827) New US envoy declines to use g-word for Armenian killings

‘Instead of getting stuck in the past, and vocabulary, I would like to move forward,’ says Hoagland

U.S. President George W. Bush's new nominee for ambassador to Armenia has declined to qualify the Armenian killings during World War I as “genocide” despite pressure by leading pro-Armenian senators during his confirmation hearing at the Senate.

Bush last month fired John Evans, the previous U.S. ambassador in Yerevan, who had classified as “genocide” the Armenian killings in violation of official U.S. policy.

Nominated by Bush to replace Evans, Richard Hoagland appeared at the Senate's Foreign Relations Committee's hearing on Wednesday only to be grilled by three senators with Armenian genocide-related questions.

Republican Senators George Allen of Virginia, who chaired the hearing, and Norm Coleman of Minnesota and Senator Paul Sarbanes of Maryland, the committee's ranking Democratic member, all said the Armenian killings clearly were the first genocide of the 20th century and urged Bush's administration and Congress to recognize the violence as genocide.

Allen, Coleman and Sarbanes said the American Armenian community was greatly concerned over the way Evans was forced to quit his job before the completion of a regular three-year tour of duty.

Hoagland tried to eschew insistent questions by the three senators over how he would qualify the Armenian killings during his planned tenure in Yerevan.

Recalling that in his last April 24 statement, Bush referred to the Armenian killings as “a tragedy the world must not forget,” Hoagland said, “I represent the president.”

Coleman said the U.S. State Department's “policy of denial” had put Hoagland in a difficult position. “The president's statement is a clear description of genocide. But you're not allowed to use the word,” he said.

“Instead of getting stuck in the past, and vocabulary, I would like to move forward,” responded Hoagland.

However, he said he had visited the genocide memorial in Yerevan and that he would visit it again if he were confirmed.

Hoagland said in the event of his confirmation as ambassador to Armenia he would work for boosted regional cooperation among Armenia, Turkey, Azerbaijan and Georgia.

Allen and Coleman said they were not against Hoagland but that they highly disapproved of the administration's policy on the Armenian killings.

Hoagland, who was the U.S. ambassador to Tajikistan before being nominated for Yerevan, needs the Senate's confirmation to take up his post.

Addressing an Armenian audience in the United States in February 2005, Evans said that last century's killing of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire amounted to genocide. Warned by his superiors at the State Department, he then issued a “clarification” where he said his remarks reflected his own views.

Still pressed by Turkey, the State Department urged Evans to issue a further “correction” admitting that his remarks misrepresented U.S. policy.

However, he was fired in May “after continuing to deviate from the official U.S. policy,” U.S. government sources said.

Evans' firing has led to an uproar in the Armenian American community and among pro-Armenian lawmakers in Congress.

ÜMİT ENGİNSOY
WASHINGTON - Turkish Daily News
Friday, June 30, 2006
http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=47573

---

US Senate Hears Candidacy For US Ambassador To Armenia

While Members of Congress and the Armenian community demand a full explanation for the premature replacement of Ambassador to Armenia John M. Evans, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on the Administration's nominee, Richard E. Hoagland, reports the Armenian Assembly of America (AAA). Senator George Allen (R-VA), who chaired the proceedings, noted that there have been serious concerns that Evans was forced to prematurely end his service as a result of those public declarations. "I don't know this to be true," Allen said, referring to the circumstances surrounding Evans' departure. "[I] will say that many of my colleagues and I refer to the tragic events of 1915 as genocide and have strongly encouraged the President to do so as well."

Allen asked Hoagland a series of questions on the issue of the Armenian Genocide beginning with the Administration's policy towards referring to the events of 1915. Hoagland responded that no one in the Administration has ever denied the tragic events that befell the Armenians. He said his visit to the Genocide Museum and Memorial in Yerevan was a very sobering and disturbing experience, but added that the Administration's position is clear and that, if confirmed, he would uphold U.S. policy. Allen next asked him if he received specific instructions on how to address the Armenian Genocide. Hoagland answered that he hadn't, reiterating that "whatever we say must be consistent with the Administration and its policy."

Following Allen, Senator Norm Coleman (R-MN) began his line of questioning. The Senator said he understood the nominee was in a difficult position, recognizing that Hoagland "can't utter the word genocide." He expressed hope that the U.S. would reaffirm the genocide, saying that "you can't look to the future if you deny the past." Switching topics, Coleman questioned Hoagland over the Turkish blockade against Armenia, asking him how he plans to address this issue. Hoagland responded that he would support talks between the countries, noting that a peaceful resolution to the NK conflict was paramount.

In his statement, Hoagland stressed the importance of strengthening U.S.-Armenia ties and said that if confirmed, he would work to advance democratic and social reforms.

30 June 2006,
Resource : Panarmenian
IKSAREN

---

Incoming US ambassador to Yerevan doesn't use word 'genocide'

U.S. senators failed to persuade the nominee for U.S. ambassador to Yerevan to use word 'genocide' while describing events of 1915 at his confirmation hearings Wednesday in the Senate.

"I have not received any kind of written instruction about this," Ambassador-designate Richard E. Hoagland said. "I simply have studied the president's policy. I've studied the background papers on the policy. And my responsibility is to support the president."

While declining to say the word "genocide," Hoagland, who is currently the ambassador to Tajikistan, said, "I fully agree that the events that occurred in 1915 and following were of historic proportions, as I said, well-documented, horrific, horrifying."

He quoted Maryland democrat Senator Paul Sarbanes, who read a statement about the situation, that "hundreds of valleys (were) devastated, no family untouched. It was historic. It was a tragedy and everyone fully agrees with that, sir."

U.S. President George W. Bush, in a presidential message on the 91st anniversary of April 24, called the events "a terrible chapter of history" that "remains a source of pain for people in Armenia and for all those who believe in freedom, tolerance and the dignity and value of every human life."

Bush is ordering home their current ambassador in Yerevan, John Evans, two years into the normally three-year diplomatic term. In announcing his recall last month, the White House gave no reason and praised Evans for his service. Last Sunday was his second anniversary in the Armenian capital. In February 2005 Evans told Armenian-Americans, "The Armenian genocide was the first genocide of the 20th century."

Sixty members of the House of Representatives sent a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice protesting that Evans was being punished for his reference to "genocide." In a separate letter, Democratic Senators Edward Kennedy and John Kerry of Massachusetts demanded an explanation from Rice for Evans' recall.

The events occurred during the expulsion of ethnic Armenians from eastern Turkey into Syria in 1915 and 1916. Turkish officials have traditionally maintained that 300,000 people died. Armenian terrorists, mainly members of the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA), roamed through Europe and the U.S. in the 1970s and 1980s and claimed more than 60 attacks against Turkish targets. The army claimed the campaign killed 30 Turkish diplomats and dependents.

TNA with AP / Washington
30 June 2006

http://www.thenewanatolian.com/tna-9861.html

Read Full Post !

826) You shouldn`t confuse the concepts of insult and freedom of criticism

``You shouldn`t confuse the concepts of insult and freedom of criticism,`` said Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan after claims of Danish radical left parliamentarian Rune Lund following the meeting of the Parliamentary Assembly of Council of Europe (PACE) in Strasbourg.

Lund claimed that under the freedom of expression he must have the right to say that ``Turks committed genocide on Armenians, occupied Cyprus and outraged Kurds``.

Erdogan, in return, reacted strongly and said, ``you should not fail to distinguish between the concepts of insult and freedom of criticism. Danish parliamentarian claims that there is so-called Armenian genocide, but his statements must be based on scientific data.``

Erdogan stressed that Turkey proposed historians to research so-called Armenian genocide in a scientific way, but has not received a response yet.

29 June 2006, Resource : Turkish Press
IKSAREN

---

ERDOGAN'S GOD WOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED
Karine Asatryan

"I can curse but I won't. But I can't help saying that in 1915 the Turks massacred the Armenians and do not accept it. I can't help saying that Turkey has occupied part of Cyprus", announced Danish deputy Run Lyund after the speech of the Prime Minister of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan who considered certain restrictions of the freedom of speech normal.

According to Erdogan, there are sacred values - national, religious and others stirring of which causes terrorism. Erdogan considered the fuss and mass rallies in connection with the caricatures of prophet Mohammad natural. According to him, there is growing tension between the West and the Islamic world.

Erdogan called on Europe to take into account the fact that 10-15% of the population of the European capitals is Turks and their rights must be respected.

Referring to the speech of Mr. Lyund, the Turkish Prime Minister mentioned that the discussion of the Armenian Genocide is neither criticism, nor offence.

But it is the concern of the historians and not the politicians. According to him, Turkey called on Armenia to discuss what took place in 1915 on the scientific level, but Armenia refused. By the way, Erdogan referred to the Jewish Holocaust mentioning that as a true Moslem he is convinced "that their God would not have allowed anything of the kind".

During the discussion of the report on "Freedom of Speech and Respect for Religion" Armenian delegate Artashes Geghamyan made speech. He reminded how the Turks destroy Armenian monuments, how the Armenian pupils in Turkey are deprived of the possibility to study the history of Armenia and the Armenian Church, and, which is most important, that Turkey keeps Armenia in a blockade.

The discussion is under way, there are still many amendments offered to be made. Nevertheless, according to delegate Yurgens from the Netherlands, if the amendments are adopted, the balance of the report will be violated.

A1+ [04:01 pm] 28 June, 2006
http://groong.usc.edu/news/msg154791.html

---

Erdoğan says all freedoms have a limit

‘Nobody has the right to attack religious and cultural values of societies. All freedoms have a limit. You cannot have unlimited freedoms, there has never been unlimited freedom of expression in history,’ Erdoğan says in an address to Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said yesterday that insulting a religion cannot be justified under the name of freedom of expression, apparently referring to a recent crisis over the publication of Prophet Mohammed cartoons in a number of Western newspapers.

“Nobody has the right to attack religious and cultural values of societies. All freedoms have a limit. You cannot have unlimited freedoms, there has never been unlimited freedom of expression in history,” Erdoğan said in an address to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) in Strasbourg, France.

Erdoğan said the cartoon crisis revealed the need to prevent extremists from exploiting a growing polarization along religious lines.

“Islamophobia and xenophobia are gaining ground in the West. In the Muslim world, on the other hand, there is a widening perception that it is besieged and its values are under attack. The combination of these trends threatens to turn the West and the Islamic world into adversaries,” he said.

“The way we see anti-Semitism as a crime against humanity we need to see Islamophobia as a crime against humanity,” he added.

The caricatures, which include a portrayal of Prophet Mohammed wearing a bomb-shaped turban and one showing him as a knife-wielding nomad flanked by two women shrouded in black, were first published in the Danish paper Jyllands-Posten in late September; however, they sparked harsh reactions after being reprinted in other European dailies in defense of free speech. Muslims worldwide denounced the drawings. Furious anti-Danish protests spread across the Muslim world and rioters torched Danish embassies.

“Is freedom of expression unlimited? We argue freedom of expression can be restricted, and this has to be defined. All societies have certain limits in terms of their civilization and culture, they have a certain approach to religion, so we can't ignore these things,” Erdoğan said.

The prime minister called for more religious and cultural tolerance to mend what he called a deepening rift between the West and the Islamic world. Erdoğan said the future cannot be built upon fears, stressing that it was time to make the voice of common sense heard.

As the co-chairman of a U.N.-led Alliance of Civilizations initiative urging national and international action against prejudice, misperceptions and polarization between cultures and civilizations -- particularly between Islam and the West, Erdoğan also said differences between people and societies should not lead to hierarchy, adding that the Alliance of Civilizations initiative recommended in that regard a cultural pluralism model that considers differences as richness.

“If the world is determined to maintain global peace, I believe that it is a condition to form an alliance of civilizations but if it will open the way for global terrorism, then I say we'll continue to remain bystander to a clash of civilizations. I'd like to express belief once more that we'll not be alone in our efforts for an alliance of civilizations and the entire international community, especially the Council of Europe and the member countries, will gather under the roof of this goal,” he added.


Erdoğan criticizes Danish lawmaker's remarks on alleged genocide :

Erdoğan leveled harsh criticism against statements made by Rune Lund, radical leftist member of PACE who took the floor after the prime minister and claimed that he has the right in the name of freedom of expression to say, “Turks committed genocide against Armenians.”

Retaking the floor after speeches made by political groups, Erdoğan said: “The Danish deputy acknowledges the alleged Armenian genocide. What he says on this issue should be based upon scientific data, otherwise this shows his weakness.”

Erdoğan mentioned Turkey's proposal to the Armenians for research into the issue by academics and said the Turkish proposal has remained unanswered so far.

June 29, 2006
http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=47486

---

NO TERM GENOCIDE IN ISLAM, ERDOGAN SAYS

The matter of respect of religious confession and freedom of expression was discussed at the PACE summer session on June 28. According to the report of PACE Committee on Education, Science and Culture, Finnish MP Snikki Hurskae's report was heard. Following him Turkish PM Recep Tayyip Erdogan spoke about religious record, tolerance and freedom of expression in Turkey. Then he answered questions of the MPs. Danish MP Rune Lund accused Turkey in committing the Armenian Genocide, occupying Cyprus and violating rights of Kurds. In response the Turkish PM called him «helpless man, who cannot speak basing himself on historical facts.»

Erdogan noted that he supports research of the Genocide by historians and underscored Armenian historians are invited to take part. When asked by a deputy, «why Allah admitted commitment of the genocide, Erdogan noted there is no concept of genocide in Islam and added Allah likes all people created like he does himself.»

30 June 2006,
Resource : Panarmenian
IKSAREN

Read Full Post !

825) Armenian Cathogigos And Turkey

The visit of Armenian Cathogigos (Patriarch) Karekin II to Turkey in response to the invitation of Greek Patriarch Bartholomew resulted in some incidents. The first of these was the protestation of Karekin II by a Turkish group. Some Armenian newspapers perceived this protest as disrespectful; however, today, such protests are accepted as a normal outcome of democracy. As laws permit such protests, every body can be protested by anyone, anywhere, anytime. One of the individuals, who have been protested the most, is President George Bush. Seen in this perspective, protestation of the Cathogigos is quite normal by those who refused the genocide allegations as well as occupation of Karabagh by Armenia.

The second and more important case was the words of Karekin II regarding the so-called Armenian genocide. As the Information Service of Armenian Church states, at a press conference on June 25, in response to a question posed by a Turkish journalist, Karekin II said that “the Armenian genocide is a reality that happened and can never be an item for debate”. In responding another question on the normalization of relations between Armenia and Turkey he said that Turkey should come to terms with its past and should recognize the Armenian genocide. As a response to a third question on the convening of a conference to discuss the event that had taken place in Anatolia during World War I, he said that it shall be possible to welcome similar initiatives if they are intended to present the actuality of the genocide to Turkish society”.

Before commenting on this issue more, it should be stated that the Cathogigos came to Turkey for religious purposes; therefore he should have not touched upon political issues, or should have used a softer tune, taking into account the sensitiveness of the Turkish public opinion for genocide allegations. However, he put his views forward uncompromisingly, as if he was willing to teach something. In doing so he abused the right to freedom of speech. This incident would surely be considered in his future visits to Turkey.

The words of Karekin II, which argued that the so-called Armenian genocide was a reality and not an item for debate sound like a dogma. As long as there are some 70 million people refusing these allegations together with the possible support of the Islamic countries to Turkey on this matter, Karekin II’s words has no meaning other than demagogy.

Cathogigos’ comments on the normalization of the relations between Turkey and Armenia as well as Turkish prior recognition of “genocide” contradict with the position of the Armenian governments who has never been put this condition forward for the normalization of relations, rather they always declared that there were no preconditions for normalization. It is impossible that the Cathogigos was unaware of these declarations; therefore, his comments on that matter were aimed to affect the Armenian public opinion.

Why did the Cathogigos speak so harshly? The answer of this question should be searched in the rivalry between two patriarchates. After World War II, in order to protect the Diaspora Armenians from the Etchmiadzin Patriarchate, which was under control of Soviet Union, with the consent of big powers including the United States another Patriarchate was established in Antilias, Lebanon. After the independence of Armenia, although this Patriarchate should have been abrogated, this was never realized and there emerged a rivalry between these two Patriarchates. Antilias Patriarchate has been controlled by Dashnaks, therefore it defends the views of Dashnaks and criticized Turkey unmannerly for its non-recognition of the genocide allegations. However, Etchmiadzin Patriarchate left this issue to the Armenian governments and only commented on each April 24, the so-called anniversary of the genocide. Now, it can be understood that Karekin II tried to increase his leverage in this rivalry by criticizing Turkey for non-recognition of Armenian genocide allegations.

As for the reactions of the Turkish official posts towards these comments, according to Armenian press, a Turkish diplomat said: "We expect that the Armenians, in their turn, look at their history instead of politically manipulating their status as victims and instead of brainwashing their own people with falsified history, should listen to our advice and have the courage to sit on table to see what has happened and what has not."

The Chairman of the Turkish Religious Affairs did not meet Karekin II, but the Governor of Istanbul did. As the visit of Karekin II was not official, the Governor was not obliged to receive Armenian Cathogigos according to protocol rules but he might receive him for courtesy. So he did. However the aforementioned speeches of Karekin II made this courtesy unnecessary.

It’s obvious that the visit of Karekin II has not contributed to the normalization of Turkish Armenian relations, on the contrary it rather added a new point of contention to the existing problems.

Comment: Ömer Engin LÜTEM -
29 June 2006, Resource : İKSAREN

---

Armenian Catholicos Karekin Investigated

An investigation has been launched by the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecution Office into the world leader of the Armenian Apostolic Church, Catholicos Karekin II, following claims that he 'denigrated Turkishness' in remarks made during his recent visit to Istanbul.

A complaint was lodged at the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecution Office by both Recep Akkus and the strongly-nationalist Turkish Lawyers Union.

The Istanbul Prosecution Office has opened an investigation into the matter.

Catholicos Karekin-II stated last Sunday evening at a press conference at the Turkish Armenian Patriarchate in the Kumkapi quarter in Istanbul that Turkey must recognize the Armenian claims of genocide during the final years of the Ottoman Empire.

In his remarks Sunday, the Armenian Catholicos expressed his wishes for more progress in Turkish-Armenian relations.

Remarking that the issue of genocide had been debated by researchers for 90 years, Karekin-II said: "For our people it is not a subject for research. It is an event that took place and it must be recognized." He said that the genocide issue was one of the problems that had to be solved for the normalization of relations between the two countries.

Armenian Catholicos Karekin arrived in Istanbul on Tuesday of last week as the guest of Turkey's Armenian Patriarchate Mesrob II and the Fener Greek Orthodox Partriarchate Bartholomeos. He has since left Turkey for Armenia.

The fate of Armenians under the Ottoman Empire during WWI and after is still a sensitive issue in Turkey.

Armenians claim that 1.5 million Armenians living under the Ottoman Empire were killed as part of an intentional and systematic genocide campaign during World War I.

Turkey denies the allegations that 200,000 Armenians died during forced migrations due to cold weather and bad transportation conditions.

By Cihan News Agency
June 29, 2006

---

Nationalist lawyer seeks charges against Karekin II

Kemal Keriçsiz, a nationalist lawyer who is the head of the Turkish Lawyers' Union, petitioned prosecutors yesterday to bring an Armenian religious leader to trial for “insulting Turkishness,” news reports said.

Karekin II, head of the Armenian Orthodox Church, paid a visit to the Greek Orthodox leader in Istanbul last week and said Turks committed “genocide” against Armenians.

Kerinçsiz, who previously led a legal campaign against Turkey's internationally acclaimed author Orhan Pamuk, asked an Istanbul prosecutor to bring charges against the Armenian religious leader.

By defending the alleged Armenian genocide, Karekin declared the Turkish nation to be “a country that committed genocide,” according to the lawyer's petition, calling for the opening of a public case against the religious leader under Article 301 of the new Turkish Penal Code (TCK) which stipulates a sentence of up to two years' imprisonment.

Turkey vehemently denies Armenian claims of an alleged genocide at the hands of the Ottomans in the last century, arguing that 300,000 Armenians and as many Turks were killed in civil strife in the final years of the Ottoman Empire when the Armenians rose up for independence in eastern Anatolia and sided with invading Russian troops. Karekin II was in Turkey last week for a week-long visit to the Armenian community here and to have talks with Fener Greek Patriarch Bartolomeos. After his arrival at an island off Istanbul, a group of demonstrators led by Kerinçsiz protested the Armenian religious leader, who went to Heybeliada, a seminary which has been closed for decades.

The Heybeliada Orthodox Seminary was closed in 1971 under a law requiring state supervision of university-level religious education. The European Union, which Turkey aspires to join, urges Ankara to reopen the seminary.

The nationalist lawyers, protesting the Armenian religious leader's visit to the seminary, said religious education by a seminary was against the Turkish Republic's Constitution and the principle of secularism.

The Turkish public has become well acquainted with Kerinçsiz as he has been a co-plaintiff in almost all cases filed against a number of journalists, academics and authors under articles 301 and 216 of the TCK, which went into effect in June. Article 301 covers the offense of “insulting Turkishness,” while Article 216 deals with “inciting people to hatred.”

Friday, June 30, 2006
ANKARA - Turkish Daily News

---

What Karekin II's visit makes us think

The Istanbul visit of the head of the Armenian Orthodox Church, Karekin II, has caused us to ask certain questions. There was some tension when a group of people led by lawyer Kemal Kerinçsiz staged a protest at Heybeliada.

The Istanbul visit of the head of the Armenian Orthodox Church, Karekin II, has caused us to ask certain questions. There was some tension when a group of people led by lawyer Kemal Kerinçsiz staged a protest at Heybeliada.

Karekin II came to Istanbul as a guest of Fener Greek Patriarch Bartolomeos. Was the timing of the visit appropriate? What was the aim of this visit? What did the patriarch seek to achieve with this visit? It is easy to answer these questions because we know the patriarch.

The patriarch may profess that politics is not what the Patriarchate stands for, but since taking office he has been involved in politics, as have all the patriarchs who came before him. His political efforts are countless.

In his speeches he constantly argues that the Lausanne Treaty, signed at the end of the Turkish War of Independence, has been constantly violated; he sees himself as the ecumenical patriarch and asks why the theological school at Heybeliada is still closed. Despite knowing the answers to his own questions, he chooses ignorance by constantly claiming that the treaty is being violated. Even though Turkish intellectuals respond and give him answers, it appears this isn't enough for him. Whenever the responses don't suit him, he dismisses the Patriarchate's history and secret objectives and efforts and starts to note religious education rights, claiming what is said counter to him is from lack of knowledge and prejudice.

These days, Bartolomeos even goes as far as saying, “If you fail to open the theological school at Heybeliada, your admission into the European Union will become more difficult.”

The theological school he talks about was opened as a high school linked to the Patriarchate in 1884. In 1971, the Education Ministry closed the high school in accordance with the law. The patriarch knows that a school supervised by the Education Ministry would not be subservient to his objectives and is asking every country that listens to pressure Turkey into reopening the school.

Karekin II's visit must be seen as part of this effort. Bartolomeos committed a mistake by inviting Karekin II to Istanbul at a time when the Patriarchate and the school are being publicly debated. Karekin II's statements concerning the so-called “Armenian genocide” proved that this visit was far from a sincere one and ended up upsetting the public. Karekin II was lucky to have said what he said in a country of freedom, where he did not face any criminal charges. I leave it to my readers to understand the symbolic meaning of the group photo taken in front of the Heybeliada theological school.

The patriarch never mentions the plight of Turks in Western Thrace in enjoying the same rights granted to Istanbul's Greeks. He seems to have forgotten Article 45 of the treaty.

He is silent on the question of why there is not a single mosque in Athens. We also need to consider why our compatriots living in Western Thrace are not described as Turks. Even though these questions were never answered by the patriarch, it is up to us to remind him and keep asking. We should also wonder why the European Union is silent on these questions even though they are well aware of what's happening. Instead of pressuring Turkey to open the school, the living standards of Turks in Western Thrace need to be put into the spotlight. The EU is surprisingly silent when topics of discussion move beyond the problems associated with Turkey.

No matter how much the patriarch may dismiss his political objectives, he is at the center of politics and is playing this game in the international arena.

The patriarch says if former President Turgut Özal were alive, then Özal would have made sure the school was reopened. One must pay attention to why the patriarch reaches such a conclusion. Maybe his election as the patriarch was also linked to this.

The Republic of Turkey is governed by the rule of law, not feelings. The path the patriarch is on is blocked.

Friday, June 30, 2006
Orhan Kilercioğlu
http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=47600

---

We're making a fool of ourselves:

The head of the Armenian Orthodox Church, Karekin II, visited Turkey a few days ago and at a press conference said the genocide was not seen as a claim but a fact in Armenia, asking Turkey to accept it, too.

It was a statement that did not go beyond a foreign religious leader airing his opinion. We had heard much worse from many foreign leaders who were perceived as pro-Turkish.

However, a criminal inquiry was launched into Karekin II for insulting Turkey.

A group of lawyers who are preparing to enter politics from a party that reflects their kind of mentality are making use of every opportunity to air their views and get on television. They were the ones who filed a complaint against Karekin II, and the prosecutor initiated an inquiry.

Now the prosecutor will either say "This is nonsense. Karekin II just aired his views. There is no crime," or s/he will notify the border gates and try to question him if he re-enters Turkey. Later on, charges will be filed and the trial will proceed in absentia.

In short, we will make a fool of our country. We will be worse than France and Switzerland, who we criticize.

Let's prove there was no genocide with serious and strong campaigns. Let's not give credence to such shameful and petty games.

Mehmet Ali Birand
http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=47615

Read Full Post !

824) Armenia gets mixed reviews from international observers -ijnet

Press Freedom

While there have been relatively few documented attacks on Armenian journalists in recent months, reporting there remains clearly biased, according to a European media watchdog.

Miklos Haraszti, media freedom representative for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), recently paid a three-day visit to Armenia. He said on June 21 that “the coverage of political life still remains one-sided, both in private and public-service broadcasting.”

Although the constitution protects freedom of the press, the government continues to restrict full media freedom in the country, observers say. Most newspapers rely on funds from the government, politically motivated individuals or parties to survive, and objectivity suffers.

Harazsti said that the government needs to speed up media reform in the country, especially in light of parliamentary elections set for next year. He also said that the broadcasting boards need to represent more voices in order to support a diversity of broadcast media and greater objectivity.

OSCE: http://www.osce.org/fom/item_1_19600.html

http://www.ijnet.org/Director.aspx?P=Article&ID=305174&LID=1

28/06/2006

Read Full Post !

823) Rhetorical "Genocide"

When you hear the words "oppression," "genocide," "racism," or even "torture" or "rape," do you immediately recoil as you always did? I don't. While I hate those evils as much as ever, I no longer assume the term always describes the reality....

For example, the liberal press' unending preoccupation with American abuses of Iraqi detainees had a number of deleterious consequences. One was a further undermining of Arab and Muslim support for America's liberation of Iraq. But the longest-lasting negative effect was probably the cheapening of the word "torture."

It undermined the war against torture to characterize what some Americans did to some Iraqis in the Abu Ghraib prison -- actions that were indeed sick, un-American and shameful to our military -- as "torture." Labeling abuses as "torture" filled me with pity for all the people around the world who had experienced real torture.

I kept thinking about those whose bodies were burned, whose fingernails were torn out, who were hung by their arms in a way that broke their shoulders (a common Chinese communist torture), who were put into human shredders (in Saddam's Iraq) or who had burning hot steel rods shoved into their rectums. How did these poor souls react to seeing the Western media routinely describe humiliating and frightening naked men for the sadistic amusement of guards as "torture"?

A second example is "rape." In the past, when I heard that a woman had been raped, I recoiled in horror. Not any more. Now, my first reaction is, "What happened to her?"

One has to ask that question because the feminist left has redefined the word "rape" to the point where, unless you know the specifics, you don't know if a woman was violently forced into sexual intercourse or had engaged in sex that she regretted the following morning.

For the latter is one of the definitions of "rape" that the feminist movement uses and has disseminated. That is how the figure "one in four" women having been raped was derived. And while the late feminist thinker Andrea Dworkin did not actually make the statement widely attributed to her that "all (heterosexual) sex is rape," it was a sentiment that was earnestly debated in feminist circles.

Individuals and groups on the left have done the same to the word "genocide." The term originally meant an attempt to murder all members of a racial, ethnic, national or religious group. Today, it is used to describe an Israeli attack on Palestinian terrorists that also unintentionally kills some civilians, and to describe what America is doing in Iraq and even what America has done to its black population. So, when one hears "genocide" today, one immediately wants to know who is using the term and against whom.

Even the left in Israel, the nation that arose from the ashes of the most organized genocide in history, misuses the word. For example, professor Israel Charny, director of the Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide in Jerusalem, told the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz: "We (Israelis) have never committed an act of genocide. We have perpetrated a few acts of genocidal massacre against a small number of people."

"Genocide" against a small number of a people? What, then, is not "genocide"?

No term is more often used by the left than "oppressed." American women are routinely described as "oppressed," as are America's blacks, Hispanics and all poor people. But if American women, the freest women in human history, are oppressed, what term is left to describe the treatment of women in Arab and some other Muslim countries?

And then there is "racism." Being aware of the racism of those who lynched blacks in America and the racism of Nazism, I grew up believing no doctrine was more evil. Yet today, I yawn when I hear a member of the left use the term -- such as when Sen. Harry Reid characterized the Senate's proclamation of English as America's official language as "racist," or when whites and blacks who oppose race-based affirmative action are called racists.

One more example will have to suffice: The left regularly charges America's conservative Christians with wanting to make America a "theocracy," being "fascists" and/or being "anti-Semites." They are none of those things, and as a result, the battle against real theocrats (Muslim fundamentalists), real fascists and real anti-Semites is compromised.

The tragedy of all this is that when evils are defined down, good people are left verbally unarmed when the real evils present themselves. It is yet another way in which the left, intentionally or not, undermines the battle against evil.

28 June 2006, Resource : Frontpage.mag

Read Full Post !

822) Patriarch Mesrob II: I do not agree with Karekin II's comments on genocide

Patriach Mesrob II, the leader of the Armenian Orthodox community in Turkey, has commented on his differing views from those expressed last week by Catholicos Karekin II, the world leader of the Armenian Orthodox Church, who was in Istanbul last week for a visit.

Karekin, who came to Istanbul as the guest of Greek Fener Patriarch Bartholomeus and as well as of Patriarch Mesrob II, held a press conference at the Armenian Patriarchate on Sunday during which he called on Turkey to officially recognize the events of 1915 as a genocide against the Armenians. Mesrob II had subsequently commented to the press that his perspective on the matter differs from that of Karekin II's, and that the Turkish-Armenian relationship is not soley based on incidents which took place between 1890-1923.

Responding to reporters' questions about what he thought of Karekin II's statements about genocide, Mesrob II said: "How can I comment on those statements? I guess I could say 'They were as I expected they would be.'

At the press conference at which Katekin II spoke, TV cameras from the Armenian station Shoagat were present. All of the diaspora watches Shoagat TV. So Karekin knew the public he was addressing with his comments.

I think differently on the matter, as I have said many times in the past. The disaster of 1915 should be examined on separate platforms by politicians, historians, diplomats, and sociologists. This would be very helpful in terms of creating empathy and understanding, rather than enmity."

http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/english/4662476.asp?gid=74

---

KAREKIN II: "WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT EXTREMIST NATIONALISTIC FORCES WILL SUCCEED IN SOWING HATRED AND ENMITY TOWARD ARMENIANS LIVING IN TURKEY."

His Holiness Karekin II, Supreme Patriarch and Catholicos of All Armenians, having completed his first Pontifical Visit to Istanbul, returned to the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin in the early morning hours of June 28. The seven-day visit included a two day fraternal visit to the Ecumenical Patriarch, followed by five days with the Armenian community of Istanbul and the Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople.

Although His Holiness' flight arrived in Yerevan in the middle of the night, waiting for him in the Mother Cathedral of Holy Etchmiadzin at 4:00 AM, were hundreds of faithful who had come to welcome him home. His Holiness' procession was escorted into the Mother Cathedral under the singing of the "Hrashapar" hymn. Standing before the Holy Altar of Descent, the Catholicos of All Armenians offered prayers of thanks to heaven and thereafter conveyed the unforgettable and warm impressions from his pontifical visit to all those present.

His Holiness Karekin II joyfully reflected on the enthusiastic reception he received from the Armenian community of Istanbul, as expression of their love and devotion to the Holy Armenian Apostolic Church and the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin.

His Holiness stated, "Glory and thanksgiving to God. We return from our pontifical visit to our sons and daughters in Constantinople with a content heart. Our soul was filled with joy to personally see and meet our faithful children, their enthusiastic devoted faith, and their patriotic spirit. We communed with 600 years of history and treasures of the Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople."

According to the press-release of the Information Services of the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin, the Pontiff of All Armenians stated with contentment that the Armenian community of Istanbul, a community that lives, breathes and speaks Armenian, is active today with a vibrant national life. The community has 39 churches, 17 Armenian schools and many institutions, the largest of which is the Holy All-Savior National Hospital. His Holiness also fondly recalled his meetings with Armenian intellectuals and youth of Istanbul.

As the visit of His Holiness was widely covered by the Armenian and Turkish press and media in Turkey, His Holiness spoke of the press conference convened in Istanbul on Sunday, June 25, following the Pontifical Divine Liturgy, during which the Armenian Genocide was discussed. (The full text of the press conference will be available tomorrow on the website of the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin, www.armenianchurch.org). In reply to the concerns about the prospect that His Holiness' statements on the Armenian Genocide could negatively affect the attitude of the Turkish authorities towards the Armenians of Turkey, the Catholicos stated, "We do not believe that our thoughts and words can affect the attitude of the authorities towards our Armenians in Istanbul, because we never expressed hatred or enmity, we simply stated the reality and the truth. Taking into account the process of democratization, which the Turkish authorities desire to achieve in their country, we also do not believe that extremist nationalistic forces will succeed in sowing hatred and enmity toward the Armenians or other minorities living in Turkey."

His Holiness continued, stating that as many countries have recognized the Genocide of the Armenians, so too must Turkey recognize the Genocide, for which there exists no need for deliberations.

Regarding the protests that had been organized in Istanbul during his visit, noting that the Turkish authorities characterized them as the "actions of extremist groups", His Holiness emphasized that in no way did they diminish his impressions from the trip. Due to the unprecedented security measures which were implemented, they did not obstruct the activities of the Pontifical Visit and generally remained unnoticed by the delegation.

Just before daybreak in Holy Etchmiadzin, as His Holiness concluded his remarks, he once again expressed his appreciation to the Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople and the faithful people of Istanbul for the warm reception, and offered his prayers for the stability and vibrancy of the Armenian Patriarchate. The Pontiff of All Armenians also warmly expressed his thanks to all those present who had waited all night long to greet him upon his return to Armenia.

Noyan Tapan
Armenians Today Jun 28 2006

ETCHMIADZIN, JUNE 28, NOYAN TAPAN - ARMENIANS TODAY

---

Re: Patriarch Mesrob Not Agree with Karekin / Onc...

Patriarch Mesrop has no choice but to play to the Turkish tune. He lives in
Turkey and the world know what happens if you do not play the official
tune..it becomes right away "denigrating Turkishness"....

Come of it Turks...have you not heard the sword of Democleses??????When are
you going to stop fooling yourselves?????

by Macreau

Read Full Post !

821) Once upon a time: Diplomatic War About Genocide

On the distant matter of Turkey and Armenia there must be some sympathy for the anguish of Bill Graham when he was Canada's foreign minister two years ago. At the time, Canada's parliamentarians were debating whether the mass slaughter of Armenians by Turkey between 1915 and 1923 could legitimately be called genocide.

The Liberal government of the day, like every government for decades before, was trying to duck a decision on the question. As Parliament debated the issue and the minority government wriggled like a worm on a hook, Graham said plaintively, "We'd like our Armenian friends and our Turkish friends to put these issues in the past."

French President Jacques Chirac and his Armenian counterpart, Robert Kocharian, at a ceremony in Paris last spring deploring the mass slaughter of Christian Armenians by Turkish authorities in the years following 1915. France is leading the fight for Turkey to publicly atone for the atrocity, and Canada now appears to be adding its voice to the fray.

In other words, please don't make us take sides. Let's just all be friends together. How forlorn! How Canadian!

But almost a century after that terrible slaughter, there remains an uncomfortable immediacy. The Turkish government has just recalled its ambassadors to Canada and France over it.

France has offended Turkey by introducing a bill that would make the denial of the Armenian genocide a crime.

In Canada's case, the complaint was that Prime Minister Stephen Harper last month recalled that both the Senate and the House of Commons had adopted resolutions recognizing the slaughter as genocide: "I and my party supported those resolutions and continue to recognize them today."

Does it matter what you call mass slaughter?

In France, parliamentary recognition of the genocide dates back eight years. One difference between France and Canada on the question is that France has an Armenian population of about 300,000. Canada's Armenian population is just 40,000, although individuals like film director Atom Egoyan have given Canadian Armenians an unmistakable visibility.

The Turkish government said the recall of the ambassadors would be for only a short time, yet there could still be serious economic repercussions. Turkey cancelled a multimillion-dollar arms deal with France in 2001, although economic relations appear to have returned to normal in recent years.

Canada has not yet suffered anything more than harsh words from Ankara, but there has been speculation in Turkish newspapers that Canada will be – or perhaps has been – excluded from the bidding to build a nuclear power plant in the Black Sea town of Sinop.

Of the two countries, it is France about which Turkey must be more uneasy. France is one of the most powerful voices in the European Union, which Turkey is desperately eager to join. And former French foreign minister Michel Barnier suggested that Turkish admission to the EU might be conditional on its acknowledgment of the genocide.

"This is an issue that we will raise during the negotiation process," Barnier said. "We will have about 10 years to do so and the Turks will have about 10 years to ponder their answer."

Putting pressure on Turkey

There is a temptation to believe that a dispute about a word is really not much more than a dispute about a word, and that both countries have locked themselves into a position from which they cannot extricate themselves with any dignity.

Everyone agrees that there was a terrible slaughter; what is at issue is the magnitude of the slaughter and the name to apply to it.

The Turks acknowledge that perhaps 300,000 Armenians, as well as many Turks, died as a result of civil disturbances involving the Christian Armenians, who had always lived in Turkey as second-class citizens.

The Armenians say that as a result of a deliberate campaign of genocide, 1.5 million men, women and children were killed or starved to death, and thousands of others were deported.

Historians tend to side with the Armenians. There have even been a few Turkish historians who have called on their fellow citizens to consider the Armenian case, but those are isolated voices in a defiant land.

The United States, Britain, Israel, Georgia and Ukraine do not use the word genocide about the Armenians. But in addition to France and Canada, a score of European and Latin American countries have officially recognized it as such.

It was Barnier, the former French foreign minister, who cast the dispute in a much broader perspective. The parallel he drew was that of the reconciliation of Germany and France after they had fought three unimaginably terrible wars in less than a century:

"If, as I think, the core idea of Europe's project is that all its members should reconcile one with another – like France and Germany, which have put reconciliation at the centre of their project – and that each member state should reconcile with its own past, then I believe that when the time comes Turkey, too, will have to come to terms with its own past and history, and recognize this tragedy."

May 2006,
Resource : CBC News

Read Full Post !

820) Genocide: A Crime Lost In Definition

Amid signs of progress in Darfur, a place United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan called "little short of hell on earth," many have wondered why the international community failed to prevent the atrocity. Ever since the Holocaust, the phrase "never again" has emerged as a rallying cry to prevent such tragedies. However, it has also become a hypocritical slogan, a ritualistic phrase marking the passing of yet another genocide: never again the Khmer Rouge's obliteration of Cambodian society; never again the Rwandan genocide; never again the Srebrenica massacre. Without doubt, future recollections of the genocide in Darfur will be accompanied by the now-familiar "never again!"

In the 60 years since the Holocaust, the international legal system has failed to prevent the recurrence of genocide. That's why the system must be amended, because the UN's definition of the crime is so narrow and elusive that it makes prevention of genocide virtually impossible. The focus on proving "genocidal intent" and the definition's failure to cover certain groups of individuals have robbed it of efficacy, allowing governments to sit on the sidelines while genocide is committed. A new treaty calling for the prevention of other grave international crimes must be drafted to ensure that genocide is not repeated in the future.

"Genocide" is a relative newcomer to the English lexicon. Coined by Raphael Lemkin after World War II, the term was shaped as a response to the horrors of the Holocaust. It assumed legal form in the 1948 Genocide Convention, which declares that all UN states are required to "prevent and punish" the crime, defined as actions committed "with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such."

However, there are substantial weaknesses in this legal definition. First of all, the Genocide Convention does not cover all groups of victims. From 1975-1979, the Khmer Rouge killed over a million Cambodian citizens. However, as the victims did not constitute a distinct racial, ethnic, national, or religious group, they were not protected by the convention. Similarly, in Indonesia, President Suharto's persecution of hundreds of thousands of communists also fell outside genocide's ambit. Other large-scale persecutions may be legally ignored in the future because the victims had the misfortune of belonging to the "wrong" category.

Second, the crime requires that there exist a "special intent" to destroy the targeted group. It is arguable that such a special intent is what makes genocide the "crime of crimes," akin to the distinction, let's say, between murder and manslaughter. Murder is still murder, whether committed in the name of racial hatred, financial gain, or personal differences. In the eyes of the victims the different shades of intent are completely irrelevant. In addition, it is the near-impossibility of proving intent that has allowed governments to deny that genocide has occurred.

States throughout the world have repeatedly used semantic acrobatics when it comes to genocidal intent, to better avoid their own responsibility for preventing genocide. For example, in the mid-1990s governments described atrocities in the former Yugoslavia as "ethnic cleansing," not genocide. In 1994, the U.S. State Department referred to the slaughter of 800,000 Tutsi and moderate Hutus in Rwanda as "acts of genocide," rather than genocide per se.

http://www.dailystar.com.lb

In 2004, U.S. President George W. Bush declared that the atrocities in Darfur constituted genocide, the first time in the UN's history that a member state accused another of committing the crime. However, a UN-appointed group of experts responded that the uncertainty over criminal intent made it impossible to know whether it was genocide until the crimes had been completed. This lay bare the Catch-22 of the Genocide Convention: Proving intent effectively meant allowing the killing to continue to ensure the definition was met. In effect, the experts were absurdly arguing that an autopsy was required to prescribe the cure.

These loopholes can be eliminated by passing a UN convention calling for the "prevention and punishment" of crimes against humanity, an equally odious but often ignored crime. Legally, crimes against humanity require that there be proof of "widespread or systematic" attacks directed against "any civilian population" with "knowledge of the attack." These requirements are both easier to identify and more relevant than those in the Genocide Convention. By identifying "any civilian population," certain groups are not singled out for protection while others are ignored. "Knowledge of the attack" means there is no need to delve into the killers' motives.

Today, there is no international convention or treaty outlawing crimes against humanity. The crime exists only in the statutes of various international criminal courts, such as those for Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia, Sierra Leone, and the International Criminal Court. Nonetheless, crimes against humanity are currently outlawed in all countries of the world. Such a treaty, therefore, would more firmly reiterate the obligation of states to punish and prevent that which they already accept as a crime.

There will no doubt be opposition to any change in the corridors of the UN, where it would hit up against states wanting a wide berth to defend their national interests. Nonetheless, a new treaty should be pursued to remove the existing pretense for inaction. In this way, governments would have one less excuse for averting their eyes and allowing crimes against humanity to be committed with impunity. Perhaps, then, "never again" would cease to be an empty catchphrase and regain a meaning it has tragically lost.

May 2006,
Resource : Daily Star

Read Full Post !

819) Stopping Genocide - Taking The Lead Or Muddling Through?

Governments have a lot of options at their disposal to stop mass atrocities, so why don't they always use them? As the global community mulls critical decisions about the situation in Darfur, Sudan, OneWorld presents a special series from its treeless magazine, Perspectives, which offers more background and context on issues related to stopping and preventing conflict and genocide. The magazine also presents viewpoints from non-profit organizations and ways for individuals to get involved. For the whole edition, check out Perspectives magazine in the Related Links box to the left.

Stopping Genocide - Taking the Lead or Muddling Through?

"The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant and so devastating, that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored, because it cannot survive their being repeated." - Robert Jackson, Nuremberg Trials Chief Prosecutor

The incidents of mass atrocities we see on the nightly news--are they genocide? When large groups are being murdered or driven to physical destruction because of their race or religion, how could it not be? But while some say it is, others say no. Should it matter?

In fact, the debate over when to define such incidents as "genocide" would fill volumes. Today, so much time is often spent discussing whether to call something "genocide," that valuable time is lost addressing the conflict itself. Witness the murder of some 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus in Rwanda in the space of around 6 weeks in 1994 while the international community tried to decide whether genocide was really taking place and what to do about it. Although much soul searching has since taken place at the United Nations on why the international community was not able to prevent this atrocity--or the one in the Bosnian town of Srebrenica a year later--many assert that it is still happening in 2006 in western Sudan, or is at risk of occurring in places like Cote d'Ivoire.

Historical Roots

Raphael Lemkin, a Polish-born jurist who served as an adviser to the U.S. Department of War during World War II, first coined the term "genocide" and defined it as "the criminal intent to destroy or to cripple permanently a human group." Many would argue that genocide is not a new phenomenon and has been practiced for centuries. According to the Encylopedia Brittanica, for example, it was common in ancient times for victors in war to massacre all the men of a conquered population.

It was only about 60 years ago, however, that the UN General Assembly made the crime of genocide punishable under international law. The shock of Nazi Germany's mass extinction of some 6 million Jews and millions more Poles and Soviet prisoners during World War II led to the Nuremberg Trials from 1945-1949 in which Nazi war criminals were charged with "crimes against humanity."

Although some criticized these trials because the war's winning powers took on the role of judge and prosecutor, they nonetheless set precedents for holding individuals--not just states--accountable for heinous crimes. And they gave momentum to the effort to codify laws to combat genocide.

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide entered into force a few years later in 1951. Genocide is defined in this Convention as "the intentional physical destruction of groups in whole or in part." For these purposes, "groups" can be defined by their national, ethnic, racial, or religious characteristics. Despite some inherent flaws in the Convention--like its lack of enforcement provisions--it has nonetheless helped to establish a body of customary international law against such extreme abuses. As signatories, 137 states have acknowledged a clear moral and legal obligation to prevent and punish genocide.

When Is It "Genocide"?

Perpetrators of mass atrocities will often claim that they have not committed genocide because there was no specific "intent" to annihilate a group, but that these victims were simply casualties of war, or a threat to national order. Many Turks would not agree, for example, that the massacres of Armenians in 1915-16 constituted genocide; the former Iraqi regime under Saddam Hussein would not agree that its use of chemical warfare against the Kurds in the 1980s was genocide; nor would the Bosnian Serb Army Commander Ratko Mladic and his supporters agree that the 1995 massacre of thousands of Muslim men and boys in the town of Srebrenica was genocide.

Human rights organizations, in contrast, have generally disagreed with these assessments, have brought attention to the abuses taking place, and have tried to ensure that perpetrators are not able to commit such crimes with impunity--through their support of institutions like the new International Criminal Court in The Hague, for example.

There is still significant debate today about whether to call the killing of an estimated 200-400,000 civilians in Sudan's Darfur region "genocide." Allegedly government-supported militias (the Janjaweed) are carrying out these atrocities, but the Sudanese government claims these militias are not an instrument of their policy. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) like Africa Action, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch--just to name a few--claim, in contrast, that the Sudanese government and its allied Arab militia are implementing a strategy of ethnic-based murder, rape, torture, and forcible displacement of civilians in Darfur.

Contrary to the position of many other member states at the UN that are only willing to call it a "humanitarian crisis," the conflict in the Sudan is one of the few that the U.S. government has--at least at one time--been willing to label "genocide." Using this term implies an obligation to take action to protect civilians, but such action by the U.S. on Sudan remains inadequate, say many NGOs.

NGOs and others assert, however, that it is important not to get bogged down in the debate over whether to call something "genocide." As Juan Mendez, the UN Special Adviser on Genocide Prevention, stated in February 2006, "Many times the debate about whether something is genocide or not has substituted for the decision to act to prevent it, and that is a paralyzing, very sterile debate." What is more vital, adds UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, is that the perpetrators of the violence are held accountable so that "such grave crimes, whatever they may be called, cannot be committed with impunity."

Peacekeeping Revisited

Many of those working in international organizations or with civil society groups have long suggested that rapidly deployable--and more effective--peacekeeping operations would go a long way to helping to stop mass atrocities such as genocide. The key term in this phrase is "rapid." With rare exceptions like the UN Operation in the Congo in 1960, it usually takes several months to put forces on the ground from the time the UN Security Council decides to establish a peacekeeping mission. Denmark, the Netherlands, and Canada have been at the forefront of proposing "high readiness brigades" that could move into an area much more quickly to both secure the peace and prevent atrocities.

Since 2000, such a State of High Readiness Brigade (SHIRBRIG) has come into existence, but deployments focus more on the peaceful settlement of disputes than on taking robust action. Sensitivities about command and control arrangements, training problems with multinational forces, and a lack of willingness to foot the bill have hampered progress to date. United Nations member states are often concerned about any initiative that may be perceived to infringe on their national sovereignty; hence, there are many political hurdles to overcome before forces can be dispatched.

But views about peace operations have also gradually been changing. A report released by the U.S. Institute of Peace in June 2005, for example, noted that a fundamental shift is underway in UN peacekeeping. More robust methods are being used to protect civilians and go after those who are considered "spoilers" of peace agreements, notes the report, which also calls for the creation of a rapid reaction force. A Christian Science Monitor article on the report's release notes that UN peacekeepers are getting a stronger mandate and are "pushing the boundaries of impartiality in an effort to restore lost credibility" after a string of failures in the 1990s.

While the UN has prided itself on being an impartial body, there have been growing questions about the appropriateness of maintaining neutrality in all circumstances. As a UN peace operations panel noted in their Brahimi Report released in 2000, "No failure did more to damage the standing and credibility of United Nations peacekeeping in the 1990s than its reluctance to distinguish victim from aggressor." The Brahimi report was a catalyst for changing UN thinking on these values.

The Duty to Protect

In commenting on the massacre in Srebrenica, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan noted that a "deliberate attempt to terrorize, expel or murder an entire people must be met decisively with all necessary means." These means can include a variety of political carrots and sticks, public condemnation, economic sanctions, or, as a last resort, some form of military intervention.

While some NGOs, like the American Friends Service Committee, advocate a nonviolent approach to such conflicts, others believe that military--or at least policing--solutions may sometimes be necessary. Refugees International has recommended to the U.S. government, for example, that it should prepare "for the necessity of taking a hard line against perpetrators of genocide."

This stance underlies a growing recognition in international circles that there is "a responsibility to protect" civilians from terrible atrocity crimes. An independent International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty--established by the Canadian government in 2000--tried to forge a consensus on these ideas. They also proposed clear guidelines to ensure that interventions--military or otherwise--were not politically motivated. Among others, crimes have to be widespread and systematic to warrant intervention, said their report.

Although international law has traditionally supported a "hands off" policy regarding a state's domestic affairs--and states continue to accept few limits on their perceived national sovereignty--humanitarian intervention has occasionally been justified in exceptional circumstances, such as interventions in Somalia and Kosovo. Human rights law has also evolved a great deal over the past 50 years, with far more attention paid to protecting individuals from violations committed by erring governments.

And, as International Crisis Group President Gareth Evans noted in August 2004, "There has been an increased willingness to challenge the 'culture of impunity' through new international criminal courts," a "greatly increased reliance on peacemaking initiatives and negotiated peace agreements," an "equally dramatic increase in complex peace operations focusing on post-conflict peace building," and "a significantly greater Security Council willingness to authorize the use of force, which has helped deter aggression and sustain peace agreements."

He adds that these efforts have made a difference and that, contrary to conventional wisdom, the number of people killed each year in violent armed conflicts has significantly declined from a high point in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

Calling All Leaders

Governments have a lot of options at their disposal to step in to stop mass atrocities, including drawing from a range of political, legal, economic, and military sanctions. The reality is, however, that they are not always willing to employ these options in deference to their own perceived interests. Absence of political will and resolve among UN member states, combined with a lack of effective and centralized enforcement, has generally been a recipe for inaction. Responses usually end up being very ad-hoc in nature--or, in the words of some commentators, the international community simply "muddles through."

Speaking at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in 2004, Samantha Power, author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning book A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide, offered several prescriptions for addressing genocide more effectively. Among these were avoiding the semantic debate, for governments to apply a much broader range of options from the policy toolbox, equipping decision makers to see the human faces involved, and to have more of a conversation across borders about alleviating such tragedies.

In reference to the role of citizens, she added "for the most part, we haven't succeeded in convincing our policy makers and our politicians that they would pay a political price for being a bystander to genocide....A non-response to genocide doesn't occur in a vacuum. A non-response is affirmed by societal silence. It becomes an excuse. It is the excuse that political leaders point to."

May 2006, Resource : U.S. One World

Read Full Post !

818) Armenian-Turkish Marriages & their results

Caroline was born in 1982 in Istanbul. She received her primary education in the Central Armenian National college of Istanbul, and then entered the faculty of Art History at Istanbul University named by Mimar Sinan.

Now she is a third-year student and at the same time works as an interpeter/guide in Turkish historical sights and museums.

The wish of having conversation with Caroline was big because her mother is Turkish and father is Armenian, and I think her essence has been penetrated with the two nations ways of life and well-known contradictions. So, carrying positive and negative peculiarities of two nations she can judge about situation in Turkey in a healthier way.

She asked not to mention her surname, in order to express her thoughts easier.

A.O. - What nation you think you belong to?

C. - I am Armenian in fact, because my father is Armenian. Concerning to my proper feelings, I am Armenian, but may be it is because of my living in Turkey... that is something keeps telling me – I am a stranger. If I lived in Armenia, may be I’d feel as a Turk...

A.O. – What reminds you your being Armenian.

C. – Not so much my being an Armenian, but not being a Turk. First of all - my name: every time it sounds I face the same questions - where I am from, how I studied Turkish so well.

A.O. – You mean that they don’t know about Armenians in Turkey?

C. – Of course, they don’t. They don’t know not only about Armenians, but all other minorities as well.

Imagine, even my mother’s relatives think that my father is from Armenia. They consider Armenia to be our native land. It is another question which my native land is. Only I can decide it. But it would be better to count us within those whose native land is Turkey, because we are the citizens of this country and we have a history of hundred years in this land.

A.O. – Would you tell us about your impressions being an offspring of two different nations?

C. – I can say that the first years in the school were the most difficult. I attended Armenian College and I remember that I had difficulties with Armenian language because my mother didn’t know Armenian and there was nobody to help me.

Now I think it wasn’t so hard comparatively with others. We had both Armenian and Turkish relatives, who always blamed my parents…For example my mother was blamed for marriage with Armenian by her relatives, and my father was blamed, too. And finally they decide that the most painful result of the marriage is me, a person, who doesn’t know her national belonging.

A.O. – Who are your friends? Are they mainly Armenians or Turks?

C. – Now my friends are mostly Turks, because I study and work. It isn’t due to one of my parents’ national belonging. It’s the same for all of my Armenian coevals.

How do your Turkish friends treat you? Do the political events influence your relations?

C. – Generally their attitude is normal, as everybody chooses persons like himself. For example, most of my friends are aware of Armenian Genocide and they wish Armenian-Turkish relations and conditions of Armenians in Turkey to become better.

Of course, there are a lot of unconcerned people, who ask me: “Are you from Armenia?” I always get angry, but I realize that it isn’t their fault, either they aren’t informed, or it is the influence of state policy on their psychology and mentality. We can only blame the national, state policy.

A.O. – Let’s speak a little bit about your personal life. Do you pay attention to the national belonging when choosing boyfriends? And what about the marriage?

C. – To tell the truth, the nationality is not so important for me. I have had both Armenian and Turkish boyfriends and I loved them. As I mentioned everybody chooses people thinking like him, and it doesn’t matter what nation they belong to.

As you know there are a great number of Armenians in our community who don’t worry about questions concerning Armenians or Armenia. They don’t speak Armenian, they are against attending Armenian College. They have traveled all over Europe but don’t want to listen about Armenia.

So I make a conclusion: It’s better to get married with a person of another nation, who respects my culture and way of life than with such an Armenian, who doesn’t care about his nation.

By Alin Ozinian
Istanbul

http://www.newneighbors.am/news.php?cont=3&rg=2&date=29.03.2006&month=4&year=2006

Read Full Post !

817) Genocide Survivors

A genocide philosopher asked the following question: Is there a difference between the psychological state of a massacre survivor and that of a genocide survivor? His answer to that question is that genocide survivors are likely to feel they don't deserve to live. This is because fellow members of their race have been destroyed for being “inferior.” They probably failed to defend themselves adequately because they, too, may have come to see themselves as inferior. Massacre survivors, on the other hand, retain the ability to . . be normal human beings -- something they need to put their lives back together -- despite the defeat they have suffered and the correspondingly great material and moral losses that it entails.

The “intent to destroy” a certain group plays a central role in the crime of genocide. How such a terrible intention can come to dominate people's minds and souls is a phenomenon that even science finds hard to explain.

A given group may start killing the members of another group for a variety of reasons. One side may be waging a struggle for independence and the other side may be trying to stop it; the stronger side may opt for ethnic cleansing, subjecting the other side to massacre and driving them out of a certain geographic area as a result. Similarly, large numbers of innocent people may die when members of two different religions or sects enter into a struggle for dominance. Such struggles would be based on a strategic, political or religious reason and both sides would be responsible for the resulting deaths, though in different degrees. The killing of civilians in this context constitutes a “crime against humanity.” That is a crime with some sort of “justification.”

Yet, Nazi Germany destroyed Jews merely because they were Jews. The Jews had not entered into any kind of strategic, political or religious struggle with the Germans. In fact, there had been no struggle at all. From this perspective, the victims were entirely innocent. The Nazis and their collaborators destroyed the Jews on the grounds that they had to rid Germany and the rest of the world of an “inferior race.” Therefore, genocide is the crime of one group destroying another group without any “justification” or, to put it differently, with motivations that are entirely irrational. This is what constitutes genocide according to Article 2 of the Genocide Convention.

The convention defines genocide on the basis of a specific case, the Holocaust. It does not consider any other kind of massacre to be genocide. This definition is of utmost importance. Social scientists would be scientifically discrediting themselves if they failed to grasp the profound difference between “crimes against humanity” and “genocide” and proceeded to engage in studies of genocide that focus on crimes that do not come under the scope of the judicial definition of genocide. The only thing for social scientists to do is analyze anti-Semitism and other malignant types of racism that create the almost unfathomable “intent” to destroy a group. However, those who are the product of a racist culture themselves tend to adopt a defensive attitude, trying to expand the scope of the genocide concept. They have a tendency to look for genocide in every case of massacre.

What exists at the root of racism is the irrational drive to demonize the target group. Throughout history, racial hatred of such intensity has not been seen among the Muslims in general and the Turks and Ottomans in particular.

But Western Europe, which defeated the Ottomans, produced serious cases of racism such as anti-Semitism, the Inquisition, witch hunts, colonialism, slavery and scientific racism in medieval times and up to the 19th century. Great philosophers of the Enlightenment like Hegel and Kant legitimized that racism.

Western Europe felt a profound racial hatred against the Ottomans as well. In this context, it considered Turks the source of all evil, backwardness and barbarity. This inspired the Balkan Christians and the Armenians to look down on the Turks. Hardly anyone displayed an interest in the Turks that were being killed or exiled during that process. Therefore, the collapse of the Ottoman state took on a genocidal feature rather than being the outcome of an ordinary political/military struggle.

It is probably because of this reason that we are in a psychological state that is similar to that of other genocide survivors even though we won the War of Independence and founded our own republic. It is as if we lack the spirit to stand tall. We tend to blame ourselves for everything. We are oversensitive to criticism coming from the West and we seem to be hoping for “salvation” by way of “correcting” ourselves according to that criticism.

Those Turks that champion the “Armenian genocide” argument in our day are, in fact, embracing the racism of Europe, taking a racist line against their own society as the “native intellectuals” described by Fanon.

Gündüz AKTAN, Retired Ambassador

Source: IKSAREN

Read Full Post !

816) Turkey-Armenia Border Gates

Total length of Turkey-Armenia border, starting from border stone no. 4 and ending at border stone no. 148, is 325 km. There are 2 closed border gates on this line: “Alican Border Gate” on road and “Akyaka Border Gate” on rail. “Alican Border Gate” is located in Alican village of Iğdır province, a former district of Kars. “Akyaka Border Gate” is located in Akyaka district of Kars. Ancient name of Akyaka, which was previously a sub-district of Arpaçay, was Kızılçakçak. Therefore, former name of “Akyaka Border Gate” was “Kızılçakçak Border Gate”. This gate, 66 km from Kars, is locally known as “Doğu Kapı” (Eastern Gate) among Turkish people. And Armenians call it as “Ahuryan Gate”. Railway on the gate is accompanied a village byroad as well.

European Union (EU) regards the closed border gates as a barrier before integration of Armenia, covered in its “Wider Europe” policy, into EU. And Armenia, spending effort to increase pressure on Turkey, claims that the closed border gates cause financial constraints in its country. According to data of Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA), Turkish-Azerbaijani embargo on Armenia costs 570-720 million dollars annually to Armenian economy. If the gates are opened, transport costs of Armenia will be reduced by 30-50%, export will be doubled and its Gross National Product (GDP) will be increased by 30-38%. And according to World Bank data, if the gates are opened Armenia will achieve a transport saving of 6.4-8.4 million dollars, energy saving of 45 million dollars and export will be increased by 268.9 – 342.4 million dollars. As such, total benefit of opening of these border gates will be around 320-395.8 million dollars. Armenia alleges that opening of the gates will be a diplomatic stroke for Azerbaijan and that it will achieve a political success in Karabakh issue. On the other hand, Armenia will become a hub for transport between Turkey, Azerbaijan and Central Asia. Movement of goods via Black Sea ports, roads and railways of Turkey will ensure the integration of Armenia into Europe.

Following the war between Azerbaijan and Armenia until 1994, 40.000 people in Nagorno-Karabakh, invaded by Armenia, and 700.000 people from other 7 provinces was displaced. Consequently, 13% of Azerbaijani population had to be immigrants in their own countries due to Armenia, having occupied 20% of Azerbaijani territories. In this vein, Turkey closed its Armenian border gates in April, 1993 and its air space in 1994. However, it is not true to perceive the matter of opening the border gates between Turkey and Armenia just in the context of Nagorno-Karabakh issue. Armenia brings forward that opening of the gates will also be in interest of Turkey and also started a discussion by claiming that in certain periods after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Treaty of Gumru signed in 1920 and Treaty of Kars signed in 1921, which are defining the borders between Turkey and Armenia, were not into effect. However, Armenian Parliament, advocating Hai Tahd (The Armenian Cause) ideology, inserted in Article 11 of its Declaration of Independence, adopted in August 23rd, 1990, the statement of “Eastern Armenia” for Eastern Anatolia Region of Turkey. Furthermore, in the state emblem, described in Paragraph 2 of Article 13 of Armenian Constitution, Mount Ararat, a territory of Turkey, is depicted.

Unlike these approaches of Armenia, Turkey supported all initiatives in order for this country to be integrated into the world by being the first country to recognize Armenia in December 16th, 1991 – 2 days before recognition by the USA. Subsequent to recognizing Armenia, Turkey provided humanitarian aid for the country as well. It provided food (wheat etc.) and electricity. It allowed third countries to ship humanitarian aid items transiting its territories. Turkey invited Armenia to Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC), founded in June 25th, 1992, as a founding member. And a permanent representative from Armenia (Arsen Avagyan) under the auspices of BSEC was allowed to be deployed in Istanbul. Turkey also granted permission for Armenian Airlines to schedule flights for Yerevan-Istanbul and Yerevan- Trabzon. In 1995, it opened H-50 air corridor for international air carriers flying to Armenia. Regular bus expeditions are carried out from Black Sea to Armenia by transiting Georgia. Armenia is allowed to use Trabzon port for export and import activities. Difficulties for entry to Turkey were eliminated through a visa regime at the border introduced in January 10th, 2002. Turkey connives at the fact that 30.000 Armenian citizens are unregistered workers in Turkey. Armenian citizens and institutions are furnished with the opportunity to take part in international sports and cultural events (Trabzon Theatre Festival etc.). Turkey is executing trade activities with Armenia on Georgia and Iran. Around 20 companies, established by Turkish and Armenian businessmen, operate in the market. According to unofficial data, it is estimated that foreign trade volume between two countries, which was 30 million dollars in 1997, has reached 200 million dollars.

Armenia’s integration of Armenia into the West and existence in a democratic world can only be possible by establishing good relations with Turkey, a country which is a part of Europe and governed by democracy. For that reason it is time for Armenia to respond positive steps taken by Turkey. Armenia, imposing military occupation on Azerbaijani territories for over 10 years, rejects most of resolutions and all of peace plans offered by United Nations, European Council and Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. Therefore it is still in a de facto “state of war” with Azerbaijan and prolongs its status as “belligerent country”. Although the armistice is respected for years, there is nothing reasonable and convincing in holding Azerbaijan territories of much bigger than Karabakh under military occupation and making its people immigrants in their own country on the grounds of “security” by using Karabakh, subject of conflict, as an excuse. Some western countries desire the opening of the gates not because they favor Armenia but for the sake of attracting votes in their domestic policies. It is not realistic or rational for Armenia to demand handsome gestures from Turkey whilst it keeps using what is sorrowful for all the peoples in the region and existed a century ago against Turkey and Turkish people. Thus, the desired solution will be the reign of common sense and democracy in Armenia and cease of pressure imposed by fanatics on Armenian people.

Hasan KANBOLAT
01 June 2006 - ASAM
Source: IKSAREN

Read Full Post !

815) France Turned Out To Be Collaborator In The Jewish Genocide

Recently a development occurred in France, so that -with fashion term- all of its codes began to be broken down. What is going to happen after this event may put Paris in very tough situation. Turkish public opinion is hearing France voice especially about two matters. The first is due to French support for the Armenian false accusation concerning the genocide. In a full solidarity with Armenians France call upon Turkey that “Everybody should make peace with their history,” as if Turkey is not. Moreover, French Parliament is an assembly which has acknowledged the Armenians’ false accusations. It doesn’t sound strange to France that parliaments pass a judgment on history.


The latter issue which Turkish public opinion is hearing about Paris is the genocide committed by France in Algeria. France refuses to accept the crime in spite of many documents proving the crime and Paris argues that it is necessary “to leave history to historians.” Moreover French Parliament has no attitude or view about the issue.


In the eye of Turkish public, now France is brought up with a new matter and it is again related to a genocide. French state and its railway company were convicted of taking a role in deportation of Jews to the concentration camps and they were sentenced to pay compensation.


France's state-owned railway, the SNCF, said it would appeal a conviction for complicity in crimes against humanity in which it was ordered to pay compensation along with the French government for deporting Jews during the Second World War. The company had been sentenced for same accusations, but each time it had judgments overruled, arguing that it had no choice other than to implement the orders under the German occupation. However, France for the first time was sentenced for “collaboration in crime against humanity.”


In international law, “collaboration in crime against humanity” is a serious crime as “crime against humanity.” Law doesn’t accept any pretext or reasons like “obligations of the conditions” or “orders.”


The railway company first insisted on “time-out.” Later the argument established on the ground that “Vichy government, which was collaborating with Germany, was in power during that time. The matter was so simple for the French state that you can be partner in a crime if the conditions determine obligations and if there are orders. Even it shouldn’t be considered as crime since Vichy was in power!


I wonder if that is possible. Did the conditions in that period of time really give the France state any other choice since we need to evaluate every time in its conditions?


Yet the documents proves the vice versa, moreover the most terrifying fact is that Jean-Marie Le Pen, a French politician, has recently said that “the German-Nazi occupation was not bad and inhuman as it is claimed.”


Clearly saying that it was not so bad that his country passed through a Nazi occupation, “Nationalist” Le Pen added in an interview in RTL, “It is true that the German occupation in France was relatively the least painful. There were some extreme activities but these can be considered as normal in a country with 555.000 kilometers square.”


Le Pen had said that “Gestapo was a police force safeguarding French people.” Moreover “if Germans had committed massacres in France, as it is claimed, they wouldn’t have needed to establish concentration camps.”


The National Front leader, Le pen, blames those who are arguing the contradictory claims of misinforming the public opinion. His statement in 1987 that “Gas rooms are details of history caused a great reaction. He was sentenced for repeating the statement in Munich again in 1987.


Bruno Gollnisch, a representative of the National Front in the European Parliament, addressed the parliament last year and said “historians should prove the existence of gas rooms.” It seems that the National Front thinks that “the matter should be left for historians” as it is the case for the genocide in Algeria.


Le Pen had 18 percent of votes in the 2002 elections. The 79 years old witness of the Jewish genocide will run for the 2007 elections. Public opinion polls indicate that Le Pen will get more votes in 2007 than the elections in 2002.


The situation in France is so. But we need to take a look at the Vichy government, which is blamed by the railway company. However that is not so easy. There are very strict prohibitions in France regarding the Vichy era. France is the country in Europe that has the toughest restrictions on archives. However it is certain that Germans didn’t determine Jews and collect them as easy as in France than anywhere else. France, which call itself as “Grande Nation”, that is to say, “Great Nation”, knows the truths about the said era by courtesy of Kurt Werner Schaechter, who take refugee in France from Austria in 1938. Kurt Werner Schaechter illegally seized 12.000 top secret documents during 1991 and 1992.


The documents lights the way to the Vichy government. The documents, which caused the pressure from prosecutor office over Schaechter, lights the way to the French crimes against Jews in the Vichy era. Schaechter keeps publishing the documents in spite of all the pressures.


According to Schaechter, the Vichy government carried out the state terror with its mechanisms in its land to save the French state. That is to say, the genocide was committed –so or such- in international and inter institutional cooperation between Germany and France.


Schaechter’s mother and father were taken by French police in 1943 and they were killed in Ravenbrück and Sobibor concentration camps.


According to the documents published by Schaechter, there was a competition in this matter between German and French states. French police seized Jews from their homes in Marseille in south France. According to few hundred survivors from the city, the German and French officers were carrying out “the competition for collecting Jews” according to the written agreement between German General Oberg and his French counterpart Bousquet.


The agreement dated August 8, 1942 was determining the task distribution concerning “collecting Jews.” Bousquet said in the court in 1947 that “this agreement and collaboration provided to save sovereignty rights of French state and its permanency.”


According to Schaechter, Albert Sarraut, the interior minister in France then, concerned about public security and carrying out policing services when the German threat grew in 1938. With these concerns, the opponents against Vichy were eliminated and the cooperation started in June 1940.


Then Cheyneau de Leyritz established two concentration camps called “Camp de Noe” and “Camp de Vernet” in Toulouse. Thousands were sent to both camps. The duty of these camps was to make Jews wait until the time for their extermination came in German concentration camps. According to the documents published by Schaechter –but not by France- for example, the records of passengers in the train deporting Jews from France to Auschwitz on May 23, 1944 were taken with great care and attention. According to the records, the citizens of neutral and alliance countries were put into the trains.


Schaechter doesn’t think that the crimes were committed just desire for killing and crimes. According to the documents, Germany was paying good money. The railway company sent 500.000 people to death with at least 780 trips during 1942 and 1944. Only 2500 people survived. France got 200.000 Franks for each trip.


Moreover the properties belong to the Jews, who were sent to death, was reaching a very great deal. René Bousquet, Vichy's chief of the National Police, often demanded the list of confiscated properties to be renewed.


René Bousquet declered to his all police agency in a telegram on September 9, 1942. that all “the seized jewelries, money, money letters and other moveable properties was belong to the state. For example, the chief of Recebedou camp announced with proud that they seized properties worth 848.354 Franks.


The process of “transportation of Jews” and “benefits” continued until the day occupation ended. Vichy and his executioners saw the end in May 1944 and focused on eliminating “the witnesses and documents.”


On 24 May, 1944, the police department in Toulouse began to send the witnesses to the concentration camps. According to the documents, the last transportation was carried out on July 1, 1944. In this trip, about 800 people were transported to the concentration camp in Dachau after a painful journey lasted for 56 days.


Schaechter points out that these transportations were masterpiece of logistics. Because Germany had lost the control over many points on the route but the train continued to take its way. Railway was committed to the orders given in night on August 26, 1944.


It took 12 years after the end of war for French courts to move against Vichy government.


Maurice Papon, who was responsible for what happened in Bordo, was tried, but he was the police chief in Paris during 1958-1961. He was also responsible of killing 300 Algerians and then throwing them to river Seine on October 17, 1961.


Papon was assigned as finance minister after huge protests against the disaster called “the 1961 Paris massacre.” Papon, who had 73 percent of Jews in Bordo be arrested, sent 81 children just on the ground that “they had Jewish origins” to the German gas rooms on August 1942. But nobody touched him or “couldn’t touch him.”


He was sentenced to ten years after a long trial in 1997. During the trial, Papon refused to apologize to the victims and their families and treated the court rudely. At last he was sentenced for being responsible for arresting 1560 people and their deportation as if “the sentence was a crossroad.”


There is another detail about the trial. The prosecutor was supposed to demand life long sentence, but he demanded only 20 years. Papon went to jail in 1999 due to the conviction but he was “forgiven” for “state of health.”


Nobody should think that Papon is a racist, no his closest friend was socialist François Mitterand.


Another event again concerning Vichy era took place in 1993. A man, who was supposed to come with the court notification, phoned René Bousquet, Vichy's chief of the National Police. The calling person gave the date and number of the document without any mistake. After few hours, the right code for the alarm system of Bousquet’s apartment was entered. The person, who had René Bousquet open the door, fired him. Bousquet died and the attacker was seized “in few minutes.” The suspect was tried and he was sent to one of mental hospitals on the ground that he has no criminal capacity. That was the last thing which was heard about him.


It is not known how the suspect, who has no criminal capacity, found the date and number of document and how he entered the codes to the system. In the same frame, it is unknown how police seized the man in few minutes after the murder without knowing features or name of the person.


These question were newer asked to Mitterand, the common friend of both Bousquet and Papon. Maybe they would be asked in the court....


This way René Bousquet, who was tried for what he had done during Vichy’s government and then was acquitted for being “a French patriot” and “saving sovereignty rights of French state and its permanency,” became history.


Let us turn to today again, France’s railway run with its 8.900 workers day and night to send people to the death camps. Since the middle of 90’s Paris has been arguing that there is no continuity between Vichy era and French state after the war. Paris tries to get away with the crime against humanity in this way. However, law proved that the railway company had collaborated in the crime against humanity so there is continuity.


The court proved that the company deported more Jews than “what Germany was demanding” and even “the passengers were transported in wagons for animals even though the government paid for them to have third class trip.”


Arno Klarsfeld is advocate for France's state-owned railway, whose name is sticking out with this trial. His father, Serge Klarsfeld, helped to put many Nazi war criminals in front of court. Arno klarsfeld is an advisor to Nicolas Sarkozy, interior minister in France. As it is well known by readers of Diplomatic Observer, Sarkozy’s another advisor is Patrick Devegian, advocate of terror organisation, ASALA.


Now France lives trough a trouble which it tried to lay for other countries. It didnt make any good to blame other and colloborate in the genocide like they eat snails and also are proud of their kitchen.


France get into tough days with this judgement. France,“colloborator in the crime against humanity”, have to make peace with its history. No doubt that European Union, which is a project of peace and civilisation, and its values will help France in this matter. No doubt Turkey will pull its duties weight in the well deserved way.

http://www.diplomaticobserver.com/news_read.asp?id=1457

Read Full Post !