenians, we are insulted
by this,” Martin said.
Before the ceremony, a priest conducted a service accompanied with
smoky incense and a chorus.
Some of the visitors walked on the grassy grounds reading the stone
slates a few feet away from the monument. Many of them came to the
ceremony to pay their respects to their ancestors who didn’t escape.
“We don’t want our kids to forget,” said 48-year-old Ana Shahinian,
whose grandparents survived the genocide.
Dirouhi Kupelian said her uncles were beheaded during the massive
killings: “Just my father survived. He was 6 or 7 years old.”
Twenty-three-year-old Raffi Birindjian said the youth will keep the
tragic event alive and never forget: “We owe it to their memory
to do whatever we can in our power to bring recognition of the
Armenian genocide. There’s a lot of people out there who don’t know
it occurred.”
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

NO EVIDENCE OF OTTOMAN INTENT TO DESTROY ARMENIAN COMMUNITY
by Selcuk Gultasli
Zaman, Turkey
April 24 2006
Brussels (ZAMAN)- Gunter Lewy, Professor Emeritus of Political Science,
University of Massachusetts/Amherst, argues in his latest book ‘The
Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide’ that what
happened in 1915-16 was a huge tragedy but was not genocide as the
Ottomans had no intention of exterminating the Armenian race.
The Armenian lobby in the US tried hard to prevent the publication
of the book, but Prof. Lewy does not want to go into details about
the Diaspora’s efforts to block his book. Though Prof. Lewy gives
the details of the massacres and accuses some Turkish authorities of
distort history by denying significant massacres, Prof. Lewy has been
attacked by Armenian hardliners as a “denier.” Here are the excerpts
from Prof. Lewy’s interview with ZAMAN:
Though you reach a figure of 642,000 Armenians killed in 1915-16,
you argue that there was no intention to wipe out the Armenian
race. Is lack of intention on its own sufficient not to call the
incidents genocide?
According to Article II of the Genocide Convention of 1948, “intent
to destroy” is a precondition of genocide. A large number of dead
alone is not sufficient. Thus, for example, collateral casualties of
an aerial bombing do not constitute genocide, no matter how large the
number of victims. There exists no evidence that the Ottoman regime
had intent to destroy the Armenian community.
The Armenian Diaspora claims that you wrote this book with the help
of the Turkish government, implying that you are serving Turkey’s
interests. What is your reaction?
I am a retired professor of Political Science, the author of 10
other books published by prestigious publishing houses such as Oxford
University Press. I wrote this book as I wrote all of my previous books
– with the help of American foundations such as the American Council of
Learned Societies. I also had a travel grant from the German Academic
Exchange Service. I did not receive financial support from the Turkish
government or any other government. I have not seen the allegation
you refer to but it is part of the campaign of vilification Armenians
wage against anyone who questions their version of the tragic events
of 1915.
Armenian “genocidier” scholars argue that ‘you are not even an expert;
you do not even speak Turkish’. They also accuse Jewish origin American
scholars of distorting history by denying the so-called genocide.
I came to this topic as part of a planned comparative study of
genocide. I am not a Middle East expert (even though I lived 8 years
in the Middle East) and I do not read Ottoman Turkish. However, the
archival materials and other original sources in Western languages are
more than adequate to research this topic. The reports of American,
German, Austrian consular officials who were on the spot in Anatolia,
as well as the accounts of foreign missionaries who witnessed the
deportations are richer and better sources than what is contained in
the Turkish archives. A requirement that only persons fluent in the
Turkish language be considered competent to write about this topic
would, disqualify most Armenians who also do not know Turkish. The
argument that Jewish scholars deny the genocide because they are
Jewish and want to defend the uniqueness of the Holocaust is indecent
as well as irrelevant. A book has to be judged by its content and
not by the motive of its author.
The West was not at all concerned about the Muslim cleansing of the
Balkans, but charities exist to help Ottoman Armenians all over the
Western world. How do you explain the West’s astonishingly different
reaction to the Muslim atrocities in the Balkans in 1912-1913 and
the Armenian atrocities of 1915?
Obviously, all human life should be of equal worth. The West took
its time in reacting to the ethnic cleansing of Muslims in the former
Yugoslavia, but it did eventually react forcefully and halted these
atrocities. Armenian misdeeds during World War I were often ignored
because Armenian propaganda was well orchestrated and the Western
world did not expect Christians to behave this way. The horrendous
events of World War II have since taught us that no nationality,
no matter what its religion or cultural achievements, is immune to
outrageous criminal conduct in war.
You quote in your book (pg. 246) that “massacre, outrage and
devastation have always been congenial to Turks.” Do you think this
prejudice was pivotal in the Western attitude to Armenian massacres?
The allegation often made by Armenians that Turks love massacres and
devastation because of their national character was indeed shared by
many in the West who likewise condemned the “terrible Turk.”
Can you compare and contrast Shoah and the Armenian massacres?
Hitler’s Final Solution of the Jewish Question – the Holocaust or Shoah
– aimed at the total destruction of the Jewish people. The Armenian
massacres of World War I were not committed at the behest of the
Ottoman government, and that fact alone makes a crucial difference. The
fact that the large Armenian communities of Istanbul, Izmir and Aleppo
were exempted from the deportation is another important indication
that the Young Turks had no genocidal designs against the Armenian
minority of their country.
You argue that Salahi Sonyel put the number of Armenians deported at
800,000, Kevorkian at 870,000, Bogos Nubar Pasha at 600,000-700,000.
How is it possible that Armenian scholars reach a figure of 1,500,000
killed (not even deported) and that the West seems to agree with
this number?
Unfortunately many Western scholars and parliamentary bodies simply
repeat the Armenian allegations without critical examination as to
their veracity.
Why do you think Armenians waited until 1965 to call what happened
in 1915 genocide?
I am not sure why the Armenians waited until 1965 before they alleged
genocide. It is said that the impact of the Treaty of Lausanne of
1923 was deeply demoralizing. Also, the early 1960s brought a lot
of scholarship on the Jewish Holocaust of World War II, and the
Armenians may have sensed an opportunity to cash in on this aroused
humanitarian conscience.
What is the West and Russia’s share of the responsibility in the
massacres?
Western governments and Russia had often made promises of Armenian
autonomy or even independence. These promises undoubtedly encouraged
Armenian revolutionaries to go on the attack, cause large casualties
among the innocent, and thus provoke Western or Russian intervention on
their behalf. By making promises that were not kept the West probably
shares some of the responsibility for the events of 1915-16.
In more than several pages you accuse Dadrian, a renowned scholar
on the Armenian ‘genocide,’ of either of exaggerating the facts or
excluding documents. How widespread and ingrained is this attitude
among Armenian origin scholars in terms of being selective?
Many Armenian scholars use selective evidence or otherwise distort
the historical record, but V.N. Dadrian is in a class by himself. His
violations of scholarly ethics, which I document in my book, are so
numerous as to destroy his scholarly credentials.
Do you think the Armenian Diaspora’s tactics i.e. making as many
countries as possible recognize the 1915 incidents as genocide, will
have any affect on Turkey to recognize it as a”genocide” without a
court ruling?
It is the business of legislatures to legislate and not to decide
contested historical questions. Turkey should insist on this
principle and not give in to outside pressure with regard to the
alleged Armenian genocide.
What is the way out? You argue that there are some Armenians who will
be satisfied “with an official statement by the Turkish government
that it deeply regrets the great suffering of the Armenians during
World War I” (pg 269) How plausible is this argument?
Since writing the book and expressing in it some optimism about
Turkish-Armenian reconciliation I have been to Turkey, and I am
now more pessimistic in this regard. European pressure has caused a
nationalistic backlash among many Turkish intellectuals, and I think it
extremely unlikely that the Turkish government will be willing to make
a statement of regret of the kind that has been proposed. The Armenian
Diaspora, too, appears to be getting more demanding and extreme.
How shall Turkey approach the issue? Should Turkey do more, other
than offer to establish a joint commission, which was immediately
refused by the Armenians?
The idea of a joint historical commission is a good one. In order to
be credible, it will be important for the Turkish historical scholars
to do better than the work of the Turkish Historical Society has done
so far. The fact that the president of this society, Yusuf Halacoglu,
is a person who does not even read English is a scandal.

HISTORIC DOCUMENTS SHOULD BE OPPOSED TO ARMENIAN ALLEGATIONS – MP MOLLAZADE
Baku Today, Azerbaijan
April 24 2006
Turkey should carry out all possible measures, in particular, open its
archives for the world community to unmask the statements by Armenians
on the so-called ‘genocide’, MP Asi Mollazade, the chairman of the
Democratic Reforms Party (DRP), told Trend.
The politician noted that the Armenian lobby in Armenia and
in different world countries carries out purposeful work in the
international level to convince the world community of the truth of
the invented statements.
Mollazade added that as a result the parliaments of some countries
adopted documents on the so-called ‘genocide’. “Historic documents
drafted as a result of objective researches should be set off against
the Armenian propaganda. We should also take into consideration that
the attempts taken worldwide for the recognition of the so-called
‘Armenian genocide’ is Armenia’s official foreign policy. Azerbaijan
should inform the international organizations, the world community
of the fact of genocide committed by Armenia against Azerbaijan in
1918 and 1992,” he underlined.

CASCADING TOWARD THE 91ST ANNIVERSARY? THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE 1915
Dr Harry Hagopian
Assyrian International News Agency
April 24 2006
London — Armenians across all five continents are getting ready this
week to commemorate the 91st anniversary of the Armenian Genocide.
With the noteworthy achievements of 2005 now behind them, it is time
to think both tactically and strategically of the 24th April events –
not only for this week, but also for the longer-term policy of the
years ahead. After all, Armenians are nine critical years shy of a
century in order to break through the psychological barrier of denial.
Image In this context, events in Turkey as of late have also been
quite relevant. After all, this country – whose predecessor regime was
culpable for those atrocities but which remains to date a bastion of
rapacious denial – has taken some grudging steps toward acknowledging
the existence of a “problem” rather than simply blotting it out of its
collective psyche. In fact, having applied to join the European Union,
this post-Ottoman republic should accept not only EU democratic norms
and values, but also the requirement to guarantee the fundamental
human rights of all its citizens.
True, Atom Egoyan’s film Ararat was shown last week on the private
Turkish Kanalturk television station with less censorship than has been
the case in the past. It is equally true that a Turkish court dropped
charges against four Turkish journalists (Hasan Cemal, Ismet Berkan,
Haluk Sahin and Erol Katircioglu) who had been charged with writing
articles in which they criticised a judicial decision to delay a
conference last year entitled ‘Ottoman Armenians during the decline of
the empire: Issues of scientific responsibility and democracy’. These,
along with other small paces, have been positive although they have
stopped short of going any further in translating them from tactical
orientations to strategic decisions. For instance, while dropping
charges against those four journalists, the court decided nonetheless
to proceed with the trial of Mehmet Murat Kadri Belge, a columnist
for the Radikal newspaper. Besides, just as with Orhan Pamuk’s case,
the Turkish government did not address itself to repealing the articles
in the Turkish Penal Code that would allow such charges to be made in
the first place (Amnesty International UK is presently campaigning for
the abolition of Article 301), but applied insincere interpretations
to try and satisfy a Western EU-friendly audience whilst at the same
time not budging away from its own stolid political standpoints.
Let us be clear that there is no shortage of historians, academics,
institutes, lawyers and writers worldwide – not least the International
Association of Genocide Scholars – who have acknowledged the genocidal
nature of the atrocities meted out against Armenians during WWI. So
the problems – and thereby solutions – inherent to denial cannot
solely be traced to historical issues. On the contrary, they are
overpoweringly political. It is self-evident that many countries –
not least the USA or the UK – would not wish to upset Turkey as a NATO
ally with a substantive military presence and with many bases in a
geo-strategic but volatile region. The same applies for Israel. When
the then Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres publicly stated in
April 2001 to the Turkish Daily News that the Armenian experience was
not tantamount to genocide, he was thinking of buttressing the strong
military ties and ongoing economic interests that Israel enjoys with
Turkey despite occasional complaints about Islamism. No wonder then
that Yisrael Charny, director of the Jerusalem-based Institute on
the Holocaust and Genocide, reproved publicly this wily politician
for misrepresenting the facts.
It is true that the recognition of the Armenian Genocide by some
parliaments and councils indicates a painstaking but relentless
momentum forward. But Armenians should now consider working with
the younger Turkish academicians who have also been researching this
chapter of Turkish history. Moreover, they should be careful not to
be perceived as a token anti-Muslim (and by analogy anti-Turkish)
force, or be used in the brinkmanship between Turkey and the EU as
a convenient pretext for barring Turkish entry into the European club.
After all, Turkey has major challenges today that make it fall foul
of accession anyway – namely, the Kurdish issue that has recently
flared up again in the violence-wracked southeast region that is now
a homeland for a large Kurdish minority, as well as the refusal by
Turkey to open its ports and airports to Cypriot-registered vessels
despite a customs’ union agreement. Turkey also has economic woes,
one year short of parliamentary elections, with high public debt,
high current-account deficit and tax breaks that are contrary to IMF
recommendations – as evidenced by the recent spat over the appointment
of the central bank governor.
I believe Armenians should re-configure their strategic interests
discursively, with more reason and less intuition. Would the
acquisition by Armenians (and other long-standing minorities such
as Assyrians) in Turkey of EU passports, for example, not help them
in their legal and functional quests? Should those Turks who helped
rescue Armenians during the genocide not be honoured too, in the
same way that Israelis honour brave Gentiles who saved Jews during
the Holocaust? After all, these too are intrepid people who upheld
the honour of the Turkish nation when their government was destroying
its own Armenian citizens. Focusing on such a moral issue would prove
that many Armenians are certainly not visceral anti-Turks, and could
also turn into an exposed embarrassment for Turkey.
Geopolitics in the 21st century is not based on high decibels
and angst-ridden feelings alone. Rather, it is based on strategic
thought and vested interests. Could Armenians not invest in their
resourcefulness to excel in this arena too?

PKK Models ASALA
By Sedat Gunec, Ankara
Zaman, Turkey
April 24 2006
The terror network, PKK (Kurdish Workers’ Party), took the Armenian
terror network, ASALA, that martyred 34 Turkish diplomats as an
example for its operations. Turkish National Intelligence Organization
(MIT) uncovered a plot of the terror network against 131 foreign
representatives of Turkey.
Armenian terror network ASALA (The Armenian Secret Army for the
Liberation of Armenia) firstly martyred Turkey’s Ambassador to Vienna
Danis Tunaligil in 1975. The same organization martyred 34 Turkish
diplomats by 1984. Upon the action realized against Ankara Esenboga
Airport on 7 August 1982, Turkey had started wide scale operations
against ASALA with the instruction of the term’s President, Kenan
Evren.
Many terror experts say ASALA changed dimension and continues its
activities within PKK.
Several Armenians were caught in the operations against the terror
network.
The terror network PKK driven into a corner in Turkey with the spring
operation code named, “Suleyman Soydan 137,” launched by Turkish
Armed Forces by reinforcing troops in the region of 2nd Division now
aims at Turkey’s representatives abroad. In its action plan abroad,
the organization will use the methods of terror network ASALA.
The intelligence units say that the terror network plans various
actions on the ground that it will seek revenge for 15 people who
died in the incidents in 13 provinces, mainly in Diyarbakir.
MIT revealed the divisive organization is preparing for actions aiming
at Turkey’s 131 foreign representatives in this frame. The Turkish
Foreign Ministry taking action upon MIT’s warning warned Turkey’s
131 diplomatic representatives abroad against probable actions. In
this frame, top level security measures have been taken for Turkey’s
foreign representatives.
In the operations against the organization within the last five years,
hundreds of kilos of plastic explosives (C-3, C-4 and A-4) have been
seized by the police.