Unsilencing the Past: Track Two Diplomacy and Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation
(Berghahn Books, David L. Phillips)
The Turkish-Armenian conflict has lasted for nearly a century and still continues in attenuated forms to poison the relationship between these two peoples. The author, Senior Fellow and Deputy Director of the Center for Preventive Action at the Council on Foreign Relations and previously advisor to the United Nations, undertook, as head of the Turkish- Armenian Reconciliation Committee, to bring the two sides together and to work with them towards a peaceful resolution of the enmity that had made any contact between them taboo. His lively account of the difficult negotiations makes fascinating reading; it shows that the newly developed “track-two diplomacy” is an effective tool for reconciling even intractable foes through fostering dialog, contact and cooperation.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
THE BLOOD FEUD GOES ON
THE BLOOD FEUD GOES ON
Turkish News
www.turkishnews.com.tr
December 14, 2001
Had the eminent members of TARC displayed more maturity, wisdom
and courage things might have been different. But this was clearly not
to be Looking at some of the reports emanating from Armenia and the
Armenian community in America and Europe over the past two days...
----------
SEMÝH ÝDÝZ
----------
... it is clear that the hardliners are gloating over the failure of
the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission (TARC). They never
liked this venture anyway and made it very apparent from the
start. For example the Armenian members of TARC came under fire on day
one by the rightwing and ultranationalist Armenian Dashnak Party,
otherwise known as the Revolutionary Federation of Armenia.
Armenian Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian for his part went so far
as to call on the Armenian members to withdraw from the Commission,
openly implying that its continuation was doing harm to the `Armenian
cause.' For the Armenian side TARC was nothing short of `a ploy'
by Turks to divert attention from the disputed Armenian genocide.
It is an objective fact that the Turkish side was far more
level-headed and calmer on this score. There were hardly any vocal
critics of this venture. While the Turkish foreign ministry disowned the
initiative, there can be no doubt that it was following its proceedings
from the corner of its eyes to see where matters would lead.
But neither can it be doubted, given the way things were
developing, that it would not be long before angry voices were raised
against this venture on the Turkish side also. If we just look at the
controversy that raged in Turkey only a few days ago over the Turkish
film `Salkým Haným's Diamonds' we see that many in Turkey have
a long way to go yet before they can look at the past objectively,
maturely and with a sense of human compassion in order to try and
understand what really happened in 1915.
With both sides sticking religiously to their own political
interpretation of these sad events of the past it seems that
Turkish-Armenian reconciliation will have to wait for another time
that is characterized by much more wisdom than we have today. I used
the term `political interpretation' above intentionally because much
of what is said on both sides has little to do with history but a lot
to do with ethnically motivated folkloric memories and an ongoing game
of oneupmanship between the two nations with a view to securing
political, and subsequently legal advantages.
This is in fact what scuttled TARC. Both sides started off by
declaring that seeing as it was clear neither side could sway the other
on the issue of 1915, both sides should work for better understanding
between the two nations regardless of this fact. But it did not take
long for the boat to flounder, mainly because the Armenian members were
put under a cloud of suspicion with charges of betraying the Armenian
cause. There is a belief on the Armenian side that a 30 year campaign --
involving shameless terrorism that left scores of Turkish diplomats dead
-- which aims to have the Armenian genocide recognized is gaining major
ground.
It may be gaining ground in some respects, but there is little
that has changed as far as the Turkish side is concerned. With every
supposed political gain the Armenian side secures the Turkish position
becomes even more hardline. If Armenians believe that Turks can be
browbeaten into accepting their exclusive interpretation of history
because some self-serving Western politicians are backing them, then
they are seriously deluding themselves.
It is of course the prerogative of the Armenians to believe a
systematic genocide was perpetrated against their grandparents by
Ottoman Turks. It is a fact, after all, that hundreds of thousands of
Armenians died in horrible conditions -- along side the millions of
other Anatolians that died in a similar fashion -- during World War One.
By virtue of the same argument however it is also the prerogative
of Turks to reject this interpretation of events. On the other hand,
`legislating history,' as the French Parliament tried to do last
year with its `law' recognizing the alleged Armenian genocide will
change nothing in the end.
Armenians like to reel off the names of historians and
intellectuals who support the genocide thesis. On the other hand they
reject the fact that eminent non-Turkish academics, such as Bernard
Lewis and Justin McCarthy, have tried to put the events of 1915 in
proper perspective, and have forcefully disputed many Armenian claims. I
am not aware however that these men have been declared `bogus
academics' by the independent academic community in the United States
or in the world. To the contrary the stature of Bernard Lewis is growing
by the day given his deep knowledge of the Islamic world in general, and
Turkey in particular. Only a few days ago U.S.News & World Report
carried an extensive portrait on him under the headline `A Sage for
the Age.'
The short of it is that whatever personal assumptions and
prejudices there may be on both sides, the historic verdict is yet to be
given on the events of 1915 for those who are clamoring for a true
understanding of the causal events that led to the overlapping tragedies
of those turbulent years. The matter simply has not been studied
sufficiently by independent sources who bear no allegiance -- emotional
or otherwise -- to either side. Much of what has been written is either
by Turkish or Armenian historians or researchers -- who can hardly be
impartial in a matter like this -- or their sympathizers. The names that
come to mind immediately here are Arnold Toynbee, Israel Charny, Taner
Akçam, Christopher J. Walker, Esat Uras, and Sadi Koçaþ -- to list
but just a few.
But then the Turkish-Armenian dispute today has little to do
with history. It is a typical oriental tale of seeking vengeance,
vindication and retribution. Neither side has attained the social
maturity that would enable them to look together at a bloody past with
a view to drawing the true lessons about man's inhumanity to man. Put
bluntly the blood feud mentality goes on with no sight in end. Had the
eminent members of TARC displayed more maturity, wisdom and courage
things might have been different. But this was clearly not to be.
Turkish News
www.turkishnews.com.tr
December 14, 2001
Had the eminent members of TARC displayed more maturity, wisdom
and courage things might have been different. But this was clearly not
to be Looking at some of the reports emanating from Armenia and the
Armenian community in America and Europe over the past two days...
----------
SEMÝH ÝDÝZ
----------
... it is clear that the hardliners are gloating over the failure of
the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission (TARC). They never
liked this venture anyway and made it very apparent from the
start. For example the Armenian members of TARC came under fire on day
one by the rightwing and ultranationalist Armenian Dashnak Party,
otherwise known as the Revolutionary Federation of Armenia.
Armenian Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian for his part went so far
as to call on the Armenian members to withdraw from the Commission,
openly implying that its continuation was doing harm to the `Armenian
cause.' For the Armenian side TARC was nothing short of `a ploy'
by Turks to divert attention from the disputed Armenian genocide.
It is an objective fact that the Turkish side was far more
level-headed and calmer on this score. There were hardly any vocal
critics of this venture. While the Turkish foreign ministry disowned the
initiative, there can be no doubt that it was following its proceedings
from the corner of its eyes to see where matters would lead.
But neither can it be doubted, given the way things were
developing, that it would not be long before angry voices were raised
against this venture on the Turkish side also. If we just look at the
controversy that raged in Turkey only a few days ago over the Turkish
film `Salkým Haným's Diamonds' we see that many in Turkey have
a long way to go yet before they can look at the past objectively,
maturely and with a sense of human compassion in order to try and
understand what really happened in 1915.
With both sides sticking religiously to their own political
interpretation of these sad events of the past it seems that
Turkish-Armenian reconciliation will have to wait for another time
that is characterized by much more wisdom than we have today. I used
the term `political interpretation' above intentionally because much
of what is said on both sides has little to do with history but a lot
to do with ethnically motivated folkloric memories and an ongoing game
of oneupmanship between the two nations with a view to securing
political, and subsequently legal advantages.
This is in fact what scuttled TARC. Both sides started off by
declaring that seeing as it was clear neither side could sway the other
on the issue of 1915, both sides should work for better understanding
between the two nations regardless of this fact. But it did not take
long for the boat to flounder, mainly because the Armenian members were
put under a cloud of suspicion with charges of betraying the Armenian
cause. There is a belief on the Armenian side that a 30 year campaign --
involving shameless terrorism that left scores of Turkish diplomats dead
-- which aims to have the Armenian genocide recognized is gaining major
ground.
It may be gaining ground in some respects, but there is little
that has changed as far as the Turkish side is concerned. With every
supposed political gain the Armenian side secures the Turkish position
becomes even more hardline. If Armenians believe that Turks can be
browbeaten into accepting their exclusive interpretation of history
because some self-serving Western politicians are backing them, then
they are seriously deluding themselves.
It is of course the prerogative of the Armenians to believe a
systematic genocide was perpetrated against their grandparents by
Ottoman Turks. It is a fact, after all, that hundreds of thousands of
Armenians died in horrible conditions -- along side the millions of
other Anatolians that died in a similar fashion -- during World War One.
By virtue of the same argument however it is also the prerogative
of Turks to reject this interpretation of events. On the other hand,
`legislating history,' as the French Parliament tried to do last
year with its `law' recognizing the alleged Armenian genocide will
change nothing in the end.
Armenians like to reel off the names of historians and
intellectuals who support the genocide thesis. On the other hand they
reject the fact that eminent non-Turkish academics, such as Bernard
Lewis and Justin McCarthy, have tried to put the events of 1915 in
proper perspective, and have forcefully disputed many Armenian claims. I
am not aware however that these men have been declared `bogus
academics' by the independent academic community in the United States
or in the world. To the contrary the stature of Bernard Lewis is growing
by the day given his deep knowledge of the Islamic world in general, and
Turkey in particular. Only a few days ago U.S.News & World Report
carried an extensive portrait on him under the headline `A Sage for
the Age.'
The short of it is that whatever personal assumptions and
prejudices there may be on both sides, the historic verdict is yet to be
given on the events of 1915 for those who are clamoring for a true
understanding of the causal events that led to the overlapping tragedies
of those turbulent years. The matter simply has not been studied
sufficiently by independent sources who bear no allegiance -- emotional
or otherwise -- to either side. Much of what has been written is either
by Turkish or Armenian historians or researchers -- who can hardly be
impartial in a matter like this -- or their sympathizers. The names that
come to mind immediately here are Arnold Toynbee, Israel Charny, Taner
Akçam, Christopher J. Walker, Esat Uras, and Sadi Koçaþ -- to list
but just a few.
But then the Turkish-Armenian dispute today has little to do
with history. It is a typical oriental tale of seeking vengeance,
vindication and retribution. Neither side has attained the social
maturity that would enable them to look together at a bloody past with
a view to drawing the true lessons about man's inhumanity to man. Put
bluntly the blood feud mentality goes on with no sight in end. Had the
eminent members of TARC displayed more maturity, wisdom and courage
things might have been different. But this was clearly not to be.
[Reconciliation] Why is it impossible?
Turkish Daily News
Jan 9 2002
Why is it impossible?
BY GUNDUZ AKTAN, ANKARA - TURKISH DAILY NEWS
Criticizing Armenians who had joined the Turco-Armenian
Reconciliation Commission (TARC), the Dashnak Party (ARF) and the ANC
stated that they were against any dialogue with Turkey unless the
latter recognized the Armenian genocide. They say major breakthroughs
have been made for the recognition of the genocide in French, Italian
and European Parliaments,but not in the U.S. House of
Representatives, which declined to recognize the genocide at the last
minute. But the ARF and ANC claimed with a little persuasion the
entire world would recognize it and Armenia would negotiate from a
position of strength with Turkey the land and compensation questions.
However, they felt that TARC has prevented these developments.
Since moderate Armenians, under the influence of these opinions,
failed to support TARC, it is necessary to reiterate what those who
represent the general line of the Turkish public opinion can accept
or reject regarding the genocide allegation.
Many Turkish experts have repeatedly stated the 1915-1916 events were
a tragedy. They noted that the number of Armenians who died during
these events, varied from 200,000 to 600,000. The Armenians lost
their houses, jobs, monuments, and lands which they called homeland.
Families were dispersed, wealth destroyed. It is easier than
generally expected for the Turks, 30-40 percent of whom immigrated
from the Balkans, to feel empathy for the Armenians.
However, there are also things that the Turkish people can never
forget:
Isn't known that the Armenians rebelled many times since the 1860s
for independence under the pretext of reforms and autonomy, as did
the Balkan Christians. They established the Hunchak and Dashnak
organizations to this end. They massacred civilian Turks by a form of
violence which is defined today as terrorism. Thus they provoked the
Turks to kill in return the Armenian civilians in order to urge big
powers to intervene on their behalf. Not only the Turks but also the
Armenians said and wrote these facts.
Since 1830, Russia transferred the Armenians from Anatolia and Iran
to the Caucasus, while driving away the Turks and Muslims to Anatolia
through ethnic cleansing.
During World War I, Armenian rebels fought in cooperation with the
Russian Army, which invaded Anatolia, in order to gain their
independence. They stabbed the Ottoman armies in the back. Due to the
fact that their population constituted only 16 percent of the total
in the region they called Armenia, the ethnic cleansing they carried
out to become majority was very cruel. Isn't this the historical
truth?
Was not the relocation decision taken for this reason?
The relocation caused much less harm when compared with the ethnic
cleansing carried out by the Russians in the Caucasus and the
Christians in the Balkans by attacking the Turkish civilian masses
with their armies. The highest number of deaths happened among those
who had to flee from the Russian and Ottoman armies in Eastern
Anatolia without having time to take any precautions. In this
respect, isn't it a fact that 1,250,000 Turks and Muslims died in
this region as recorded by German, Armenian and Ottoman sources?
In short, unlike the Jews, the Armenians formed a "political" group
conducting military operations with political aims. Various crime may
also be committed against civilian members of a political group, but
these crimes do not fall within the scope of the Genocide Convention.
Moreover unlike anti-Semites, Turks had never intended to destroy
Armenians because they were Armenians. According to the Convention,
this intention can only be present if there is a racial hatred.
Contrary to the claims of the movie "Ararat," the Turks never hated
Armenians.
Isn't that the reaons why the Armenians try to avoid legal conflict
resolution mechanisms? The holocaust was the verdict reached at the
Nurnberg trials and quite naturally recognized by the world. The
Armenians, ont he other hand, tried hard to convince certain
parliaments to recognize the genocidethrough lobbying activities,
backed up with huge amounts of money or through threatening MPs not
to vote in the electionss. In other words, their efforts get the
recognition of genocide are artificial. Isn't there some differences
between the two cases?
The Dashnaks, who joined the Russians in carrying out ethnic
cleansing against the Turks with their 16 percent of the population,
had in fact the main responsibility for the relocation. The only way
to put the blame of this horrible responsibility on the Turks is
through a genocide claim.
The Turks, 5 million of whom died in the Balkans and the Caucasus due
to ethnic cleansing, and another 5 million were forced to immigrate
to Anatolia, cannot recognize a limited relocation as genocide while
their tragedies are relegated to oblivion. That may be known!
-----------
Copyright 2001, Turkish Daily News. This article is redistributed with
permission for personal use of Groong readers. No part of this article
may be reproduced, further distributed or archived without the prior
permission of the publisher. Contact Turkish Daily News Online at
http://www.TurkishDailyNews.com for details.
-----------
Jan 9 2002
Why is it impossible?
BY GUNDUZ AKTAN, ANKARA - TURKISH DAILY NEWS
Criticizing Armenians who had joined the Turco-Armenian
Reconciliation Commission (TARC), the Dashnak Party (ARF) and the ANC
stated that they were against any dialogue with Turkey unless the
latter recognized the Armenian genocide. They say major breakthroughs
have been made for the recognition of the genocide in French, Italian
and European Parliaments,but not in the U.S. House of
Representatives, which declined to recognize the genocide at the last
minute. But the ARF and ANC claimed with a little persuasion the
entire world would recognize it and Armenia would negotiate from a
position of strength with Turkey the land and compensation questions.
However, they felt that TARC has prevented these developments.
Since moderate Armenians, under the influence of these opinions,
failed to support TARC, it is necessary to reiterate what those who
represent the general line of the Turkish public opinion can accept
or reject regarding the genocide allegation.
Many Turkish experts have repeatedly stated the 1915-1916 events were
a tragedy. They noted that the number of Armenians who died during
these events, varied from 200,000 to 600,000. The Armenians lost
their houses, jobs, monuments, and lands which they called homeland.
Families were dispersed, wealth destroyed. It is easier than
generally expected for the Turks, 30-40 percent of whom immigrated
from the Balkans, to feel empathy for the Armenians.
However, there are also things that the Turkish people can never
forget:
Isn't known that the Armenians rebelled many times since the 1860s
for independence under the pretext of reforms and autonomy, as did
the Balkan Christians. They established the Hunchak and Dashnak
organizations to this end. They massacred civilian Turks by a form of
violence which is defined today as terrorism. Thus they provoked the
Turks to kill in return the Armenian civilians in order to urge big
powers to intervene on their behalf. Not only the Turks but also the
Armenians said and wrote these facts.
Since 1830, Russia transferred the Armenians from Anatolia and Iran
to the Caucasus, while driving away the Turks and Muslims to Anatolia
through ethnic cleansing.
During World War I, Armenian rebels fought in cooperation with the
Russian Army, which invaded Anatolia, in order to gain their
independence. They stabbed the Ottoman armies in the back. Due to the
fact that their population constituted only 16 percent of the total
in the region they called Armenia, the ethnic cleansing they carried
out to become majority was very cruel. Isn't this the historical
truth?
Was not the relocation decision taken for this reason?
The relocation caused much less harm when compared with the ethnic
cleansing carried out by the Russians in the Caucasus and the
Christians in the Balkans by attacking the Turkish civilian masses
with their armies. The highest number of deaths happened among those
who had to flee from the Russian and Ottoman armies in Eastern
Anatolia without having time to take any precautions. In this
respect, isn't it a fact that 1,250,000 Turks and Muslims died in
this region as recorded by German, Armenian and Ottoman sources?
In short, unlike the Jews, the Armenians formed a "political" group
conducting military operations with political aims. Various crime may
also be committed against civilian members of a political group, but
these crimes do not fall within the scope of the Genocide Convention.
Moreover unlike anti-Semites, Turks had never intended to destroy
Armenians because they were Armenians. According to the Convention,
this intention can only be present if there is a racial hatred.
Contrary to the claims of the movie "Ararat," the Turks never hated
Armenians.
Isn't that the reaons why the Armenians try to avoid legal conflict
resolution mechanisms? The holocaust was the verdict reached at the
Nurnberg trials and quite naturally recognized by the world. The
Armenians, ont he other hand, tried hard to convince certain
parliaments to recognize the genocidethrough lobbying activities,
backed up with huge amounts of money or through threatening MPs not
to vote in the electionss. In other words, their efforts get the
recognition of genocide are artificial. Isn't there some differences
between the two cases?
The Dashnaks, who joined the Russians in carrying out ethnic
cleansing against the Turks with their 16 percent of the population,
had in fact the main responsibility for the relocation. The only way
to put the blame of this horrible responsibility on the Turks is
through a genocide claim.
The Turks, 5 million of whom died in the Balkans and the Caucasus due
to ethnic cleansing, and another 5 million were forced to immigrate
to Anatolia, cannot recognize a limited relocation as genocide while
their tragedies are relegated to oblivion. That may be known!
-----------
Copyright 2001, Turkish Daily News. This article is redistributed with
permission for personal use of Groong readers. No part of this article
may be reproduced, further distributed or archived without the prior
permission of the publisher. Contact Turkish Daily News Online at
http://www.TurkishDailyNews.com for details.
-----------
NEWS ANALYSIS: Will Turkish-Armenian dialogue remain as a memory of
Turkish Daily News
Jan 9 2002
NEWS ANALYSIS: Will Turkish-Armenian dialogue remain as a memory of
the year 2001?
BY SAADET ORUC, ANKARA - TURKISH DAILY NEWS
Despite the foreign policy projections of 2001 that Turkey would put
weight on the forming of diplomatic contacts with Armenia (but not
diplomatic relations), the efforts for launching a dialogue between
Yerevan and Ankara have failed.
The dialogue mechanism between the journalists of Turkey, Azerbaijan
and Armenia remain as the sole path for the continuation of the
person-to-person dialogue between the two countries.
The Turkish Armenian Reconciliation Committee (TARC) had to cease its
mission due to a statement from the Armenian side.
TARC's Armenian members had declared that they would not attend the
commission works on Dec. 12.
Armenian members of the TARC, Alexander Arzumanyan, Van Krikoryan,
David Hovenasyon and Andranik Mihranyan, signed a declaration stating
that they would not attend the commission meetings.
The declaration said that their belief in the normalization of ties
between Turkey and Armenia was continuing.
Following the statement made by the Armenian side, the commission,
which was a historical step for the improvement of the ties between
Turkey and Armenia, halted its work.
The TARC process in the year 2001, which was being evaluated as a
product of the resolution processes in western parliaments by a
foreign diplomat involved in Turkish-Armenian relations, has had to
be stopped as the nationalists of the two sides were not involved in
the reconciliation process.
Taking lessons from the past processes, it was stated that all sides
of the societies should be expressing concerns, and everything should
be put on the table, without avoiding discussing the existing
problems between the two states.
Within the framework of Washington's efforts to encourage ties
between Turkey and Armenia, U.S. Ambassador in Yerevan John Ordway
was quoted as saying recently by the Anatolia news agency that the
border between Turkey and Armenia, as well as the one between
Azerbaijan and Armenia, should be opened for the improvement of the
economy of the region.
Michael Lemmon, the former U.S. ambassador in Yerevan, has been
acting as Turkish Ambassador in Yerevan and Armenian Ambassador in
Turkey, with his efforts to help the development of the relationships
between the two states are being considered.
TABDC urges the opening of the border gate
In a press release signed jointly by the Turkish and Armenian
co-chairmen of the Turkish Armenian Business Development Council
(TABDC), hope was expressed for the fifth year of the
Turkish-Armenian dialogue process, and urged the necessity of the
opening of the border gate between Turkey and Armenia.
"For many years, Armenians and Turks of good will have been
advocating the wisdom of cooperation. What has been achieved so far
gives us hope and strength for the future. We believe that there is
still a pressing need to cultivate direct ties and that there is much
room for collaboration," said the statement.
"We are convinced that the two separate processes of diplomatic
rapprochement and civil initiatives must go hand in hand. At the
beginning of the new year we want to stress the need for interstate
relations and intergovernmental communication," it said.
Dialogue and interaction between public organizations and business
associations are a prerequisite for establishing mutual
understanding, handling sensitive issues, and achieving prosperity in
our region, it continued.
"From our five years of experience, we have learned that there is no
obstacle for Turks and Armenians to start talking and collaborating.
The closed border is the only barrier preventing us from intensifying
our business and human relations. A closed border that separates us
makes no sense. We can foresee the great potential benefits to be
realized by Armenia and Turkey," it said.
-----------
Copyright 2001, Turkish Daily News. This article is redistributed with
permission for personal use of Groong readers. No part of this article
may be reproduced, further distributed or archived without the prior
permission of the publisher. Contact Turkish Daily News Online at
http://www.TurkishDailyNews.com for details.
-----------
Jan 9 2002
NEWS ANALYSIS: Will Turkish-Armenian dialogue remain as a memory of
the year 2001?
BY SAADET ORUC, ANKARA - TURKISH DAILY NEWS
Despite the foreign policy projections of 2001 that Turkey would put
weight on the forming of diplomatic contacts with Armenia (but not
diplomatic relations), the efforts for launching a dialogue between
Yerevan and Ankara have failed.
The dialogue mechanism between the journalists of Turkey, Azerbaijan
and Armenia remain as the sole path for the continuation of the
person-to-person dialogue between the two countries.
The Turkish Armenian Reconciliation Committee (TARC) had to cease its
mission due to a statement from the Armenian side.
TARC's Armenian members had declared that they would not attend the
commission works on Dec. 12.
Armenian members of the TARC, Alexander Arzumanyan, Van Krikoryan,
David Hovenasyon and Andranik Mihranyan, signed a declaration stating
that they would not attend the commission meetings.
The declaration said that their belief in the normalization of ties
between Turkey and Armenia was continuing.
Following the statement made by the Armenian side, the commission,
which was a historical step for the improvement of the ties between
Turkey and Armenia, halted its work.
The TARC process in the year 2001, which was being evaluated as a
product of the resolution processes in western parliaments by a
foreign diplomat involved in Turkish-Armenian relations, has had to
be stopped as the nationalists of the two sides were not involved in
the reconciliation process.
Taking lessons from the past processes, it was stated that all sides
of the societies should be expressing concerns, and everything should
be put on the table, without avoiding discussing the existing
problems between the two states.
Within the framework of Washington's efforts to encourage ties
between Turkey and Armenia, U.S. Ambassador in Yerevan John Ordway
was quoted as saying recently by the Anatolia news agency that the
border between Turkey and Armenia, as well as the one between
Azerbaijan and Armenia, should be opened for the improvement of the
economy of the region.
Michael Lemmon, the former U.S. ambassador in Yerevan, has been
acting as Turkish Ambassador in Yerevan and Armenian Ambassador in
Turkey, with his efforts to help the development of the relationships
between the two states are being considered.
TABDC urges the opening of the border gate
In a press release signed jointly by the Turkish and Armenian
co-chairmen of the Turkish Armenian Business Development Council
(TABDC), hope was expressed for the fifth year of the
Turkish-Armenian dialogue process, and urged the necessity of the
opening of the border gate between Turkey and Armenia.
"For many years, Armenians and Turks of good will have been
advocating the wisdom of cooperation. What has been achieved so far
gives us hope and strength for the future. We believe that there is
still a pressing need to cultivate direct ties and that there is much
room for collaboration," said the statement.
"We are convinced that the two separate processes of diplomatic
rapprochement and civil initiatives must go hand in hand. At the
beginning of the new year we want to stress the need for interstate
relations and intergovernmental communication," it said.
Dialogue and interaction between public organizations and business
associations are a prerequisite for establishing mutual
understanding, handling sensitive issues, and achieving prosperity in
our region, it continued.
"From our five years of experience, we have learned that there is no
obstacle for Turks and Armenians to start talking and collaborating.
The closed border is the only barrier preventing us from intensifying
our business and human relations. A closed border that separates us
makes no sense. We can foresee the great potential benefits to be
realized by Armenia and Turkey," it said.
-----------
Copyright 2001, Turkish Daily News. This article is redistributed with
permission for personal use of Groong readers. No part of this article
may be reproduced, further distributed or archived without the prior
permission of the publisher. Contact Turkish Daily News Online at
http://www.TurkishDailyNews.com for details.
-----------
TARC PROBLEMATICS
TARC PROBLEMATICS
I have been trying to follow the activities of TARC ever
since its formation was made public, but there is not much to
follow. However, I did read the interview two members gave to
Groong on Aug 4, 2001 and I am disturbed by some of the statements
they made.
1) The word `reconcile' has two different meanings, and I wonder
which was meant when the esteemed members of this commission
decided on this term.
a) If it was meant `to restore to friendship', it is ill-chosen,
because friendship is based on trust. When the Turkish members of
the so-called commission announce publicly, unlike the Armenian
members, that there will be no recognition of the genocide, I
wonder how they can be trusted to restore a true friendship. b) If
it was meant `to submit to or accept something unpleasant', then it
has also not been chosen well. From what I read in the interview,
it seems to me that the only reconciliation that is on the TARC's
agenda is to accept the `unpleasant' idea that the Turks will never
admit to committing a horrible crime. It is very clear from the
statements some of the Turk members on the Commission have made
that they will never reconcile with their `unpleasant' past, so I
wonder what the whole purpose of this commission is except that it
serves non-Armenian interests.
2) A commission, whatever its mission, cannot be formed simply on
the basis that the members `have known each other since 1991'.
Knowing each other does not qualify them to decide on the minimum
criteria that they themselves have delineated for those who would
join this so-called Commission. Regardless, I am sure there are
many other Armenians who have significant international and
national political experiences, are fluent in English and willing
to work as part of a team. In fact, it is an insult to my
intelligence when they declare they can decide on who is qualified
and who is not. What is more insulting is that they consider
themselves working as part of a team. What team is that when the
Armenian members have alienated themselves from many Armenians? If
they meant the ill-fated Commission , I still don't consider them
working as a team. From the interview, all I can infer is that they
are not working `as' a team, but `for' a team, which unfortunately
is pro-Turkish. I am not concerned about numbers being 4 to
6. Sometimes one person can have a much better impact than 10.
3) Another point made during the interview is that this `commission
is not focused on determining whether or not there was a genocide.'
The Armenian members take it as a `non-negotiable fact,' but what
about the six Turkish members of TARC? How can the members of this
commission have a constructive discussion if each side is basing
these negotiations on different issues? Perhaps the meetings are
being held in Babylon where each speaks his own language and gets
no where.
4) It was also stated that the members did not play any role in the
selection of the Turkish members and vice versa. The four Armenian
members elected themselves to be on this commission and probably so
did the six Turkish members. But this does not give them the right
to speak for the majority of Armenians, and certainly it does not
give the six Turks the right to speak for the majority of
Turks. The Armenians in general were not consulted. Therefore, what
they decide on or discuss during these meetings will not concern
the majority of Armenians. Whatever `reconciliation' they will have
with this Commission will be theirs, and only their decision. And
only they will be held accountable for their actions.
5) What disturbed me most in the interview was the following
statement: `Armenian-Americans are already divided.' This is
unacceptable from a self-announced expert who is willing to work as
a team. And what makes this statement worse - actually very
childish -- is the attack on the ARF and their unwillingness to
participate in this commission, and that the members of TARC `are
not presently aware of anyone within the ARF/ANCA ranks who can
meet the criteria for membership.' Did they even try to set up
some sort of a `reconciliation commission' with the ARF'? Or do
they consider reconciling with Turks more important than
reconciling with fellow Armenians? Isn't it better to start
cleaning our own house before we even think about our neighbors?
If the ARF knew about the formation of this commission, but refused
to join, did anyone of the commission members try to set up a
`reconciliation' committee with the ARF to agree to some sort of
common ground? In the interview, one member also states that `this
effort ought not be held captive to partisan politics', yet all the
two members do is act as a partisan by attacking the ARF. I have
never been a member of any of the three Armenian Parties, which for
me have become very stagnant by keeping their outdated aims and
objectives. None of the Parties is God-sent, and they all have
their good sides and bad. If I may add here, my father was a
founding member in Jordan of one party, and it was not the ARF. But
he taught me tolerance towards all Armenians, to extend a hand no
matter what. I was also an active member of the AGBU in Lebanon for
more than 20 years.
Living in Lebanon among Arabs and Moslems, all I hear is great
regard towards Armenians -- how nationalistic, loyal and united we
are, and how much they need to learn from us. I know well that we
are forever divided, but I never correct them; I always affirm that
we are united.
Instead of trying to unite the ranks, the actions of this
commission unfortunately have further divided the
Armenian-Americans. In the past year, I grew more and more proud of
the Armenian-Americans who got stronger through the Armenian
lobby. However, this ill-fated Commission has destroyed what the
Armenian community had built for many years despite the many
disagreements amongst themselves.
I do hope this commission will not cause any more destruction of
the Armenian Diaspora who have survived many years in spite of many
misfortunes.
___________________________________
Katia M. Peltekian is an author and lecturer of English and
Technical English as well as Teacher-trainer at the American
University of Beirut, Lebanon. She has recently published a book
`Heralding of the Armenian Genocide - Reports in the Halifax Herald
1894-1922' which is a compilation of newspaper articles in that
Canadian newspaper.
************************************************************
© Copyright 2001, Armenian News Network / Groong, all rights reserved.
I have been trying to follow the activities of TARC ever
since its formation was made public, but there is not much to
follow. However, I did read the interview two members gave to
Groong on Aug 4, 2001 and I am disturbed by some of the statements
they made.
1) The word `reconcile' has two different meanings, and I wonder
which was meant when the esteemed members of this commission
decided on this term.
a) If it was meant `to restore to friendship', it is ill-chosen,
because friendship is based on trust. When the Turkish members of
the so-called commission announce publicly, unlike the Armenian
members, that there will be no recognition of the genocide, I
wonder how they can be trusted to restore a true friendship. b) If
it was meant `to submit to or accept something unpleasant', then it
has also not been chosen well. From what I read in the interview,
it seems to me that the only reconciliation that is on the TARC's
agenda is to accept the `unpleasant' idea that the Turks will never
admit to committing a horrible crime. It is very clear from the
statements some of the Turk members on the Commission have made
that they will never reconcile with their `unpleasant' past, so I
wonder what the whole purpose of this commission is except that it
serves non-Armenian interests.
2) A commission, whatever its mission, cannot be formed simply on
the basis that the members `have known each other since 1991'.
Knowing each other does not qualify them to decide on the minimum
criteria that they themselves have delineated for those who would
join this so-called Commission. Regardless, I am sure there are
many other Armenians who have significant international and
national political experiences, are fluent in English and willing
to work as part of a team. In fact, it is an insult to my
intelligence when they declare they can decide on who is qualified
and who is not. What is more insulting is that they consider
themselves working as part of a team. What team is that when the
Armenian members have alienated themselves from many Armenians? If
they meant the ill-fated Commission , I still don't consider them
working as a team. From the interview, all I can infer is that they
are not working `as' a team, but `for' a team, which unfortunately
is pro-Turkish. I am not concerned about numbers being 4 to
6. Sometimes one person can have a much better impact than 10.
3) Another point made during the interview is that this `commission
is not focused on determining whether or not there was a genocide.'
The Armenian members take it as a `non-negotiable fact,' but what
about the six Turkish members of TARC? How can the members of this
commission have a constructive discussion if each side is basing
these negotiations on different issues? Perhaps the meetings are
being held in Babylon where each speaks his own language and gets
no where.
4) It was also stated that the members did not play any role in the
selection of the Turkish members and vice versa. The four Armenian
members elected themselves to be on this commission and probably so
did the six Turkish members. But this does not give them the right
to speak for the majority of Armenians, and certainly it does not
give the six Turks the right to speak for the majority of
Turks. The Armenians in general were not consulted. Therefore, what
they decide on or discuss during these meetings will not concern
the majority of Armenians. Whatever `reconciliation' they will have
with this Commission will be theirs, and only their decision. And
only they will be held accountable for their actions.
5) What disturbed me most in the interview was the following
statement: `Armenian-Americans are already divided.' This is
unacceptable from a self-announced expert who is willing to work as
a team. And what makes this statement worse - actually very
childish -- is the attack on the ARF and their unwillingness to
participate in this commission, and that the members of TARC `are
not presently aware of anyone within the ARF/ANCA ranks who can
meet the criteria for membership.' Did they even try to set up
some sort of a `reconciliation commission' with the ARF'? Or do
they consider reconciling with Turks more important than
reconciling with fellow Armenians? Isn't it better to start
cleaning our own house before we even think about our neighbors?
If the ARF knew about the formation of this commission, but refused
to join, did anyone of the commission members try to set up a
`reconciliation' committee with the ARF to agree to some sort of
common ground? In the interview, one member also states that `this
effort ought not be held captive to partisan politics', yet all the
two members do is act as a partisan by attacking the ARF. I have
never been a member of any of the three Armenian Parties, which for
me have become very stagnant by keeping their outdated aims and
objectives. None of the Parties is God-sent, and they all have
their good sides and bad. If I may add here, my father was a
founding member in Jordan of one party, and it was not the ARF. But
he taught me tolerance towards all Armenians, to extend a hand no
matter what. I was also an active member of the AGBU in Lebanon for
more than 20 years.
Living in Lebanon among Arabs and Moslems, all I hear is great
regard towards Armenians -- how nationalistic, loyal and united we
are, and how much they need to learn from us. I know well that we
are forever divided, but I never correct them; I always affirm that
we are united.
Instead of trying to unite the ranks, the actions of this
commission unfortunately have further divided the
Armenian-Americans. In the past year, I grew more and more proud of
the Armenian-Americans who got stronger through the Armenian
lobby. However, this ill-fated Commission has destroyed what the
Armenian community had built for many years despite the many
disagreements amongst themselves.
I do hope this commission will not cause any more destruction of
the Armenian Diaspora who have survived many years in spite of many
misfortunes.
___________________________________
Katia M. Peltekian is an author and lecturer of English and
Technical English as well as Teacher-trainer at the American
University of Beirut, Lebanon. She has recently published a book
`Heralding of the Armenian Genocide - Reports in the Halifax Herald
1894-1922' which is a compilation of newspaper articles in that
Canadian newspaper.
************************************************************
© Copyright 2001, Armenian News Network / Groong, all rights reserved.
US top official - Armenian-Turkish reconciliation body "private initiative"
US top official - Armenian-Turkish reconciliation body "private initiative"
Mediamax
28 August 2001
YEREVAN
US Assistant Secretary of State Elizabeth Jones said in Yerevan today that
the creation of the Armenian-Turkish "reconciliation commission" was a
"private initiative". Jones said this after a meeting with Armenian President
Robert Kocharyan in reply to a question from Mediamax as to whether the US
administration had anything to do with the creation of the Armenian-Turkish
"reconciliation commission". The assistant secretary of state said at the
same time that the USA was ready to support any initiatives directed at
normalizing relations between the nations.
Mediamax
28 August 2001
YEREVAN
US Assistant Secretary of State Elizabeth Jones said in Yerevan today that
the creation of the Armenian-Turkish "reconciliation commission" was a
"private initiative". Jones said this after a meeting with Armenian President
Robert Kocharyan in reply to a question from Mediamax as to whether the US
administration had anything to do with the creation of the Armenian-Turkish
"reconciliation commission". The assistant secretary of state said at the
same time that the USA was ready to support any initiatives directed at
normalizing relations between the nations.
Congressional Report Reveals State Department Funding For TARC
ASBAREZ ONLINE
10/16/2001
1. Congressional Report Reveals State Department Funding For TARC
WASHINGTON, DC (ANCA and RFE/RL)The State Department's public and private
assurances that it was not involved in the formation or operation of the
Turkish Armenian Reconciliation Commission were dramatically called into
question this week with the release of a Congressional report documenting that
the "Department provided financial assistance to support the Commission's
activities," reported the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA).
The existence of this Commission was first revealed this July by the New York
Times, which reported the group had been meeting secretly since the time of
last year's Armenian Genocide Resolution in the US Congress. White House and
State Department officials have repeatedly denied, both in public statements
and during discussion with the ANCA, that the US government had any role in
the
creation or activities of the Commission. The Congressional report on this
matter was prepared, in response to Congressional inquiries, by the
Congressional Research Service (CRS). The CRS is the highly regarded official
research arm of the US legislative branch. The four page report, entitled,
"Turkish Armenian Reconciliation Commission and US Role," (dated October 2,
2001) noted that the Turkish reaction to the creation of the Commission "has
been overwhelmingly positive," while the Armenian reaction has been "much more
negative than positive."
On the subject of US State Department funding, the CRS reported that: The
Department provided financial assistance to support the Commission's
activities
as it says it does other civil society initiatives or people to people
contacts. The funds were in the form of a grant to the American University for
a conflict resolution program, which is supporting the activities of the
Commission. (Complete copies of this report can be obtained by contacting a
member of Congress and requesting the study by name and date.) The Armenian
members of a controversial group denied any knowledge of possible US
government
funding for their activities, revealed by a US Congressional report publicized
over the weekend. But they did not rule out the possibility that Washington,
which strongly supports the initiative, has contributed financially to the
work
of the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission (TARC).
In discussions following the creation of the Commission, Administration
officials assured the ANCA that the Administration did not play any role in
the
creation or activities of the Commission. Administration officials did,
however, inform the ANCA that they viewed the purpose of this body as
essentially providing Congress with an excuse not to pass an Armenian Genocide
Resolution and as a Turkish ploy to head off further recognition of the 1915
Armenian genocide by Western nations, while proponents insist that it could
lay
the groundwork for an eventual Turkish recognition of the tragedy.
The other group active on Capitol Hill, the Armenian Assembly of America,
is a
staunch backer of the TARC. Assembly chairman Van Krikorian is one of the four
Armenian members of the ten-member group. He, on Monday, downplayed the
significance of the Congressional report cited by the ANCA, saying: "From the
beginning, the US government said it was supporting us. So I don't think
that's
a surprise."
But he and two other Armenian members of the TARC, former foreign minister
Alexander Arzumanian and retired diplomat David Hovannisian, did not
confirm or
deny the reported US assistance to the commission, in separate interviews with
RFE/RL. "I don't have such information," said Arzumanian. "I haven't seen any
interference in our work by a single US government official," said
Hovannisian.
"They (the State Department) are saying it's a private initiative, which it
is, but they are supporting it," Krikorian told RFE/RL by phone from New York.
"Maybe they are giving out some grants. But the Armenian members of the
commission have not received any financial assistance from the State
Department."
In a related development, members of the European Parliament recently cited
the existence of the Commission as their justification for dropping a
long-standing provision calling on Turkey to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide
in their annual report on Turkey's progress toward accession into the European
Union. In a sharp reversal for the European Armenians who have worked on this
issue over a period of decades, a key Parliamentary Committee has replaced a
long-standing provision calling upon Turkey to end its denial of the Armenian
Genocide. The panel avoided making any reference to the Genocide, noting
instead that the European Parliament "supports the civil initiative
launched by
a group of former diplomats and academics from Turkey and Armenia, the aim of
which is to arrive at a common understanding of the past." "We are deeply
troubled, first, that our State Department has apparently participated in an
initiative plainly directed at undermining the ability of US citizens to
petition their government of an issue of abiding concern, specifically the
right of Armenian Americans to pursue official recognition of the Armenian
Genocide through the institutions of our democracy," said ANCA Chairman Ken
Hachikian. "We are, at the same time, equally disappointed that our government
has apparently misled our community, both publicly and privately, to hide its
role in this deeply flawed undertaking."
A sample of official US statements denying any government role in the
formation or activities of the Commission is provided below:
* "US Assistant Secretary of State Elizabeth Jones said in Yerevan today that
the creation of the Armenian-Turkish reconciliation commission' was a 'private
initiative.' Jones said this after a meeting with Armenian President Robert
Kocharian in reply to a question from Mediamax as to whether the US
administration had anything to do with the creation of the Armenian-Turkish
'reconciliation commission.'" (Mediamax news service, August 28, 2001)
* "The commission on Tuesday received the indirect support of the United
States. Assistant Secretary of State Elizabeth Jones told reporters in Yerevan
that Washington welcomes any initiative aimed at a normalization of ties
between Armenia and Turkey. But she denied any US government involvement in
the
'private' dialogue." (RFE/RL Armenia Report, August 29, 2001)
* "To what extent was the US State Department supporting this [Turkish
Armenian Reconciliation Commission]? Jones denied her department's
participation, saying that, 'this is only an individual initiative.'" (Hayots
Ashkhar, August 29, 2001)
* "The Armenian-Turkish Reconciliation Commission is a private initiative. US
Deputy State Secretary on countries of Europe and Eurasia, Elizabeth Jones,
announced to journalists in Yerevan." (ARKA News Agency, August 29, 2001)
* "During a recent visit to Armenia, US Assistant Secretary of State
Elizabeth
Jones denied any US government involvement in the 'private' dialogue, but
Western media reports have said the State Department actively encouraged the
secret negotiations." (RFE/RL, September 8, 2001) "Sadly this revelation only
compounds the serious credibility issues created by the State Department's
long-standing complicity in Turkey's denials of the Armenian Genocide," added
Hachikian. "The State Department certainly owes the Armenian American
community
a full accounting of its role in this Commission and an explanation about what
appears, by all accounts, to be a clear pattern of misrepresentation aimed at
denying American citizens information to which they are rightfully entitled,
information which they require in order to make informed judgments about
profound issues of public policy - namely our national response to the
crime of
genocide."
For additional information on the Commission, visit:
http://www.asbarez.com/TARC/Tarc.html
(c) 2001 ASBAREZ ONLINE. All Rights Reserved.
10/16/2001
1. Congressional Report Reveals State Department Funding For TARC
WASHINGTON, DC (ANCA and RFE/RL)The State Department's public and private
assurances that it was not involved in the formation or operation of the
Turkish Armenian Reconciliation Commission were dramatically called into
question this week with the release of a Congressional report documenting that
the "Department provided financial assistance to support the Commission's
activities," reported the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA).
The existence of this Commission was first revealed this July by the New York
Times, which reported the group had been meeting secretly since the time of
last year's Armenian Genocide Resolution in the US Congress. White House and
State Department officials have repeatedly denied, both in public statements
and during discussion with the ANCA, that the US government had any role in
the
creation or activities of the Commission. The Congressional report on this
matter was prepared, in response to Congressional inquiries, by the
Congressional Research Service (CRS). The CRS is the highly regarded official
research arm of the US legislative branch. The four page report, entitled,
"Turkish Armenian Reconciliation Commission and US Role," (dated October 2,
2001) noted that the Turkish reaction to the creation of the Commission "has
been overwhelmingly positive," while the Armenian reaction has been "much more
negative than positive."
On the subject of US State Department funding, the CRS reported that: The
Department provided financial assistance to support the Commission's
activities
as it says it does other civil society initiatives or people to people
contacts. The funds were in the form of a grant to the American University for
a conflict resolution program, which is supporting the activities of the
Commission. (Complete copies of this report can be obtained by contacting a
member of Congress and requesting the study by name and date.) The Armenian
members of a controversial group denied any knowledge of possible US
government
funding for their activities, revealed by a US Congressional report publicized
over the weekend. But they did not rule out the possibility that Washington,
which strongly supports the initiative, has contributed financially to the
work
of the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission (TARC).
In discussions following the creation of the Commission, Administration
officials assured the ANCA that the Administration did not play any role in
the
creation or activities of the Commission. Administration officials did,
however, inform the ANCA that they viewed the purpose of this body as
essentially providing Congress with an excuse not to pass an Armenian Genocide
Resolution and as a Turkish ploy to head off further recognition of the 1915
Armenian genocide by Western nations, while proponents insist that it could
lay
the groundwork for an eventual Turkish recognition of the tragedy.
The other group active on Capitol Hill, the Armenian Assembly of America,
is a
staunch backer of the TARC. Assembly chairman Van Krikorian is one of the four
Armenian members of the ten-member group. He, on Monday, downplayed the
significance of the Congressional report cited by the ANCA, saying: "From the
beginning, the US government said it was supporting us. So I don't think
that's
a surprise."
But he and two other Armenian members of the TARC, former foreign minister
Alexander Arzumanian and retired diplomat David Hovannisian, did not
confirm or
deny the reported US assistance to the commission, in separate interviews with
RFE/RL. "I don't have such information," said Arzumanian. "I haven't seen any
interference in our work by a single US government official," said
Hovannisian.
"They (the State Department) are saying it's a private initiative, which it
is, but they are supporting it," Krikorian told RFE/RL by phone from New York.
"Maybe they are giving out some grants. But the Armenian members of the
commission have not received any financial assistance from the State
Department."
In a related development, members of the European Parliament recently cited
the existence of the Commission as their justification for dropping a
long-standing provision calling on Turkey to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide
in their annual report on Turkey's progress toward accession into the European
Union. In a sharp reversal for the European Armenians who have worked on this
issue over a period of decades, a key Parliamentary Committee has replaced a
long-standing provision calling upon Turkey to end its denial of the Armenian
Genocide. The panel avoided making any reference to the Genocide, noting
instead that the European Parliament "supports the civil initiative
launched by
a group of former diplomats and academics from Turkey and Armenia, the aim of
which is to arrive at a common understanding of the past." "We are deeply
troubled, first, that our State Department has apparently participated in an
initiative plainly directed at undermining the ability of US citizens to
petition their government of an issue of abiding concern, specifically the
right of Armenian Americans to pursue official recognition of the Armenian
Genocide through the institutions of our democracy," said ANCA Chairman Ken
Hachikian. "We are, at the same time, equally disappointed that our government
has apparently misled our community, both publicly and privately, to hide its
role in this deeply flawed undertaking."
A sample of official US statements denying any government role in the
formation or activities of the Commission is provided below:
* "US Assistant Secretary of State Elizabeth Jones said in Yerevan today that
the creation of the Armenian-Turkish reconciliation commission' was a 'private
initiative.' Jones said this after a meeting with Armenian President Robert
Kocharian in reply to a question from Mediamax as to whether the US
administration had anything to do with the creation of the Armenian-Turkish
'reconciliation commission.'" (Mediamax news service, August 28, 2001)
* "The commission on Tuesday received the indirect support of the United
States. Assistant Secretary of State Elizabeth Jones told reporters in Yerevan
that Washington welcomes any initiative aimed at a normalization of ties
between Armenia and Turkey. But she denied any US government involvement in
the
'private' dialogue." (RFE/RL Armenia Report, August 29, 2001)
* "To what extent was the US State Department supporting this [Turkish
Armenian Reconciliation Commission]? Jones denied her department's
participation, saying that, 'this is only an individual initiative.'" (Hayots
Ashkhar, August 29, 2001)
* "The Armenian-Turkish Reconciliation Commission is a private initiative. US
Deputy State Secretary on countries of Europe and Eurasia, Elizabeth Jones,
announced to journalists in Yerevan." (ARKA News Agency, August 29, 2001)
* "During a recent visit to Armenia, US Assistant Secretary of State
Elizabeth
Jones denied any US government involvement in the 'private' dialogue, but
Western media reports have said the State Department actively encouraged the
secret negotiations." (RFE/RL, September 8, 2001) "Sadly this revelation only
compounds the serious credibility issues created by the State Department's
long-standing complicity in Turkey's denials of the Armenian Genocide," added
Hachikian. "The State Department certainly owes the Armenian American
community
a full accounting of its role in this Commission and an explanation about what
appears, by all accounts, to be a clear pattern of misrepresentation aimed at
denying American citizens information to which they are rightfully entitled,
information which they require in order to make informed judgments about
profound issues of public policy - namely our national response to the
crime of
genocide."
For additional information on the Commission, visit:
http://www.asbarez.com/TARC/Tarc.html
(c) 2001 ASBAREZ ONLINE. All Rights Reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
