1573) The Genocide Bill In The Congress

This bill that is titled “Armenian Genocide Resolution”, containing thirty articles, demands (1) the US President to reflect the Armenian incidents as genocide in the foreign policy of the country, and (2) the inclusion of the word “genocide” in the Annual Message of the White House. However, all thirty articles are a combination of the most extreme Armenian opinions entirely. . .

Ms Pelosi has some personal dreams for herself obviously. The votes she has been seeking go through the financial support and field of influence of Armenians. Although this bill displays an embarrassing unilateralism, turning its back on certain historical facts, it is a political necessity for Pelosi to be unfair to Turks for the sake of her own interests.

The US House of Representatives was submitted a bill containing the words “Armenian Genocide” on January 30, 2007. It is really difficult to find such a document that is on one hand filled with unilateralism, mistakes, exaggerations and prejudices, and does not possess even a single reference to the opposing viewpoint, on the other. This should be an embarrassing document even for an underdeveloped country that lacks its share of democracy. Moreover, this takes place in America which during the Cold War ascribed the title of “the leader of the free world” and has undertaken the effort to embellish the globe with the complete version of the same principles presently.

In reality, it is a product of domestic politics, an initiative to pay debts to a strengthened pressure group, an attempt to distract the American people that expect urgent onward steps in vital problems from unemployment and trade unionism to healthcare and education, and an incompetent way of “acting for appearance’s sake”. In this article, I would like to emphasize, though briefly, that the aforesaid bill is good for nothing for the sake of justice.

It has the signatures of 165 representatives, 21 of them being members of the Council of Foreign Relations and the rest of other councils. 25 members of the Council of Foreign Relations and seven Democrat representatives have not signed the initiative and one Republican representative pulled out his signature. House Speaker and the frontrunner of this bill Nancy Pelosi is from California where the Armenian minority is very powerful. This wealthy and influential power circle was able to have an Armenian named George Dokmeciyan elected as governor there and another governor, Ronald Reagan, was able to move to the White House from there. One of the leaders of the monopolist capital who presented Reagan as a candidate for governor defined him as “the US President of near future”.

Several Armenians, both from the past and present, would not approve these remarks. Let alone the Turkish theses, several Western documents, the previous findings of Americans, new British interpretations and the gradual confessions of Armenians have been enough to show that every one of the views, quotations and figures summed up superficially with a couple of lines in these articles have been opposed. Fair individuals and circles should say: “Let alone exaggeration, a lie cannot be this far; we do not approve it!”. For example, “Agos” newspaper has not shown a sign of mercy. The attitude of the Congress remind us the heavy pressure of the foreign circles that forced verdicts in courts in occupied Istanbul after 1918. The ones who expect political gains rather than justice from this attitude can be pleased, but they will sooner or later realize that relying on a foreign circle dependent on a single viewpoint that does not let the Turks express themselves is not a solution.

To sum up with a few words, this bill is an example of primitiveness. One can write a book or even a series of books containing volumes to present the errors, exaggerations, contradictions, deficiencies and lies of this bill. It has already been written by Turkish and foreign persons. For example, I published several, more than seventy to be exact, books or booklets on this subject. Since late last summer five new books of mine have been published, two of them in New York. Should not the ones who have signed this bill have reviewed at least the several English ones of those? Is not there any information and documents in those that make them suspect the accuracy of the remarks within the bill they have signed or occasionally proves the contrary? What an ignorance, irresponsibility, indifference, selfishness, opportunism and enmity! Isn’t such racism more than shame? Isn’t hiding the other side of the medallion to this extent impudence?

As it was the case in the Ottoman era, when Armenian terrorists murdered Priest Leon Tourian in a church in New York, Kapriel Serope Papazian published his book “Reversed Patriotism” in 1934 in Armenian Baikar Publishing House in Boston. “As it has been proved by the figures given by Turkish, Russian and other censuses of the world, we would like to emphasize that there has never been a land where Armenians constituted the majority within the borders of the Ottoman Empire,” states Papazian in his book (p. 74-75). I published an assessment, summarizing Papazian’s book, in different languages in 1985. Didn’t Patriarch Nerses run to the British Ambassador after the Russian Embassy in Istanbul at the end of the Russian-Ottoman War of 1877-78, that ended in our defeat? When he asked for autonomy for “Armenia”, didn’t the British Ambassador tell him (as stated in the FO document 424/68-639 dated March 17, 1897) that they had never constitute the majority there? Didn’t they and we publish this fact several times (so as to let these 165 individuals to read)? Didn’t the document of the French Foreign Ministry, dated November 19, 1918, clearly indicate that “Armenians had not held the majority prior to 1895 in the provinces that hey called ‘Armenia’”? Wasn’t the ratio of Armenians “13 percent at the most” as it was stated in “The Official Gazette” of France on November 4, 1896 and in the Foreign Ministry document dated January 28, 1918? I published these documents in a book written in English that I presented to the Library of the Congress years ago. Isn’t it obligatory to review these before signing a resolution? Haven’t those 165 individuals read American Professor Justin McCarthy’s book titled “Muslims and Minorities”? To whom does it serve not referring to those documents, at least as a second opinion? Not to the truth and solution, obviously.

Thus, do these 165 people and a handful of organized Armenian combatants behind them have the right to demand anything from anybody? There are also ones that have taken a look at the long history of Eastern Anatolia. An Armenian publisher that has not got his share of scientific approach presents Urartu as an ancient Armenian state. The difference between writing history and comedy is so apparent as it is between night and day. The most famous Russian Urartologist B.B. Piotrovsky, whose wife is of Armenian descent, writes that Armenians cannot be regarded as an extension of the Urartus. Russian N.Y. Marr, associates them with not Armenians, but Georgians. In reality, although the state of Urartu disappeared, people have not only mixed with one but all of the locals with their new generations, not solely with Armenians, nor with Georgians. Urartus’ heritage, as bloodline and civilization, can commonly be seen in eastern Anatolia and the Caucasus in particular. While the Urartu language was an extension of Hurris, Armenian belongs to Indo-European language family. The following limited Armenian baronies or states that were sponsored by the Crusaders and thus dependent on foreign powers were of Armenian descent, in the context of the ruling dynasty. Let alone the fact that this ruling community was exceptionally oppressive, the people itself were from diverse races, languages and religions. Spreading this presence over 2500 years and putting the Armenian stamp on it is nothing but eradicating dignity.

Presenting our War of National Independence as “genocide” is reaching the peak of obstinacy. For America, having a war of independence in its short history, this scope is another crudeness and impudence. The following are the remarks of Hovhannes Katchaznuni, the first Prime Minister of the bourgeois Armenian Republic of 1920s, in his book (I published a summary of it in several languages in 1984 and now the whole text has been translated and published): “We should have used a peaceful language against the Turks. We had no idea on their real power; we had faith in ourselves. This was our basic mistake. When the clashes began, Turks proposed to sit and talk. But we didn’t do that and turned our backs at them. Our army was well-fed and well-clothed… We wanted a huge Armenia from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean, from the mountains of Karabakh to the deserts of Arabia. We were drawing borders on paper, dreaming that this would really be given to us. Doubting that was treason… But there is nothing to do now!” Haven’t these 165 individuals seen this important Armenian source? Can “Agos” newspaper accede to publish the whole Turkish translation of it that was published by Kaynak Publications? Thus, all Armenian, Turkish and Kurdish readers would be informed.

The number of entire Ottoman Armenians was slightly less than 1.3 million. There are certain external sources that raise this number a little. The death and even the murder of 1.5 million is out of question. Hasn’t Bogos Nubar, who visited Paris as the Chairman of the Armenian Delegation after the war stated in his official letter to the French Foreign Ministry on December 11, 1918 that 6-700.000 Armenians were relocated and 390.000 of them reached their destinations in detail? We have repeatedly published this Armenian document, as well. He did not claim that around 260.000 individuals, the number in between, were killed. He should know that due to general war conditions, climate, famine and contagious diseases and also several battles, civil wars and armed clashes in which Armenians took part after 1914 several people lost their lives.

Even the so-called Blue Book (p. 664), that was entirely unilateral, prepared and published by Britain so as to completely weaken the Ottomans against which it was fighting in 1916 at least at three different fronts, states that 989.900 of the relocated Armenians reached their destinations, 150.000 of them stayed in their previous residences, therefore 1.150.000 of them have survived. Haven’t those 165 individuals seen this as a different interpretation, make it right or wrong?

According to the very first article of the US bill, “Armenian genocide” covers 1915-23, that is the whole War of National Independence, around two million Armenians were allegedly relocated, 1.5 million of them were murdered, 500.000 of them were displaced and Eastern Anatolia already belonged to them. Let us put aside Turkish and foreign publications for now, there are certain Armenian sources indicating that these theses are entirely incorrect. According to the other articles, Turkish courts acknowledged the Armenian massacres after 1918; all foreign archives have proven the genocide; all prominent states (including Britain) and several others have recognized the presence of this “genocide”; between 1913 and 1916 the US Ambassador to Istanbul Morgenthau, General Harbord and Hitler mentioned this genocide; the United Nations has a resolution in this regard; the subject has entered the Genocide Museum in Washington; it has been referred by the US Congress in its several resolutions and by former Presidents in their annual addresses; and “Armenian genocide” has been internationally recognized. It is just the reflection of the most extreme Armenian views; nothing else.

The matter is not related with what the Armenian or Turkish families had undergone. Both sides involve those who have lost their relatives and suffered pains. However, a drafting and implementation of the state is required when the genocide is concerned. There is not even one document proving this. Moreover, since the Turks had been defeated in the war, none of the murderers of a total of 170,000 people, who had been designated even by the contemporary Britain publication as the ones killed by the Armenians, had been tried. The draft is hiding certain facts by not mentioning any of these realities, and is also involving bare lies. Those who have signed the draft can easily find the official message sent by the British Ambassador to Washington on July 13, 1921 to Minister Lord Curzon, suggesting that “there are no sufficient concrete facts to blame Turks”.

Prof. Heath Lowry has sufficiently proved that Henry Morgenthau, who had been the US Ambassador to Istanbul during 1913-16, would not be a reliable source. In all his publications and activities, there are the influences, interventions, additions, omissions, and even direct writings of the embassy advisors and translators H.S. Andonian and A.K. Shmavonian as well as of Minister R. Lansing and B. Hendrick, the “ghost writer” who had never been to Turkey. Although the USA and the Ottomans did not fight, they were in two separate groups of states, and despite this, Talat Pasha allowed America of that period headed by President W. Wilson to come to Anatolia to help the Armenians, the subject of accusation, and provide assistance to them (just them) with the money collected upon the widespread “Armenian genocide” statements. Is there any other example to this in history?

The Draft also mentions the support of Wilson to the organization for Help to the Near East. However, it does not refer to the report of his representative M. Prentiss which suggests that Izmir was actually burnt by the Armenians (with the participation of the Greeks) in 1922. The original of this report is in Washington and can be provided to 165 signatories as soon as in ten minutes time from the Admiral Bristol documents. I also have a copy of it.

A sentence identified with Hitler has also been used for this purpose for sixty years. This sentence was put onto a board of six meters long which is hung on the wall of the Jewish Holocaust Museum in Washington. The Draft also refers to this. Nevertheless, below it, the following was necessarily added in smaller letters: “According to Louis Lochner from the AP Agency…” A nation is accused because of a word of a journalist. However, there are millions of eyewitnesses of what the Westerners including America had done and are still doing in the three continents.

Most specifically, the statement suggesting that Turks had prepared the stage for the genocide of the Jews by the Nazis makes this draft as embarrassing as never had been before. Anti-Semitism is an illness of the West and Christianity dating back to the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ. There are numerous examples to this in the previous and recent histories of all the Western states. It is so strong that even today the graves of the Jews in places where they do not live anymore are being destroyed. If 165 signatories apply to expert psychologists, they may describe it as an effort to get rid of the feeling of guilty by passing over an illness, from which in fact they suffer, to others. It would be more appropriate for the US Congress to choose a date, on which they had applied genocide to the inhabitants of the New World as a state, instead of “April 24”.

The British experts could not find even just one document to blame the Turks in their long-lasting researches.

In a significant source book published in Britain in 2003 (with the heading “Glossary for World War I”) (p. 34-35) it is written that “while the Turks were preparing for mobilization and marching to Sarikamis, Armenians had already killed 120,000 and then after 1917, they had killed 50,000 others”. It is also stated that “they had revolted in Van in April 1915 along with 2,500 armed men and established a temporary government there”. That was the reason why the relocation had started.

The draft does not involve even a line referring to these facts. It also does not mention the facts that the orders given from Istanbul were related only with the relocation and those who had carried out illegal activities were punished severely by the administration to include executions in 1915 and 1916. The post-war trials in Istanbul make up another case. These trials were realized in the occupied capital under the shadow of the British bayonets.

(…) The Draft prefers not mentioning in any way the Armenian terrorism of the long Ottoman era and the period after 1975. However, the Armenian terrorism is clearly examined with all its negative aspects in the doctorate thesis of Prof. Louise Nalbandian who is an American of Armenian origin, in the above-mentioned book of K.S. Papazian and in many other sources.

The Draft utters the name of certain Western states and advocates that there are many documents in their official archives proving the genocide. However, according to the post-war treaties, the defeated states were to open up their archives to the experts of the defeaters. In fact, they did so. The British, who took a total of 144 Ottoman leading figures starting with the former grand vizier to the Malta Crown Colony in 1919 and put them into jails, took their experts to every Ottoman corner and sustained their intensive research until mid 1921.

When they could not get even one useful document that they would use in a trial, they made an official application to the US administration and were responded that the USA also did not have any documents that would be useful in the trial process. The Turks were released after a long period of arrest. The Draft does not refer to this important development and to the official response of the USA in 1921.

The Draft suggests that the “Armenian genocide” was accepted also by the United Nations. This allegation is a complete lie. The document which I have and the document which came from the office of the UN Secretary General say: “The United Nations has never approved or supported a report which describes the Armenian experience as ‘genocide’”.

In addition, the thesis suggesting that the whole world accepts the “Armenian genocide” is far from reality. 54 independent states of Africa have never taken a decision in line with their demands on this issue. Neither have the Asian countries. Also, the official view of Britain, which they strongly trust, is as follows: “The stance of the Government of the United Kingdom is such that there are not sufficient evidences to require the classification of these incidents as genocide as described in the United Nations Genocide Treaty of 1948.” I have this document, which is printed on the official paper of the British Ministry of Foreign Affairs and bears the signature of the authorized officer.

The Democrats, who have obtained the majority in both of the lower houses of the Congress, are to undergo real exams. First of all, there is the “gap of classes” which is explicitly underlined by Senator Jim Webb from Virginia. The American society had never been divided that much in terms of the revenues of individuals. The selected Democrats must keep their promises, especially those related with this issue. For instance, the minimum wage must be increased, high taxes must be imposed on large oil monopolies, the great gap between the revenues of those who lead special partnerships and of the ordinary employees must be reduced, steps must be taken to make the health services widespread, and measures must be taken to provide large masses with educational opportunities.

Those who are newly elected as well as their parties have not yet made a significant progress in this regard. And most probably, they will not. However, this is what the American people are in fact waiting for. Going back to the time of ninety years ago and signing a document which targets Turks and which they have put into the hands of the Armenian pressure organization in order to create the impression that they protect their rights will neither acquit them nor reduce the contradiction in the American society. It is necessary to make a distinction between pretending to be “heroes” by taking shelter behind a primitive document like the Armenian draft law and venturing to fight with the dominant powers by approving new laws that reflect the justified demands of those voting for them. If the US Congress does not row against the stream, it will only prove that it is a primitive board.

In summary, the draft creates the impression that the report prepared by a handful of Armenians standing at the utmost distance was delivered to the MPs and that the event is a snatching attempt. Is the reason for this ignorance of these 165 signatories their inability to see the facts which reveal the other side of the coin or is the reason for their immorality the fact that they are aware of it but they hide it? Both probably lead to opportunism, injustice and perhaps to adventure. And if this adventure involves pressure, then one should be sure that the Turkish nation will be ready to show reaction.

Turkkaya Ataov
05 April 2007
Cumhuriyet
ERAREN