A Monument to Denial

Los angeles Times
March 2, 2005

A Monument to Denial

By Adam Hochschild, Adam Hochschild is the author of “King Leopold’s Ghost”
(Mariner Books, 1999) and “Bury the Chains: Prophets and Rebels in the Fight
to Free an Empire’s Slaves” (Houghton Mifflin, 2005).

No country likes to come to terms with embarrassing parts of its past.
Japanese schoolbooks still whitewash the atrocities of World War II, and the
Turkish government continues to deny the Armenian genocide. Until about
1970, the millions of visitors to Colonial Williamsburg saw no indication
that roughly half the inhabitants of the original town were slaves.

Until recently, one of the world’s more blatant denials of history had been
taking place at the Royal Museum of Central Africa, an immense, chateau-like
building on the outskirts of Brussels. It was founded a century ago by
Belgium’s King Leopold II, who, from 1885 to 1908, literally owned the Congo
as the world’s only privately controlled colony. Right through the 1990s,
the museum’s magnificent collection of African art, tools, masks and weapons
– among the largest and best anywhere, much of it gathered during the 23
years of Leopold’s rule – reflected nothing of what had happened in the
territory during that period. It was as if a great museum of Jewish art and
culture in Berlin revealed nothing about the Holocaust.

The holocaust visited upon the Congo under Leopold was not an attempt at
deliberate extermination, like the one the Nazis carried out on Europe’s
Jews, but its overall toll was probably higher. Soon after the king got his
hands on the colony, there was a worldwide rubber boom, and Leopold turned
much of the Congo’s adult male population into forced labor for gathering
wild rubber. His private army marched into village after village and held
the women hostage to force the men to go into the rain forest, often for
weeks out of each month, to tap rubber vines. This went on for nearly two
decades.

Though Leopold made a fortune estimated at well over $1 billion in today’s
dollars, the results were catastrophic for Congolese. Laborers were often
worked to death, and many female hostages starved. With few people to hunt,
fish or cultivate crops, food grew scarce. Hundreds of thousands of people
fled the forced-labor regime, but deep in the forest they found little to
eat and no shelter, and travelers came upon their bones for years afterward.
Tens of thousands more rose up in rebellion and were shot down. The
birthrate plummeted. Disease – principally sleeping sickness – took a toll
in the millions among half-starved and traumatized people who otherwise
might have survived.

Leopold’s murderous regime was exposed in its own day by a brave band of
activists: American, British and Swedish missionaries, and a hard-working
British journalist, E.D. Morel. Any historian of Africa knows the basic
story, and many have written about parts of it.

In 1998, I finished a book on the subject, “King Leopold’s Ghost,” which was
published in Belgium and drew furious denunciations from royalists and
conservatives. The foreign minister sent a special message to Belgian
diplomats abroad, counseling them on how to answer awkward questions from
readers. Asked if the museum planned changes, a senior official of the Royal
Museum of Central Africa replied that some were under study, “but absolutely
not because of the recent disreputable book by an American.”

The museum’s current director, Guido Gryseels, caught between pressure from
human rights activists on the one hand and rumored strong pressure from the
government and the royal family on the other, several years ago appointed a
commission of historians to study the Leopold period and determine just what
did happen. The move won favorable press coverage, but was in essence an odd
one: Usually commissions take evidence and hear witnesses; they don’t study
the distant past.

Under Gryseels, the museum has also gradually begun rewording signs on its
exhibits, and several weeks ago opened a new exhibit, “Memory of Congo: the
Colonial Era,” accompanied by a catalog, a thick, lavishly illustrated
coffee-table book of several dozen scholarly articles.

Judging from the latter, the museum has pulled its head out of the sand –
but only part way. There are a few atrocity photos, but they are far
outnumbered by pictures of dancers, musicians and happy black and white
families. The catalog is rife with evasions and denials. The commission of
historians, for instance, sets the loss of population during the most brutal
colonial period at 20%. This ignores the fact that in 1919 an official body
of the Belgian colonial government estimated the toll at 50%. And that the
Belgian-born Jan Vansina, professor emeritus of history and anthropology at
the University of Wisconsin-Madison and widely regarded as the greatest
living student of Central African peoples, makes the same estimate today.

One wall panel at the new museum exhibit raises – and debunks – the charge,
“Genocide in the Congo?” But this is a red herring: No reputable scholar of
the Congo uses the word. Forced labor is different from genocide, though
both can be fatal. Most of all, it is strange to see the catalog’s articles
on the bus system of Leopoldville, Congo national parks and the Congo visit
of a Belgian crown prince, but not a single piece on the deadly forced labor
system.

Belgium is not alone in failing to face up to its own history. All countries
mythologize their pasts and confront the worst of it only slowly. But once
they do, there are positive discoveries as well as painful ones. When I went
to school in the 1950s, I never heard the name Frederick Douglass, but my
children, who went in the 1980s, did.

The Royal Museum of Central Africa has similar figures it could celebrate.
Stanlislas Lefranc was a devout Catholic and monarchist who went to the
Congo 100 years ago to work as a magistrate. In pamphlets and newspaper
articles he later published in Belgium, he spoke out bravely against the
cruelties he witnessed. Jules Marchal, who died recently, was a Belgian
diplomat in Africa who, in his spare time, wrote the definitive history of
forced labor in the Congo, much of it based on years of searching files for
duplicate copies of documents that King Leopold had ordered destroyed. Both
men were shunned and ostracized in their time. Confronting the past is not
just about acknowledging guilt, but rediscovering heroes.

If you want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at
latimes.com/archives.

Syria comes to terms with the `Cedar Revolution’

Syria comes to terms with the `Cedar Revolution’

The Independent – United Kingdom;
Mar 02, 2005

Robert Fisk Middle East Correspondent

THEY SLEPT in tents. They slept on the pavements last night. Lebanon
is cold in winter. Not as cold as Ukraine but the frost that has lain
over Lebanon these past 29 years is without temperature. Never has the
red, white and green Lebanese flag been used as so poignant a symbol
of unity. Only a few hundred metres away from the encampment, Rafik
Hariri was killed. And so, the Lebanese are supposed to believe, the
murder of the former prime minister has unleashed the “Cedars
Revolution”. The cedar tree stands at the centre of the Lebanese flag.

With the resignation of the pro-Syrian Lebanese government, the
equally pro-Syrian president Emile Lahoud was looking last night for a
“caretaker” government – without much success. Hariri’s sister Bahiya,
an MP in Sidon, was not interested in being Lebanon’s first woman
prime minister, and the elderly Rashid el-Solh didn’t want the job,
despite his Lebanese aristocratic origins. The dearth of contenders
showed how tragic the Lebanese body politic has become.

It is still not clear whether the rubric “Cedars Revolution” started
in Beirut or in the mouth of a US State Department spokesman but its
implications are still clear enough: the Syrian army must go and –
more important – the Syrian army’s intelligence service must leave
Lebanon.

Hence everyone is waiting to see if a “caretaker” government will care
for Lebanon or for Syria, whose protege, General Lahoud, is now the
lonely man in the Baabda presidential palace in the hills above
Beirut.

Today, the “opposition” – Christian Maronites, Sunni Muslims and Druze
though not, to be frank, many Shia Muslims – will gather at the palace
of the Jumblatt family in the Chouf mountains at Mukhtara where Walid
Jumblatt, the new would-be tiger of Lebanese freedom, has ensconced
himself for his own protection. No recent member of the Jumblatt
family has died in his bed, indeed, it was Walid’s claim that the
Syrian Baathists murdered his father, Kamal ,in 1977 that set off this
unprecedented revolution in the Arab world.

The Lebanese people, according to Walid Jumblatt, have struck down the
Syrian-sponsored Lebanese government. The Lebanese people want the
truth: Who killed Rafik Hariri?

“One voice …. one flag …” Mr Jumblatt said yesterday. He wanted
“the removal of foreign elements (sic) from Lebanon” and the end of
“foreign interference” in Lebanese affairs.

But neither Walid Jumblatt nor the Lebanese are naive. They know US
support for Lebanese “democracy” is fuelled by Washington’s anger at
Syria’s alleged support for the insurgency against US troops in Iraq.

Mr Jumblatt himself showed his own feelings about the US involvement
in Iraq when he said last year that he wished a mortar fired at the
hotel in which US Assistant Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz was
staying in Baghdad had hit Wolfowitz himself.

That remark cost Jumblatt a US visa. Mr Bush wants Hizbollah
guerrillas to disarm. So do the Israelis. Indeed, the Israelis want
the Syrian army and intelligence service to leave Lebanon.

So the Lebanese opposition are demanding the very same goals as the
Israelis. But Mr Jumblatt wants to protect Hizbollah – which finally
drove the Israeli army out of Lebanon in 2000: “We’ve got to engage
with Hizbollah,” he said yesterday. “They are Lebanese.” And he also
sent a message to Damascus: “We should speak frankly to the
Syrians. We want them to leave Lebanon. But we want good relations
with the Syrians.”

But here lies the problem. Syria will always be Lebanon’s larger Arab
neighbour. Its Muslims and Christians live together today on the
scales of a dark negative. The Christians will not demand control of a
country if the Muslims do not claim to be part of an “Arab
nation”. But if a `liberated’ Lebanon – a la Washington – declared
itself for “the West”, then the country could fall apart; as it did in
the 1975-1990 civil war.

It is tempting for the Lebanese camping on “Liberation Square” as they
call it, to believe they are part of a great movement for
democracy. But Lebanon has always been betrayed by foreign
cheerleaders.

Last night, even Selim el-Hoss, many times a former prime minister and
one of the few truly honest politicians in Lebanon, made it known he
did not want to lead a caretaker government. So here’s a question that
no one asks too directly in Lebanon: What is the future of Rustum
Ghazali?

“Amu Rustum” is the head of Syrian military intelligence in Lebanon –
he lives in the largely Armenian town of Aanjar in the Bekaa Valley
and has remained silent these past three weeks, even though President
Bashar Assad of Syria has condemned Rafik Hariri’s murder.

It would be good to hear from “Amu Rustum”. Mr Hariri, in the months
before his death, received an abusive phone call from General Ghazali.

What was said?

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Armenian opposition MP lambastes government, calls for early polls

Armenian opposition MP lambastes government, calls for early polls

Arminfo
1 Mar 05

YEREVAN

The Armenian authorities are in agony, which can be witnessed by
squabble and showdown within the ruling coalition against a background
of searching for President Kocharyan’s successor, the secretary of the
opposition Justice bloc, Viktor Dallakyan, told the National Assembly
today.

The infighting and squabbling in the coalition show that the ruling
regime which is aware of its failings is attempting to disavow its
wrongdoing and flee the sinking ship, he said. The Armenian
authorities’ policy caused a domestic and foreign political crisis,
Dallakyan said. The level of poverty and migration has increased in
the country over the past years, he noted.

Dallakyan stressed that a criminal atmosphere has been created in the
country as a result of the unlawful actions by the “criminal elements
who swept Robert Kocharyan to power”. Corruption, bribery and the
shadow economy are of immense proportions.

“The falsified data represented by the authorities on the economic
growth aim to cover up the illegal activities of the president’s clan
in the lucrative areas of business,” Dallakyan said.

Human rights abuses and lawlessness are rampant, he stressed. Armenia
has been squeezed out of the regional processes, while the Karabakh
issue has been deadlocked as a result of the anti-national policy by
the ruling regime, the MP said, stressing that the only way out of the
situation is to conduct early presidential and parliamentary
elections.

Not only the opposition forces, but also the forces “for whom the
culture of a more polite address to each other is still dear” should
come together in order to change power, the MP said.

US report says Jehovah’s Witnesses in Armenian jails

US report says Jehovah’s Witnesses in Armenian jails

Arminfo
1 Mar 05

YEREVAN

Ten members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses sect, who had refused to serve
in the army before the law “On alternative service” came into force
are still imprisoned in Armenia, the US Department of State said in
its annual report on human rights published today.

Three members of the sect had been held in preliminary custody by that
moment, while 17 “Witnesses” had been released and kept under house
arrest after serving a third of their prison terms, the source said.

The law “On alternative service” came into force on 1 June 2004. Under
the law the young people whose faith and religious beliefs go against
compulsory military service are exempt from serving in military units.

European Neighbourhood Policy: Armenia

European Neighbourhood Policy: Armenia

Reference: IP/05/237 Date: 02/03/2005

IP/05/237

Brussels, 2 March 2005

European Neighbourhood Policy: Armenia

The European Commission is recommending a significant intensification of
relations with Armenia, through the development of an Action Plan under the
European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP). This recommendation is based on the
Commission’s Country Report published today, which provides a comprehensive
overview of the political and economic situation in Armenia and the state of
its bilateral relations with the European Union. The ENP goes beyond the
existing Partnership and Co operation Agreement to offer the prospect of an
increasingly close relationship with the EU, involving a significant degree
of economic integration and a deepening of political cooperation. It is now
for the Council of Ministers to decide the next steps.

Commissioner for External Relations and European Neighbourhood Policy,
Benita Ferrero-Waldner, commented `The European Neighbourhood Policy gives
us an opportunity to take relations with Armenia up a gear. I very much hope
that the Council will give the go ahead to negotiate an Action Plan, so that
we can work out a joint agenda for action in the coming years. Progress in
our relationship will reflect the efforts and success of the country
itself.’

In June 2004, Armenia (together with Azerbaijan and Georgia) was included in
the European Neighbourhood Policy, at its request and following a
recommendation made by the European Commission. The Commission was invited
to report on progress made by each country with regard to political and
economic reforms. Today, the Commission provides an assessment of
bilateral relations between the EU and Armenia, reflecting progress under
the existing Partnership and Co-operation Agreement and describing the
current situation in areas of particular interest for the ENP partnership:
the development of political institutions based on the values – democracy,
the rule of law, human rights – enshrined in the Agreement; regional
stability and co-operation in justice and home affairs; and economic and
social reforms that will create new opportunities for development and
modernisation, for further liberalisation of trade and for gradual
participation in the Internal Market.

Key objectives for the Action Plan should include:

Strengthening the rule of law, of democratic structures and pluralism (e.g.
the reform of electoral legislation in line with Council of Europe (CoE) and
Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) recommendations
and the holding of democratic elections; constitutional reform taking into
account CoE recommendations; reform of local self-government);
Strengthening respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, especially
regarding freedom of expression and freedom of assembly;
Improvements in the business climate as well as public sector modernisation
Further efforts to tackle corruption and fraud
Reform of tax and customs administrations and legislation
Progress in poverty reduction
Progress on sustainable development and environmental protection
The decommissioning of the Medzamor Nuclear Power Plant
Progress towards conflict resolution and enhanced regional cooperation.
Prudent macroeconomic policies need to be maintained to support effective
implementation of an Action Plan.

For more information on the European Neighbourhood Policy:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/world/enp/index_en.htm

European Neighbourhood Policy: Azerbaijan

European Neighbourhood Policy: Azerbaijan

Reference: IP/05/238 Date: 02/03/2005

IP/05/238

Brussels, 2 March 2005

European Neighbourhood Policy: Azerbaijan
The European Commission is recommending a significant intensification of
relations with Azerbaijan, through the development of an Action Plan under
the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP). This recommendation is based on
the Commission’s Country Report published today, which provides a
comprehensive overview of the political and economic situation in Azerbaijan
and the state of its bilateral relations with the European Union. The ENP
goes beyond the existing Partnership and Co- operation Agreement to offer
the prospect of an increasingly close relationship with the EU, involving a
significant degree of economic integration and a deepening of political
cooperation. It is now for the Council of Ministers to decide the next
steps.

Commissioner for External Relations and European Neighbourhood Policy,
Benita Ferrero-Waldner, commented `The European Neighbourhood Policy gives
us an opportunity to take relations with Azerbaijan up a gear. I very much
hope that the Council will give the go ahead to negotiate an Action Plan, so
that we can work out a joint agenda for action in the coming years. Progress
in our relationship will reflect the efforts and successes of the country
itself’.

In June 2004, Azerbaijan (together with Armenia and Georgia) was included in
the European Neighbourhood Policy, at its request and following a
recommendation made by the European Commission. The Commission was invited
to report on progress made by each country with regard to political and
economic reforms. Today, the Commission provides an assessment of bilateral
relations between the EU and Azerbaijan, reflecting progress under the
existing Partnership and Co-operation Agreement and describing the current
situation in areas of particular interest for the ENP partnership: the
development of political institutions based on the values – democracy, the
rule of law, human rights – enshrined in the Agreement; regional stability
and co-operation in justice and home affairs; and economic and social
reforms that will create new opportunities for development and
modernisation, for further liberalisation of trade and for gradual
participation in the Internal Market.

Key objectives for an Action Plan should include:

Strengthening the rule of law, democratic structures and pluralism (improved
institutional division of powers, reform of local self government) and
strengthening of electoral legislation and processes so as to enhance
democratic election standards
Implementation of effective reform in field of rule of law (judiciary, law
enforcement agencies)
Enhanced protection of human rights and of freedom and independence of the
media
Increased efforts towards a balanced development of the overall economic
system
Improvements in the business climate as well as public sector modernisation
Reform of tax and customs administrations and legislation
Effective combating of corruption and fraud
Increased transparency in the management of oil revenues and in the
privatisation process
Progress in poverty reduction, sustainable development and environmental
protection
Progress in WTO accession
Progress in conflict resolution and enhanced regional cooperation.
Prudent macroeconomic policies need to be maintained to support effective
implementation of an Action Plan.

For more information on the European Neighbourhood Policy:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/world/enp/index_en.htm

ANKARA: Turkish FM: 40,000 Armenians Work in Istanbul

The Journal of the Turkish Weekly
2005-03-02 11:41:57

Turkish FM: 40,000 Armenians Work in Istanbul

Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul says 40,000 Armenians from
Armenia live and works in Istanbul, Turkish city. Gul gives an
interview to Turkish daily Hurriyet.

`Most of these Armenians work for technical companies. An NGO made a
research on these people and says these people’s relations with Turks
are perfect. Interestingly the Armenian workers in Istanbul has no
very close relations with Turkish Armenians” Gul added.

Apart from Istanbul thousands of Armenians work in Turkish
cities. Turkey has no diplomatic relations with Armenia, however there
is an air link between Turkey and Armenia and Armenian citizens has no
problem in visiting Turkey.

Armenia does not recognise Turkey’s national borders and call Eastern
Turkey ‘Western Armenia’. Armenian forces still occupy 20 percent of
Azerbaijani territories. Armenia also has problems with neigbouring
Georgia.

Turks and Armenians
2005-03-02 11:41:57

Bundestag to Discuss Draft Resolution on Armenian Genocide mid April

IN MID APR GERMAN BUNDESTAG TO DISCUSS DRAFT RESOLUTION ON ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

YEREVAN, MARCH 1. ARMINFO. The CDU/CSU (Christian Democratic
Union/Christian Social Union) faction of the German Bundestag has
tabled a draft resolution on the occasion of the upcoming 90th
anniversary of the tragic events beginning in 1915. The debate on this
draft resolution in the German Bundestag is scheduled for the mid of
April, German Ambassador to Armenia Heike Peitsch has told ARMINFO.

Asked about the reason for the said issue entering into the agenda
right now and if it is somehow connected with some German political
forces unwillingness to Turkey’s membership in EU Peitsch says that
parliamentarians are free to table their initiatives any time they
consider adequately.

Ambassadors of 36 Countries Visit Ruins of Ani

AMBASSADORS OF 36 COUNTRIES VISIT RUINS OF ANI

Azg/arm
2 March 05

Mediamax agency informed that last week the ambassadors of 36
countries to Turkey visited Kars, as well as the ruins of Ani, the
ancient Armenian capital, by the invitation of Naif Alibeyoghli, mayor
of Kars.

The ambassadors of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Lithuania, Finland, Norway,
Mexico, Greece, Algeria, Croatia, Bangladesh, Thailand, Brazil, the
Great Britain, Australia, Libya, Belgium, Venezuela, Spain, Israel,
Argentina, Chili, Sweden, New Zeeland, Romania, Russia, Denmark,
Slovenia, Estonia, Switzerland, Kyrgyzia, Kazakhstan, Slovakia,
Lebanon, Georgia, Macedonia and Albania visited Kars.

US Amb uses “Genocide” and says NK Can’t be Given Back to Azerbaijan

AMBASSADOR EVANS USES TERM `GENOCIDE’ AND SAYS `KARABAKH CAN’T BE GIVEN BACK TO AZERBAIJAN’

Azg/arm
2 March 05

In Armenia Evans Expresses `His Personal Capacity’

On February 19, John Evans, US ambassador to Armenia, used the term
“genocide” touching upon the massacre of the Armenians carried out in
the early 20th century in the Ottoman Empire, in the course of the
meeting with Armenian-American community members at Berkley
University, CA. He also added that “Everybody realizes that Karabakh
can’t be given back to Azerbaijan.”

On February 28, US Embassy to Armenia issued the comments of John
Evans on the abovementioned statement. “Although I told my audience
that the United States policy on the Armenian tragedy has not changed,
I used the term “genocide” speaking in what I characterized as my
personal capacity. This was inappropriate,” he said.

It’s worth reminding that since 1981 ambassador Evans was the
firstAmerican official that publicly characterized Turkish atrocities
as “genocide.” Before that, in 1981, Ronald Reagan, US ex-president,
used the term “genocide.”

“My government acknowledges the tragedy that befell the Armenian
community in Anatolia during the last years of the Ottoman Empire. We
have been actively encouraging scholarly, civil society and diplomatic
discussion of the forced killing and exile of Armenians in 1915. We
have also encouraged economic and political dialogues between the
governments of Armenia and Turkey in order to help all parties come to
terms with these horrific events,” Evans said.

It was also emphasized in the statement that “The President’s annual
statement on Armenian Remembrance Day articulates US policy on this
matter.” It’s worth mentioning that each year on April 24, on behalf
of US President, theWhite House spreads a statement that characterizes
the murder of 1 and half a million of Armenians as “horrible
massacres” and with terms like that, but the term “genocide” is never
used.

Ambassador Evans said, in particular, that he had also consulted with
a State Department lawyer who confirmed that the events of 1915 were
genocide by definition, during the meeting with the Armenian-American
community members, on February 19. In the course of the same meeting,
the Ambassador confirmed that the Turkish-American relations got worse
during the recent years.

As for Nagorno Karabakh, Ambassador Evans said in the statement: “The
US government supports the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and
holds that the future status of Nagorno Karabakh is a matter of
negotiations between Armenia and Azerbaijan. In the end of the
statement Evans said: “I deeply regret any misunderstanding caused by
my comments.”

Regnum agency informed that Hafiz Pashaev, Azerbaijan’s ambassador to
the US, discussed the statement made by Evans during the meeting with
the Armenian-American community with the US officials, particularly,
with Laura, Deputy US Assistant Secretary of State for European and
Eurasian Affairs. They assured the Azeri ambassador at the US State
Department that the US supports the territorial integrity of
Azerbaijan and doesn’t acknowledge NagornoKarabakh and its government.

The US is the only state together with Armenia that allocates
humanitarian assistance from its state budget for Nagorno Karabakh. In
2005 this humanitarian assistance will amount to $3 billion.

Steve Pick, official representative of US State Department, mentioned:
“The statements made by John Evans should be considered as personal
viewpoint expressed during a private meeting. They do not reflect the
official position of the US”

In fact, Ambassador Evans and the US State Department do not deny the
statements the American ambassador made in California during the
meeting with the Armenian-American community.

By Tatoul Hakobian