ARMENIAN REVOLT
While the tragic fate of Armenians in the World War I era has received a substantial amount of attention in news and documentary programming, the story of the Armenian Revolt -- the struggle against the Ottoman Empire to create a new Armenian nation -- has been almost completely overlooked. The Armenian Revolt: 1894-1920, tells the story of the Armenian revolutionary movement, and how it waged a civil war against the Ottoman Empire for 26 years. This program documents the historical facts of the Armenian Revolt, based on archival sources and commentary by Turkish, European and U.S. experts (including one Armenian scholar). The documentary will reveal how the Great Powers -- France, Britain and Russia -- bear a large historical responsibility in generating strife between Armenians and Muslims. These powers supplied money, arms and encouragement to the Armenian rebels in their struggle against the Ottoman Empire. However, the Great Powers "sold out" the Armenian nationalists at the Paris Peace Conference, and withdrew their support for a new Armenian homeland. This is compelling viewing on a subject that is still not resolved today. This documentary will shed light to reveal a balanced story in the challenge to find out the truth about this buried part of western history.

http://www.blinkx.com/watch-video/the-armenian-revolt/TwkU0GXlL0_YLYrexFPANw

The anniversary of Edinburg City Council (ECC) motion of shame


Dear Councillor,

Turks all around the world and the Turkish community in Scotland, remember the date of
17th November 2005 with great sadness and disappointment.

On that day, Edinburgh City Council (ECC) members passed a motion to recognise the so-called Armenian genocide. Unfortunately, all our efforts to inform you about ‘the events of 1915 Ottoman Turco – Armenian War Tragedy’ were ignored and the basic principles of law and respect for truth were brushed aside; instead animosity towards Turks was displayed by the majority of Labour and Liberal councillors who acted on hearsay instead of historical research.

We commend the Conservative Party group and those councillors who voted against the
said motion; for upholding a basic fundamental principle that local councils do not have the necessary resources, expertise or jurisdiction; therefore lack authority to pass judgement on
this highly disputed international historical and legal matter.

The Turkish community will remember how Lord Provost so unjustly forced the Turkish delegation to present its deputations first and then allowed the Armenians to have the last word at the Full Council Meeting, denying the Turkish delegation of the chance and the right to respond to their accusations. Such unfair treatment has left a black mark on the once untainted reputation of the ECC.

On that day, the ECC members passed, without any regard to truth, a motion that was not only unjust and contradictory but also contained material inaccuracies (such as the percentage of votes in the European parliament, a simple mathematical matter). This demonstrated to the Turkish community that the ECC does not care about the misrepresentation of facts and is poorly informed about the matters it passes judgement on.

We will always remember how the ECC leader Cllr. Donald Anderson reneged on his promises to the Turkish community and delayed the proposed amendments to the last minute denying Turkish representation the opportunity to address the revised motion. We were shocked at ECC members’ unwillingness to challenge Mr Anderson as to why he proposed so many amendments to the motion at the last minute despite being so sure of the facts it contained in the first place. This is further proof that the ECC is indifferent about the accuracy or consistency of the motions under its consideration.

On that day, the Turkish delegation witnessed how councillors preferred to focus on the daily politics of present day Turkey instead of on the historical events of 1915-18 during the Ottoman period, which was purportedly the subject of the motion. Furthermore, they made humiliating remarks about Turks and Turkey that had no bearing on the issue in question. We will always remember this discriminatory attitude as well as how readily some respected councillors exposed their own ethnic and religious prejudices while preaching to others about fairness and human rights.

The Turkish community in Scotland follows with great interest the candidacy of Mr. Anderson;
the architect of the said motion, for Edinburgh South and will inform the members of the Turkish community about his hostile manner towards Turks and Muslims. We will not forget how he took advantage of this motion, presenting it to the media as an international success and using it as a stepping-stone to launch his candidacy for Holyrood.

The 17th day of every November, will remind us of how the councillors preferred prejudice against and hatred towards us over truth and friendship and how they turned unsubstantiated historical accusations into public condemnation of Turks and Turkey, damaging the prestige of the city of Edinburgh in the eyes of the Turkish community. Until this appalling decision by the ECC is reversed and the truth brought to light at the Edinburgh City Council, the Turkish community will neither forget nor forgive.

Yours faithfully,

Şener Sağlam ( Mr )
PresidentFTA UK

AMERICAN ACADEMICIANS RESPONSE TO THE ALLEGED"ARMENIAN GENOCIDE?"TO THE MEMBERS OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES The undersigned American academicians who specialisein Turkish, Ottoman and Middle Eastern Studies areconcerned that the current language embodied in HouseJoint Resolution 192 is misleading and/or inaccuratein several respects. Specifically, while fully supporting the concept of a"National Day of Remembrance of Man's Inhumanity toMan," we respectfully take exception to that portionof the text, which singles out for specialrecognition: "...the one and one half million people of Armenianancestry who were victims of genocide perpetrated inTurkey between 1915 and 1923..." Our reservations focus on the use of the words"Turkey' and "genocide" and may be summarised asfollows: From the fourteenth century until 1922, the areacurrently known as Turkey, or more correctly, theRepublic of Turkey, was part of the territoryencompassing the multinational, multi-religious stateknown as the Ottoman Empire. It is wrong to equate theOttoman Empire with the Republic of Turkey in the sameway that it is wrong to equate the Hapsburg Empirewith the Republic of Austria. The Ottoman Empire,which was brought to an end in 1922, by the successfulconclusion of the Turkish Revolution which establishedthe present day Republic of Turkey in 1923,incorporated lands and people which today account formore than twenty-five distinct countries inSoutheastern Europe, North Africa, and the MiddleEast, only one of which is the Republic of Turkey. TheRepublic of Turkey bears no responsibility for anyevents which occurred in Ottoman times, yet by naming'Turkey' in the Resolution, its authors haveimplicitly labelled it as guilty of "genocide" itcharges transpired between 1915 and 1923. As for the charge of "genocide," no signatory of thisstatement wishes to minimise the scope of Armeniansuffering. We are likewise cognisant that it cannot beviewed as separate from the suffering experienced bythe Muslim inhabitants of the region. The weight ofevidence so far uncovered points in the direct ofserious inter communal warfare (perpetrated by Muslimand Christian irregular forces), complicated bydisease, famine, suffering and massacres in Anatoliaand adjoining areas during the First World War.Indeed, throughout the years in question, the regionwas the scene of more or less continuous warfare, notunlike the tragedy, which has gone on in Lebanon forthe past decade. The resulting death toll among bothMuslim and Christian communities of the region wasimmense. But much more remains to be discovered beforehistorians will be able to sort out preciselyresponsibility between warring and innocent, and toidentify the causes for the events which resulted inthe death or removal of large numbers of the easternAnatolian population, Christian and Muslim alike. Statesmen and politicians make history, and scholarswrite it. For this process to work scholars must begiven access to the written records of the statesmenand politicians of the past. To date, the relevantarchives in the Soviet Union, Syria, Bulgaria andturkey all remain, for the most part, closed todispassionate historians. Until they become available,the history of the Ottoman Empire in the periodencompassed by H.J. Res. 192 (1915-1923) cannot beadequately known. We believe that the proper position for the UnitedStates Congress to take on this and related issues isto encourage full and open access to all historicalarchives and not to make charges on historical eventsbefore they are fully understood. Such charges asthose contained H.J. Res. 192 would inevitably reflectunjustly upon the people of turkey and perhaps setback irreparably progress historians are just nowbeginning to achieve in understanding these tragicevents. As the above comments illustrate, the history of theOttoman-Armenians is much debated among scholars; manyof who do not agree with the historical assumptionsembodied in the wording of H.J. Res. 192. By passingthe resolution Congress will be attempting todetermine by legislation which side of the historicalquestion is correct. Such a resolution, based onhistorically questionable assumptions, can only damagethe cause of honest historical inquiry, and damage thecredibility of the American legislative process. SIGNATORIES TO THE STATEMENT ON H.J. RES. 192ADDRESSED TO THE MEMBERS OF THE U.S. HOUSE OFREPRESENTATIVES RIFAAT ABOU-EL-HAJ Professor of History CaliforniaState University at Long Beach RODERIC DAVISON Professor of History George WashingtonUniversity SARAH MOMENT ATIS Professor of Turkish Language &Literature University of Wisconsin at Madison WALTER DENNY Professor of Art History Associate & NearEastern Studies University of Massachusetts KARL BARBIR Associate Professor of History SienaCollege (New York) DR. ALAN DUBEN Anthropologist, Researcher New YorkCity ILHAN BASGOZ Director of the Turkish Studies Programat the Department of Ural-Altaic Studies IndianaUniversity ELLEN ERVIN Research Assistant Professor of TurkishNew York University DANIEL G. BATES Professor of Anthropology HunterCollege, City University of New York CAESAR FARAH Professor of Islamic & Middle EastemHistory University of Minnesota ULKU BATES Professor of Art History Hunter College,City University of New York CARTER FINDLEY Associate Professor of History The OhioState University GUSTAV BAYERLE Professor of Uralic & Altaic StudiesIndiana University MICHAEL FINEFROCK, Professor of History College ofCharleston ANDREAS G. E. BODROGLIGETTI Professor of Turkic &Iranian languages University of California at LosAngeles ALAN FISHER Professor of History Michigan StateUniversity KATHLEEN BURRILL Associate Professor of TurkishStudies Columbia University CORNELL FLEISCHER Assistant Professor of HistoryWashington University (Missouri) TIMOTHY CHILDS Professorial Lecturer at SAIS, JohnsHopkins University PETER GOLDEN Professor of History Rutgers University,Newark SHAFIGA DAULET Associate Professor of PoliticalScience University of Connecticut TOM GOODRICH Professor of History Indiana Universityof Pennsylvania JUSTIN McCARTHY Associate Professor of HistoryUniversity of Louisville ANDREW COULD Ph.D. in Ottoman History Flagstaff,Arizona JON MANDAVILLE Professor of the History of the MiddleEast Portland State University (Oregon) MICHAEL MEEKER Professor of Anthropology University ofCalifornia at San Diego RHOADS MURPHEY Assistant Professor of Middle EasternLanguages, Cultures & History Columbia University THOMAS NAFF Professor of History & Director, MiddleEast Research Institute University of Pennsylvania PIERRE OBERLING Professor of History Hunter College ofthe City University of New York WILLIAM OCHSENWALD Associate Professor of HistoryVirginia Polytechnic Institute ROBERT OLSON Associate Professor of History Universityof Kentucky WILLIAM PEACHY Assistant Professor of the Judaic, NearEastern Languages & Literatures The Ohio StateUniversity DONALD QUATAERT Associate Professor of HistoryUniversity of Houston HOWARD REED Professor of History University ofConnecticut WILLIAM GRISWOLD Professor of History Colorado StateUniversity TIBOR HALASI-KUN Professor Emeritus of Turkish StudiesColumbia University WILLIAM HICKMAN Associate Professor of TurkishUniversity of California, Berkeley J. C. HUREWITZ Professor of Government Emeritus FormerDirector of the Middle East Institute (1971-1984)Columbia University JOHN HYMES Professor of History Glenville StateCollege West Virginia HALIL INALCIK University Professor of Ottoman History,Member of the American Academy of Arts & SciencesUniversity of Chicago RALPH JAECKEL Visiting Assistant Professor of TurkishUniversity of California at Los Angeles RONALD JENNINGS Associate Professor of History & AsianStudies University of Illinois JAMES KELLY Associate Professor of Turkish Universityof Utah KERIM KEY Adjunct Professor Southeastern UniversityWashington, D.C. DANKWART RUSTOW Distinguished University Professor ofPolitical Science City University Graduate School NewYork ELAINE SMITH Ph.D. in Turkish History Retired ForeignService Officer Washington, D·C· STANFORD SHAW Professor of History University ofCalifornia at Los Angele EZEL KURAL SHAW Associate Professor of HistoryCalifornia State University, Northridge METIN KUNT Professor of Ottoman History New York City FREDERICK LATIMER Associate Professor of HistoryRetired University of Utah AVIGDOR LEVY Professor of History Brandeis University BERNARD LEWIS Cleveland E. Dodge Professor of NearEastern History Princeton University DR. HEATH W. LOWRY Institute of Turkish Studies Inc.Washington, D.C. GRACE M. SMITH Visiting Lecturer in Turkish Universityof California at Berkeley JOHN MASSON SMITH, JR. Professor of History Universityof California at Berkeley DR. SVAT SOUCEK Turcologist, New York City ROBERT STAAB Assistant Director of the Middle EastCenter University of Utah JUNE STARR Associate Professor of Anthropology SUNYStony Brook JAMES STEWART-ROBINSON Professor of Turkish StudiesUniversity of Michigan DR. PHILIP STODDARD Executive Director, Middle EastInstitute Washington, D.C. FRANK TACHAU Professor of Political Science Universityof Illinois at Chicago METIN TAMKOC Professor of International Law andRegulations Texas Tech University DAVID THOMAS Associate Professor of History RhodeIsland College MARGARET L. VENZKE Assistant Professor of HistoryDickinson College (Pennsylvania) WARREN S. WALKER Home Professor of English & Directorof the Archive of Turkish Oral Narrative Texas TechUniversity DONALD WEBSTER Professor of Turkish History, Retired WALTER WEIKER Professor of Political Science RutgersUniversity JOHN WOODS Associate Professor of Middle EasternHistory University of Chicago MADELINE ZILFI Associate Professor of HistoryUniversity of Maryland

EURLINGS REPORT 2006 ON TURKEY PREPARED BY CAMIEL EURLINGS MEP
By Kubilay M. Ali
As a British Citizen of Turkish origin we are having difficulties in comprehending the values and principles related to the formation of the EU due to the unfair way Turkey is being treated. It pains me a lot when we start to hear the true views of some MEP’s in relation to Turkey joining the EU. What is quite sad though is the method adopted. Instead of just openly stating that they don't want Turkey to join, as some politicians openly do, they continually come up with new requirements and preconditions which they know very well would be impossible for Turkey to accept. For me it is preferable to hear those who openly air their views who are at least honest about their bias and aims. What is worrying us, is the fact that there are some MEP’s who on one hand state that Turkey is welcome and claim to support Turkey 's membership of the EU, but at the same time appear to be doing everything in their power to block it. The recent report to the European Parliament by MEP Eurlings of the Christian Party in Holland is such an example of negative thinking about Turkey . Mr. Eurlings has gone further than anyone else in presenting conditions which he must be aware Turkey cannot possibly meet, knowing that his proposals are unacceptable and have never been part of the requirements for membership. To propose that Turkey should have to meet unfair demands without question is incomprehensible. Bearing in mind that all EU members are far from perfect, these pre-requisites have not been demanded from any other current or applicant states. Some members have passed laws restricting freedom of speech and drastic new legislation in their fight against terrorism whilst demanding from Turkey to abolish some of its laws aimed at curbing terrorism. I would like to point out the following, in order to highlight some of the unacceptable critical demands made by Mr Eurlings’ Report: First of all, he is demanding that Turkey opens her borders to Southern Cyprus unconditionally and set a timetable for the removal of her troops from the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus . This can only be considered as another example of double standards by the EU. Turkey has unequivocally stated that she will make no further unilateral compromise on Cyprus . Turkey has taken every step and made every effort to bring a solution to the Cyprus issue. She complied fully with the Annan plan. A referendum was held in Cyprus and the Turkish population voted with a vast majority for and accepted the terms of the plan. It was the Greek population on the island who voted against it. The Greeks have since taken no steps to progress any form of agreement. It was the EU who promised the Turkish Cypriots that they would be rewarded by the lifting of sanctions if they voted yes, but yet again these promises have not been honoured by the EU. The EU appears to have turned its back on the Turkish Cypriots. Turkish Cypriots who according to the original formation in 1960 of the Government of Cyprus are supposed to have one third of the Representatives of the Island, has no representation in Europe and are being ignored and treated like criminals. Why then should Turkey open her borders to the Greek Cypriots? Why should she remove her forces who have kept peace on the island since 1974? Let's not forget why they went to the island in the first place. Turkish troops are there because Turkey is one of the legitimate 'guarantor countries' for the island and besides they are not the only troops that are there. If everything that the Greek Cypriots ask for is granted to them, then there will never be a fair and humane solution to the Cyprus issue. It should be worthwhile to note that the Cyprus Problem has been on UN Agenda since early 1964 when the UN forces were sent to the island to protect the Turks against Greek attacks and their brazen attempts to ethnically cleanse the island of all Turks. Turkey came to the island 10 years after UN forces were stationed on the island to put a stop to the ongoing ethnic cleansing. Secondly, he refers to 'human rights' issues in Turkey . It is widely accepted and recognized that great steps have been taken in Turkey to improve human rights and more is being done. If we look at recent events in Europe and the rest of the world we see a war being waged against terrorism, countries are being invaded in its name whether justly or unjustly. Some EU countries, as already stated, are introducing drastic laws which are impacting on the human rights of their citizens. Turkey has been fighting terrorism for decades in very difficult circumstances. We have seen how France , the United Kingdom and other countries deal with terrorism leading at times to the death of innocents. Continually raging battle with an unseen enemy is a very difficult situation to control. Turkey is trying to deal with her problems and has granted many more rights to her ethnic minorities. At the same time she cannot bow to those who would divide the country by means of terrorism. Whilst EU is demanding cultural rights for Kurds in Turkey , insisting that they should be taught in Kurdish only, we are at a loss to understand why in Germany some schools with Turkish students are officially banning them from talking in Turkish, not just inside the classrooms but along corridors and school grounds as well. Another of Mr. Eurlings demand was that Turkey should open its border with Armenia and resume normal relations. The report implies that it has something to do with the so called 'Armenian Genocide', which it has not. The actual reason is that Armenia launched an attack on Azerbaijan over a decade ago and illegally occupied the region of Nagorno-Karabakh, which it still holds today. This has compromised the safety of the Azerbaijan border and brought instability to a region adjacent to Turkey . It is therefore within Turkey 's rights to impose sanctions against Armenia , as should other countries in order that Armenia returns the province to its rightful occupants. Turkey has taken its action against Armenia by peaceful means. Many of the current member states, in a similar position, may well have reverted to more physical means. Furthermore, we are at a loss to undersdtand what is the relevance of Armenian- Turkey borders issue in terms of Turkey – EU relationship? If it is the case of stability of any member state borders then it should have asked Southern Cyprus to resolve its problems before being accepted into the EU. Finally Mr. Eurlings has asked Turkey to recognise the alleged 'Armenian Genocide' of 1915-1916 and went even further referring to the alleged 'Assyrian Genocide' in the Ottoman Empire . We can only agree with the sentiments of the Turkish Government in that Mr Eurlings "Must be dreaming!" On 'Assyrian Genocide' claims we cannot help wondering what other claims he will come up with next! On 'Armenian Genocide' claims; many eminent worldwide historians such as Prof. Bernard Lewis, Prof. Justin McCarthy, Guenter Levy, Dr. Stanford Shaw and Prof.Turkkaya Ataov; to name but a few, have proved through their intensive study of archives all over the world that the tragic events of that period during World War I cannot be construed as genocide. In fact, a vast majority of the people killed during that period were Muslims – far more than Armenians – but they are never mentioned. The Armenian government has been invited by Turkey to take part in a joint scholarly commission to study the evidence. This has been refused by the Armenian Government with an excuse that normal relations between the two governments must be restored before they will take part. If the Armenians are so confident about their claims, why do they oppose to Turkey 's proposal for the creation of a joint scholarly commission and allow judicial channels to find a resolution to the problem? Their refusal can only be considered as a feeble excuse and a ploy to reinstate the borders which were closed for reasons we explained above. But most important, this subject is not a pre-requisite for membership and Mr Eurlings should be severely condemned for mentioning it in his report. Perhaps he needs to consider what 'genocide' means before he makes such serious legal allegations. Genocide is a legal term defined by the '1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide' and claimants of this terrible crime should be able to prove their case on a legal platform. No legal platform has ever suggested any so called “Armenian Genocide” having taken place. To make such accusations without being able to prove them is a criminal offence in itself. Therefore, we reiterate that nobody should entertain any illusion that they will make Turks accept responsibility for something that they did not do. Any such attempts will only result in severely damaging relationships and in wasting energy on both sides whilst costing the EU's taxpayers money. Turkey has always claimed that the events of 1915 were a war tragedy and all subjects of the late Ottoman Empire suffered immensely during World War I, as well as the Armenians. It is well known that the Armenians, aided and abetted by Foreign powers like France and Russia were responsible for the massacre of many of their Ottoman neighbours including Muslims and Jews. Historical studies prove that during the demise of the Empire one-fourth of the worlds Muslim population had perished. In 1918 some 144 Ottoman officers were arrested in Istanbul by the British Occupation Forces following allegations of massacres made by a Paris based Armenian organisation, who were all taken to Malta where they were detained and released after two years’ detention due to lack of any evidence. As part of the occupying forces, British Government at the time had full access to all archives and records in Istanbul and still failed to prove any such guilt , despite their long and exhaustive investigations. It is up to judicial channels to find a resolution to this problem and not to political establishments making resolutions without historical back-up and proof. As a British citizen I strongly condemn Mr. Eurlings report 2006 on Turkey which is far from the truth and not in compatible with European Parliament's credibility. Please, stop spending our tax money on projects that will cause more problems, and instead embark on projects that will find solutions to problems that will bring peace and stability to the world. Turkey wishes to join the EU, but above all she looks forward to honesty and equality amongst all members. I also sincerely believe that Turkish Membership of the EU will bring a lot of benefits to the whole community and should be encouraged to continue on its path without any hindrance. Such reports unfortunately lead us to believe that EU would rather prefer to keep Turkey out and such attitudes is fueling nationalist sentiments of the great majority of Turkish Citizens. I am forwarding this e-mail to other MEP’s as noted in transmittal form for their attention hoping that it will reaceive some attention and a better understanding of the realities related to Turkish Membership of EU.
Kind regards,
Kubilay M. Ali
2-8 Rutland

THERE IS NO ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

By British Historian Norman Stone
Saturday , 21 October 2006

* British Historian Norman Stone Says That There is No Armenian Genocide and he was Ready to be Prisoned by France* Armenian Question“The Armenian ‘genocide’ is an imperialist plot.” So said Dogu Perincek, in Marxist mode, and he chose to say it in Switzerland. Switzerland passed a law threatening prison for anyone ‘denying’ that there had been a genocide of the Ottoman Armenians in 1915, and Mr. Perincek was interrogated by the police.

There have been similar events in other countries and now we have the French parliament passing a law that is harsher than the Swiss one – a year’s prison and a heavy fine. This is a ridiculous and contemptible business – bad history and worse politics. It is also financially very grubby indeed. We all know how the American legal system can work: lawyers will agree to work for nothing, in return for a share of the profits at the end of a court case. Court cases are very expensive and it can simply be easier for banks or firms or hospitals to agree to make a payment without any confession of liability, just because fighting the case would be absurdly expensive, and the outcome – given how the American jury system works – unpredictable. A burglar, crawling over a householder’s glass roof, fell through it, was badly wounded, and took the householder to court: result, a million dollars in damages. Class actions by Armenian Diaspora descendants in California shook down the Deutsche Bank over claims dating back to 1915 and collected 17,000,000 dollars; then they attempted the same with a French insurance company. We can be entirely certain that if Turkey ever ‘recognizes the genocide’ then the financial claims will follow.

But if Turkey refuses to admit it, she is in fact on perfectly good ground. The very first thing to be said is that the business of ‘genocide’ has never been proved. The evidence for it is at best indirect and when the British were in occupation of Istanbul they never found any direct evidence or proof at all. They kept some hundred or so prominent Turks in captivity on Malta, hoping to find some sort of evidence against them, and failed. They asked the Americans if they knew anything and were told, no. The result is that the alleged ‘genocide’ has never been subjected to a properly-constituted court of law. The British released their Turks (meanly refusing to pay for their journeys back home from Malta). There is a counter-claim to the effect that this happened because the Nationalist Turks were holding British officers hostage but the fact is that the Law Officers simply said that they did not have the evidence to try their captives.

Diaspora Armenians claim that ‘historians’ accept the genocide case. There is some preposterous organization called ‘association of genocide scholars’ which does indeed endorse the Diaspora line, but who are they and what qualifications do they have? Knowing about Rwanda or Bosnia or even Auschwitz does not qualify them to discuss Anatolia in 1915, and the Ottoman specialists are by no means convinced of the ‘genocide’. There is in fact an ‘A’ team of distinguished historians who do not accept the Diaspora line at all. In France, Gilles Veinstein, historian of Salonica and a formidable scholar, reviewed the evidence in a famous article of 1993 in L’Histoire. Back then the Armenian Diaspora were also jumping up and down about something or other, and Veinstein summed up the arguments for and against, in an admirably fair-minded way. The fact is that there is no proof of ‘genocide’, in the sense that no document ever appeared, indicating that the Armenians were to be exterminated. There is forged evidence. In 1920 some documents were handed to the British by a journalist called Andonian. She claimed that he had been given them by an Ottoman official called Naim. The documents have been published as a book (in English and French) and if you take them at face value they are devastating: here is Talaat Pasha as minister of the Interior telling the governors to exterminate the Armenians, not to forget to exterminate the children in orphanages, but to keep it all secret. But the documents are very obviously a forgery – elementary mistakes as regards dates and signatures. At the time, in 1920, the new Armenian Republic was collapsing. Kazim Karabekir was advancing on Kars (which fell almost without resistance) and the Turkish Nationalists were co-operating with Moscow (in effect there was a bargain: Turkey would abandon Azerbaijan and Russia would abandon Anatolian Armenia). The Armenians were desperate to get the British to intervene and save them, by landing troops at Trabzon. However, the British (and still more the French) had had enough of the problems of Asia Minor and were in the main content to settle with the new Turkey. Andonian’s documents belong in that context. The chief Armenian ‘genocidist,’ V.Dadrian, still passionately defends the authenticity of these documents but the attempt does not do much credit to his scholarship: for instance, to the claim that the paper on which these documents were written came from the French school in Aleppo, he answers that there was a paper shortage (leading the Ottoman governor to ask a French headmaster if he could use some of his school-paper? Not very likely). The Naim-Andonian documents have incidentally never been tested in a court. The British refused to use them and a German court subsequently waved them aside. They have since disappeared – not what you would have expected had they been at all that is the sum total of the evidence as to ‘genocide’. Otherwise you are left with what English courts call ‘circumstantial evidence’ – i.e. a witness testifying that another witness said something to someone. Such evidence does not count. In the past three years Armenian historians have apparently been going round archives ın two dozen countries to find out what they contain – the Danish archives for instance. What they contain is what we knew already – that an awful lot of Armenians were killed or died in the course of a wartime deportation from many parts of Anatolia. Did the Ottoman government intend to exterminate the race, or was it just a deportation that went horribly wrong?

As to this, the experts are divided. A deportation gone wrong is the verdict of many of the best qualified historians – Bernard Lewis, Heath Lowry, Justin McCarthy, Yusuf Halacoglu. Other historians who know the old script and the background believe that it was a premeditated campaign of extermination, and some of these historians are Turkish (Mete Tuncay and Selim Deringil, unless I am taking their names in vain). There is a Turkish historian, Taner Akcam, whose book, based on the war-crimes trials set up in the early period of the British occupation, is obviously scholarly and who accepts the genocide thesis (though he does stress that the process cannot be compared with what happened in Nazi Germany to the Jews). In view of these divisions among scholars it is simply scandalous that the French or any other parliament should decree what the answer is. But it is worse, because the Armenian Diaspora can be extremely vindictive. For instance, Gilles Veinstein, as a reward for his quite dispassionate article, faced a campaign of vilification. He had become a candidate for the College de France, which elects the very best scholars in the country to give seminars. The historians very much welcomed this: he is an extremely serious scholar. But the Armenian Diaspora organized a campaign against him, especially among the mathematicians for some reason. One of them, a Professor Thom, was told that, on the whole, the French historians supported Veinstein and did not like the genocide thesis. His answer: ‘they are all Ottomanists,’ as if that somehow disqualified them. The fact is that the Armenian Diaspora have never taken this affair to a proper court of law. Instead, they try to silence men such as Veinstein. There was an extraordinary episode in American publishing two years ago. A very well-known historian, Gunther Lewy, who was a professor at the University of Massachusetts and author of several books still in print on modern German history, wrote a book on the Armenian massacres on the basis of German documents. The book is valuable because it shows how Dadrian twisted the German evidence. He offered it to his usual publisher, Oxford University Press (New York branch). A report was commissioned from one Papazian – not exactly a celebrity – who identified what he claimed were tremendous inaccuracies: they turn out either not to be inaccuracies, or just little slips of the kind anyone might make. On that basis Lewy’s manuscript was refused on the grounds that he had taken up ‘Turkish denialist discourse’. He found another publisher, the University of Utah Press. And lo and behold the senior Armenian historian in the USA, Richard Hovannisian (University of California) wrote in protest to the President of that University to complain about the publication. Be it said, incidentally, that the last two volumes of Hovannisian’s History of Independent Armenia are a well-written and fair-minded account – in some ways, even a classic of historical writing (the earlier two volumes are not of the same class). Now, there is something very wrong here. If you believe that you are right, and then you will let evidence speak for itself, and if you face opposition you will simply expect to win the argument one way or the other. Attempts to silence opposition, to boycott lectures by, say, Justin McCarthy, to bully or manipulate foreign politicians – all of that surely argues that the Armenians themselves know their case is very far from being overwhelming. In any case it does nothing whatsoever for Armenia. If you go to eastern Turkey and Kars, look across the border at Armenia. It is very poor, and will continue so if there is no commerce with Turkey. The only obvious industry is the issue of visas for Moscow or the USSR (or for that matter Turkey, where up to 100,000 ex-Soviet Armenians live). The place obviously lives off Diaspora money (and the spread of American fast-food places now means curiously enough that the inhabitants are becoming obese in the manner of some Americans). In Soviet times Armenia had a population approaching three million. Then came independence and the war over Karabagh. The population dwindles and declines every year and is now not much above 1,500,000 – of all absurdities, in other words, independence has caused the Armenians to lose twice as many as vanished in the supposed ‘genocide’ of 1915. There is in other words a sickness at the heart of this whole frankly preposterous affair.

What should Turkey do? If the French law does pass then Turks must be prepared to act, otherwise they risk being landed with enormous bills for compensation. It will take organization. I would volunteer, myself, to provoke some trouble in France: it would be very easy indeed for me to give a public lecture and just to point out what is wrong about the whole thesis of the ‘Armenian genocide’ – I might even just read out Veinstein’s article (or another important one by the then leading German general, Bronsart von Schellendorf). The French government probably would be mad enough to put me in prison for a while (this was done to a well-respected French historian of slavery, whose crime had been to point out that many Africans were involved in the slave trade and that some slaves volunteered for transportation because it saved them from cannibalism). But someone has to make a stand against the ridiculous misuse of parliamentary power and the instructing of historians what they must say about an event nearly a century old in a country two thousand kilometers away with a language that very few people can now read.
---

Norman Stone (1941-) is a British historian of modern Europe, especially Central and Eastern Europe. He is the author of ''Europe Transformed, 1878-1919.'' Stone was born in Edinburgh, Scotland. Between 1984-1997, he served as professor of Modern History at the University of Oxford. Since 1997 Stone has worked at Bilkent University, Ankara, Turkey. After 2005, he transferred to Koc University,Istanbul,Turkey and still continues to teach there.---

20 October 2006
Source: Zaman

FRANCE ACCUSED ON RWANDA KILLINGS
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6079428.stm
Some 800,000 people were killed in 100 daysA former senior Rwandan diplomat has told a tribunal that France played an active role in Rwanda's 1994 genocide.
Former Rwandan ambassador to Paris Jacques Bihozagara said French involvement stemmed from concerns about its diminishing influence in Africa.
France has denied playing any role in the 100-day frenzy of killing in which 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus died.
After the hearings, the Rwandan panel will rule on whether to file a suit at the International Court of Justice.
The panel is headed by former Justice Minister Jean de Dieu Mucyo and its proceedings, which began in the Rwandan capital, Kigali, on Tuesday, are being broadcast live on local radio.
It is hearing from 25 survivors of the genocide, who claim to have witnessed French involvement.
"This is an important inquiry that should be witnessed by everyone interested in this important episode of our history," Mr Mucyo was quoted as saying by the AFP news agency.
'No regret'
"France has not expressed regret," AFP quotes Mr Bihozagara as saying during his three-hour testimony.
He added that even after the genocide the French government had not apprehended genocide suspects living in France.
The BBC's Geoffrey Mutagoma in Kigali says that it is also alleged that French soldiers provided escape routes to militia escaping to the Democratic Republic of Congo after the massacres.
French soldiers were deployed in parts of Rwanda in the final weeks of the genocide under a United Nations mandate known as Operation Turquoise to set up a protected zone.
But Rwanda says the soldiers allowed Hutu extremists to enter Tutsi camps.
"Operation Turquoise was aimed only at protecting genocide perpetrators, because the genocide continued even within the Turquoise zone," Mr Bihozagara said.
The panel's findings are expected within six months.
A French military court is conducting a separate investigation into claims that French soldiers played a part in the genocide.
Separately, some of Rwanda's most high-profile genocide cases have already been tried by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), based in the Tanzanian town of Arusha.
Twenty-five ringleaders have been convicted since 1997, but the Rwandan government has expressed frustration at the slow legal process.

Accusations of French genocide against Algerians
Genocide against Algerian Identity
Sunday , 22 October 2006
1. Overview
According to the Algerian documents, between 350,000 and 1.5 million Algerians died during the Algerian War of Independence.[1] Algerians argue that the massacres should be named as genocide and France must apologise to the Algerians. Arab states and many Muslim countries, including Turkey, back the Algerian claims. However the French do not accept the claims. According to the French side, the number of killed Algerian civilians is about 350.000, but not more "France's Alledged Algerian Genocide". French Foreign Ministry responded to Algerian President Abdulaziz Bouteflika's call to France to repent for what France perpetrated in Algeria during the colonial period, by relegating such historical inquiries to historians' "France Left Algerian Genocide to Historians Again"
Algeria's President Abdelaziz Bouteflika said that French colonization of his country was a form of genocide.[2][3] In memoirs, some French officers have described torture of Algerians during the war. Edouard Sablier, for instance, one of the soldiers who took part in the repression, later described the situation: "Everywhere in the towns there were camps surrounded by barbed wire containing hundreds of suspects who had been arrested… Often, when we set out to inspect an isolated hamlet in the mountains, I heard people say, 'We should punish them by taking away their crops'."[4] A paper called Ohé Partisans, published by the French Trotskyists, described Sétif as an “Algerian Oradour”. Oradour was a French town where the Nazi occupiers had murdered over 600 people, including children..
Some Algerian intellectuals argue that the number of genocide against the Algerian people is not one but many. Prof. Dr. Ali Al-Hail for instance says "French constituted numerous genocides against the Algerians" - The French Definition of 'Genocide'. Similarly, Abdulkerim Gazali, editor of the Algerian newspaper La Tribune, likens France's occupation of an independent and sovereign Algeria to Nazi Germany's occupation of many European countries and claimed this was racism "Algerian Genocide - Algerian History
However France has never accepted its responsibility in tortures and massacres in Algeria. Paris says that the past should be left to historians. French President Jacques Chirac, upon harsh reactions to the law encouraging the good sides of the French colonial history, made the statement, "Writing history is the job of the historians, not of the laws." According to Prime Minister, Dominique de Villepin, "speaking about the past or writing history is not the job of the parliament."[5]
The Algerian president Abdelaziz Bouteflika said in a speech in Paris on 17 April 2006 that "Colonisation brought the genocide of our identity, of our history, of our language, of our traditions".[6]

2. History
Algeria first became a colony of France in 1830. When in 1954 the Algerian people rioted against the French colonial rule, the French dispatched 400,000 troops to pacify the anti-colonial uprising.[7] The French colonial forces launched an air and ground offensive against several eastern cities, particularly Setif and Guelma, in response to anti-French riots. The crackdown lasted several days and according to the Algerian state left 45,000 people dead YouTube Video - "Algerian Genocide by France" European historians put the figure at between 15,000 and 20,000.[8] French attacks continued not only in Algerian territories but in France as well. The Paris massacre of 1961 was the most vivid example: On October 17 the French police attacked an unarmed demonstration of Algerians, who demanded the freedom of their country from French colonial rule. How many demonstrators were killed is still unclear, but estimates range from 32 to 200 people. The incident had not been officially confirmed until 1999.[9][10] The Algerian newspaper Liberté was seized by the Police on 19 October 1998, presumably in connection of an article about these events.[11]
There were executions and widespread arrests during the War of Independence. "Villages were bombed from the air and a town was shelled from a cruiser at sea. The attacks were more or less random. The point was not so much to punish the original rioters as to teach the whole Muslim population to know their place. Settlers set up their own unofficial death squads and killed hundreds of Muslims. German and Italian prisoners of war were released to take part in the massacre".[12]
As Le Monde Diplomatique put it, "as France celebrated victory in Europe on 8 May 1945, its army was massacring thousands of civilians in Sétif and Guelma - events that were the real beginning of Algeria’s war of independence."[13] Bouteflika also urged the Paris Government to admit its part in the massacres of 45,000 Algerians who took to the streets to demand independence as Europe celebrated victory over Nazi Germany in 1945.[14] French authorities then responded by playing down the comments, urging "mutual respect" French Foreign Minister Barnier told Algeria in an official visit to make a common effort to search history "in order to establish a common future and overcome the sad pages". Giving interview to El Vatan, an Algerian newspaper, Barnier said that "Historians from two sides must be encouraged to work together. They must work on the common past".[15]
After a war which ended in Algeria's independence in 1962, eight million Algerian residents were deprived of French nationality and hundreds of thousands of pieds-noirs (French who settled in Algeria and were re-patriated at the end of the war) were forced "home" to a place which was not home.

3. Commentary
Ahmed Ben Bella also argues that the French committed a genocide against the people and Algerian culture: "Algeria's indigenous population was decimated in the early years of French settler colonial rule, falling from over four million in 1830 to less than 2.5 million by 1890. Systematic genocide was coupled with the brutal suppression of Algerian cultural identity. Indigenous Algerians were French subjects, but could only become French citizens if they renounced Islam and Arab culture. A ruthless policy of acculturation followed, and the remaining Algerians were forced to cease speaking their native Arabic and use the French of their colonial masters instead. The indigenous Muslim population of Algeria was not permitted to hold political meetings or bear arms. They were subjected to strict pass laws that required indigenous Muslim Algerians to seek permission from the colonial authorities to leave their hometowns or villages."[16]
Abdulkerim Gazali, editor of the Algerian newspaper La Tribune, likened France's occupation of an independent and sovereign Algeria to Nazi Germany's occupation of many European countries and claimed this was racism.[17]

4. Recent developments
Algeria called on France to apologize in 2005 for crimes committed during the colonial era.[18] Amar Bakhouche, speaker of the Algerian Senate, similarly reacted that France did not apologize for massacres it committed in Algeria.[19]
The archives in France on the issue have been kept closed until now. The French collected all documents regarding the massacres and genocide. For many, the closed archives are another sign of the Genocide in Algeria. Amar Bakhouche, the speaker of Algerian Senate, reacted against the fact that France keeps the archives related to that period closed. He said the greatest majority of archives related to that period were brought to France and they were kept closed. "They are not open for French and Algerians. We urged to immediately open them for public", he said.[20]
In response to the action of the French parliament, making it an offense to deny the supposed Armenian genocide, the Turkish parliament is drafting a bill to make it illegal to deny that the French committed genocide in Algeria.[21] Turkish party leaders, including CHP, MHP, BBP and ANAP called France to recognise 'Algerian genocide'.

5. References
^ Wars of the World Algeria Independence France 1954-1962
^ BBC News Algeria leader in French hospital
^ The Scotsman Algerian leader calls colonisation 'genocide'
^ Socialist Worker Algeria — the war didn’t end in 1945
^ Zaman Online France in Favor of So-Called Genocide Resorts to Historians
^ The Scotsman Algerian leader calls colonisation 'genocide'
^ Al-Ahram Weekly Ahmed Ben Bella: Plus ça change
^ Al Jazzeera [1]
^ The Washington Post Back Issues A 1961 Massacre of Algerians in Paris - When the Media Failed the Test
^ Al-Ahram Weekly Bullets in the water
^ When the Seine was full of bodies
^ Socialist Worker Algeria — the war didn’t end in 1945
^ Le Monde Diplomatique Massacre in Algeria
^ Al Jazzeera [2]
^ Diplomatic Observer PARIS' GAME TURNS AGAINST DUE TO ALGERIA
^ Al-Ahram Weekly Ahmed Ben Bella: Plus ça change
^ Turkish Weekly Algeria Asks France to Recognize Algerian Genocide
^ Turkish Weekly France's Alledged Algerian Genocide
^ Diplomatic Observer PARIS' GAME TURNS AGAINST DUE TO ALGERIA
^ Diplomatic Observer PARIS' GAME TURNS AGAINST DUE TO ALGERIA
^ NTV-MSNBC Turkish parliamentary committee drafts law on Algerian genocide
---------Source: Wikipedia, 22 October 2006, Sunday11:33 a.m.

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE OTTOMAN ARMENIANS? (I)

Professor Nursen MAZICI
ISTANBUL - TDN Guest Writer

One of the basic aims of the social sciences is to try to solve the contradictory issues and problems between people, groups, communities and societies, and their political and social systems. The problems must be fixed objectively and according to cause and effect. The other necessity during scientific research is to avoid making propaganda and invoking the wrath of one group against another. In addition, researchers should not attempt to persuade others relating to their political beliefs. While studying the political history of the world, which has consisted of many wars that have caused the loss of uncountable human lives, the documents one must depend on are primary resources rather than secondary ones. Another important step in scientific research is to use the terms, notions and concepts related to the topic in the correct form.
In this context, since 1965 there has been an unfounded allegation that genocide was carried out against 1,500,000 Armenians by the Ottoman government in 1915 during World War I. First of all, it should be remembered what kind of position the Ottoman Armenians had before and during the war.
In addition, although nearly 25 million people, including Turks, Kurds, Arabs, Britons, French, Germans and Russians, died during World War I, what distinguished the Armenians' deaths, which have been discussed for nearly 41 years, is the subject of this paper.

Ottoman Armenians organizations before the war:
After living together in peace with Turks for more than 850 years, the Ottoman Armenians were encouraged to rebel against the Ottoman state by imperialist England, France and Russia, which aimed to divide and share the Ottoman Empire in the late 19th century.
Professor Langer, a diplomatic historian from Harvard University, explained how the Ottoman Armenians organized at Istanbul, Trabzon, Van, Harput, Izmir and Aleppo against the Ottoman Empire to work toward its collapse and create an independent Armenian state. Thus the Hunchak Armenian bands and the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF) secretly arranged revolutionary bands that could fight the government and “terrorize government officials, traitors and usurers and all kinds of exploiters” during the 1890s. [1] One of the revolutionary Armenians told Dr. Hamlin, [2] who was the founder of Robert College in Istanbul, that the Hunchak Armenian bands would:
… watch their opportunity to kill Turks and Kurds, set fire to their villages and then make their escape into the mountains. The enraged Muslims will then rise, and fall upon the defenseless Armenians and slaughter them with such barbarity that Russia will enter in the name of humanity and Christian civilization and take possession. [3]
Dr. Hamlin was shocked. He told the revolutionary that the scheme was atrocious and infernal beyond anything ever known, and he got this reply:
It appears so to you, no doubt; but we Armenians have determined to be free. Europe listened to Bulgarian horrors and made Bulgaria free. She will listen to our cry when it goes up in the shrieks and blood of millions of women and children … We are desperate. We will do it. [4]
Therefore, the Hunchak Armenians decided that social organization in the Ottoman Empire could be shifted by violence against Turks. They explained how to terrify the Ottoman government. To achieve it, their methods included “propaganda, agitation, terror organization and peasant and worker activities” led by guerrilla bands. [5] For example, the Hunchak Armenians arranged a demonstration of Bab-i Ali (the Sublime Porte), which caused much bloodshed on Sep. 18-30, 1895 in Istanbul. [6] Similarly, on Aug. 26, 1896, members of the ARF bombed the Imperial Ottoman Bank in Istanbul in an event similar to the Sept. 11, 2001 Al Qaeda ????? attack against the United States. The event at the Imperial Ottoman Bank caused an uprising by Muslims in which more than 900 Armenians and 700 Muslims died in Istanbul. Hayik Tiryakian, who was one of the people who bombed the bank, spoke about the attack:
…6 people were sufficient to begin the operation. We set out, with sack[s] full of bombs on our shoulders and guns in our hands. … The bombs were giving incredible results; they did not kill [the staff of the bank and the people around the bank] instantly, but tore their flesh apart, and made them writhe with pain and agony. We went with Garo to the president's office and wrote down our conditions. We demanded that the Powers [referring to England, France and Russia] fulfill our requests, that those who took part in this confrontation be freed; if not, we would blow up the bank along with ourselves … 3 had died, 6 of our friends were wounded. Our enemies' casualties [implying Turks] were also heavy. [7]

Footnotes:
[1] William L. Langer, “The Diplomacy of Imperialism 1890-1902” Volume 1, New York & London Alfred. A. Knopf 1935, p.155
[2] Dr. Cyrus Hamlin was one of American missionaries in the late term of the Ottoman Empire. So he had good friendship with Armenians as well as Turks.
[3] Langer, op.cit., p.157
[4] ibid, p.158
[5] Louise Nalbandian, The Armenian Revolutionary Movement, University of California Press Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1967 pp.110-111
[6] ibid, p.122
[7] Kamuran Gürün, “The Armenian File The Myth of Innocence Exposed,” K.Rustem& Bro.and Weidenfeld & Nicolson Ltd. London. Nicosia. Istanbul 1985, p.158 quoted from Vartanian's book “History of Dasnaksutyun” pp.160-163

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE OTTOMAN ARMENIANS? (II)

Prof. Nursen MAZICI
ISTANBUL - TDN Guest Writer

The position of Armenians during the war:
By 1914, the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF) had recruited many militants and in the spring of 1915, besieged the city of Van, massacring tens of thousands of Muslims and spearheading a Russian invasion of Eastern Ottoman Anatolia. For example, a report I obtained from the National Archives (N) proved that the ARF admitted to killing 60,000 Muslims in Sarikamis, Kars, in 1914 and massacring many Muslims who lived in Eastern Anatolia by collaborating with the Russian and French armies, which occupied eastern and southeastern Anatolia from 1914 to 1918.[1]
According to this report, the ARF explained what they had done, which was admitted by the Ottoman Armenians who had migrated to the United States as follows: In August 1914, a Turkish mission visited the ARF, which had congregated for its annual meeting at Erzurum in eastern Anatolia. Afterward, the Turkish mission suggested to the ARF that “if the Armenians of the Ottoman Empire and of Russia [make] common cause with Turkey, Turkey [will agree] to create, with a guarantee from Germany, an autonomous Armenian state by giving Erzurum, Van and Bitlis in Turkey.” However, the ARF rejected this arrangement. (p.3-4)
Meanwhile, before the entry of the Ottoman Empire into the war in October 1914, Russia, through Russian Commander Count Varantzoff Dachkoff, “proposed to Armenian political organizations that if Turkey should enter the war and if Armenians [make] common cause with Russia, thereby contributing to a Russian victory over Turkey, Russia [will] incorporate in the peace treaty stipulations for the complete autonomy of the six vilayets (provinces) of Turkey,” and the Armenians accepted the proposal. Therefore, “With the Armenians' excellent fighting qualities, especially when in the presence of a hereditary enemy [Turks are implied], these troops really made the difference between success and failure to the Russians in the Caucasus." (p.7)
Another comment in the report is that more than 200,000 Armenians fought with the allies [England, Russia and France, which wanted to divide and share the Ottoman Empire] or independently, and 100,000 lost their lives. “Of the 900 college and university students, especially of those whose families were in Turkey, (p.21) that enlisted in the Foreign Legion and fought on the Western front all, but 55 were killed in action and of the survivors every one received one or more decorations for gallantry in action. Following the defection of Russia, the Armenians took over the Caucasus front -- 600 miles long – and prevented the Turks from reaching the Baku oil fields for nine long months.” (p.1)
The Armenians had achieved the plan of the ARF, which was related to Dr. Hamlin, step by step, during the war on the Caucasus front. The report says: "In 1914 … the 10th Turkish Army, on its way from Olti to Sarikamis, was held up for 36 hours at the Barbuz Pass by the first Armenian battalion, under Armenian Col. Keri. This delay enabled the Russians to concentrate their forces at Sarikamis, where Enver Pasha [the minister of war in the Ottoman government] failed utterly in his offensive.” It adds: “The Turks lost 30,000, largely due to freezing conditions. Ali Ihsan Pasha and his staff were captured and shipped to Siberia. … When Enver returned to Istanbul, he publicly announced that his failure was due to the intervention of the Armenians. … Enver told the truth. … In April, 1915 … Armenian leader Andranik fought off Gen. Khalil Bey for three days. When Russian reinforcements arrived, 3,600 Turks lay dead and wounded in front of Armenian trenches." (pp. 9-10)
As a matter of fact, this information, that 100,000 Armenians had fought against the Turks in World War I, was confirmed at the U.S. Senate as well. [2]
Finally, the ARF declared “a people's war” [3] against the Turkish government and began to implement its plan by massacring hundreds of thousands of people. According to information provided by the Turkish State Archive, more than 523,000 Turk Ottoman subjects were killed by the ARF from 1910 to 1922. [4] As is well known, American and European Armenians have been claiming since 1973 that on April 24, 1915 there was an Armenian genocide by the Ottoman government. As explained in the report, the situation is so confused that it is almost impossible to understand who massacred whom in April 1915.
There has been an allegation that after the entry of the Ottoman Empire into World War I, a so-called Armenian genocide paralleled the genocide of Jews by the Nazi regime during World War II. As Professor Bernard Lewis mentioned, this allegation is unfounded because what happened to the Ottoman Armenians was the result of a massive Armenian armed rebellion against the Turks, which began even before the war broke out, and continued on a larger scale.
"To make this a parallel with the holocaust in Germany you would have to assume the Jews of Germany had been engaged in an armed rebellion against the German state, collaborating with the allies against Germany. That in the deportation order the cities of Hamburg and Berlin were exempted, persons in the employment of the state were exempted and deportation only applied to the Jews of Germany proper, so that when they got to Poland they were welcomed and sheltered by Polish Jews." [5]
The Russian occupation continued from 1914 to 1916 in the eastern region. Consequently, it means that it was impossible to massacre Armenians who lived in eastern Turkey in 1915 because neither the Ottoman government nor the army had control over the region. Afterward, it is probable that the German and Ottoman governments, which were allied with each other during World War I, decided to deport the AFR members and their families temporarily to Syria, which was a province of the Ottoman Empire and far from all active fronts at that time.
Finally, the Ottoman government had to deport them at the insistence of the ARF on May 27, 1915. However, during the deportation some Armenians were killed in revenge by Kurdish tribes and by local officials whose members and relatives had been massacred by the AFR between the 1880s and 1915. The situation in the region is well described by Gen. Harbord: "In the territory untouched by war from which Armenians were deported, the ruined villages are undoubtedly due to Turkish deviltry, but where Armenians advanced and retired with the Russians their retaliatory cruelties unquestionably rivaled the Turks in their inhumanity." [6]

Footnotes:
[1] National Archives (N) RG 59 Records of the Department of State Relating to Political Relations Between the United States and Turkey, 1910-1929 Roll No: 6, M : NO:365 Document No:711.672/473, and Date: June 7,1926, Herbert Adams Gibbons “Armenia in the World War,” 1926, New York.
[2] Congressional Record Proceedings and Debates -- Senate, Volume LXVII, Part-1, March 17, 1925, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1926, p.292
[3] Nalbandian, op. cit. p.156
[4] The New York Times, April 18, 2005
[5] Gunay Evinch, “The Armenian Cause Today,” The Turkish American, Vol.2 No.8, Summer 2005, p. 24
[6] Maj. Gen. James. G. Harbord, U.S. Army, Conditions in the Near East, Report of the American Military Mission to Armenia, Presented by Mr. Lodge, April 13, 1920 -- Ordered to be printed, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1920, p. 9

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE OTTOMAN ARMENIANS? (III)

Professor Nursen MAZICI
ISTANBUL - TDN Guest Writer

The Armenians after the armistice:

After being deported by the Ottoman government to
Syria, the Armenians restarted their fight against the
Turks by collaborating with the French Army, which
was located in the Levant. They formed an Armenian
Legion and massacred thousands of Turks. The chief
of the bureau of operations of the French troops
explained how the Armenians killed Turks. He
describes the military quality of an Armenian soldier
while fighting against the Turks as capable of
learning quickly and as having a passion to bear
arms and for military exercises, proud of his
volunteer's uniform and impatient to meet the
Turks.[1] Col. Romieu, the other French commander,
also explains how the Armenians killed Turks during
the funeral ceremonies of Armenians on Sept. 20,
1918 as follows:
"The Armenian battalion approached the objective
assigned using an obstinate assault; it maintained
itself stubbornly under the shadow of the hills of
Arara[t], which the Germans had converted into the
most powerful point of Turkish resistance in this
region, and it was right at this point that the Turkish
line of resistance was broken. … The magnificent
behavior of the battalion, not withstanding its losses,
made it possible for us to fulfill the mission that had
been entrusted to us … our Armenian heroes, who fell
in the first line, facing the enemy [Turks are implied]
… rest in your glory." [2]
In short, although there was not any genocide
during World War I, Armenians and Muslims
massacred each other because of the imperialistic
aims of the British, French, Russians and Germans.
As a matter of fact, Professor Richard G.
Hovannisian, an expert on the Armenian issue from
the University of California, criticizes the European Powers on the Armenian issue without discussing
the ARF massacre of hundreds of thousands of Muslims before and during World War I. But he states
that after the Central powers lost the war in 1918, there was a small Armenia in existence and the
desire of Armenians was that Turkish Armenia be added to the existence of the one in the southern
Caucasus. According to him, the realization of this hope was dependent on the “benevolence” of the
Allies, who were the victors of the war. He adds, “The key determining the course of that
independence was in the hands of the nations of Europe and America.” [3]. He implies that although
these nations promised justice to the Armenians, they ignored the representatives of Armenia in
Western Europe in late 1918.
Though Bliss [4], extremely and subjectively blamed the Ottoman government on the Armenian
issue, he shares a similar idea with Hovannisian by questioning the European Powers and Russia of
that time. He believes that they might have prevented the massacres if they had made the correct
decision. [5]

American Gen. James Harbord, who wrote the report about eastern Anatolia after visiting the region
in 1919, confirmed the massacring of both sides. He says that the situation of the Turks was worse
than that of the Armenians. [6] According to Harbord's report, before the war the population of
Turkish people in Armenian provinces had been 1,750,000; after the war there were 1,000,000 left.
[7] In the report, after objective observation, Harbord's Commission says that:
"Some Turkish officers were pointed out to us by American missionaries as having refused to carry
out the 1915 order for [Armenian] deportation. That order is universally attributed to the Committee
of Union and Progress, of which Enver Bey, Talat Bey and Djemal Pasha were the leaders. A court has
been sitting in the capital practically since the armistice, and one man and an unimportant
subordinate, has been hung. Talat, Enver and Djemal are at large and a group of men charged with
various crimes against the law of war are at Malta in custody of the British, unpunished except as
restrained from personal liberty." [8]
Although they had not been found guilty by the British court in Malta, both Talat Bey and Djemal
Pasha were killed by Armenian terrorists in Berlin and Tbilisi in the early 1920s.
Conclusion:
In my opinion, which side first began to massacre the other and who killed more than the other is
not as important as who encouraged the Armenians and Muslims, who were equal subjects of the
Ottoman Empire at that time, to massacre each other for the sake of expanding and exploiting the
desires of imperialism. It was catastrophic that both innocent Turks and Armenians died during World
War I. Consequently, it is understood that War World I caused the massacre of too many people as
current wars do in the world. According to U.N. figures, more than 50 ethnic or religious massacres or
genocides occurred in the 20th century, and some of them are still continuing. Therefore, every person
who identifies himself/herself as a human being must struggle to stop wars through nongovernmental
organizations by supporting the United Nations to prevent the most shameful events of the 20th
century from occurring in the contemporary world.
Footnotes:
[1] N (National Archives) “RG 59 Records of the Department of State Relating to Political Relations
Between the United States and Turkey, 1910-1929" Roll No: 6, M : NO:365 Document
No:711.672/473, p.18,21
[2] ibid, p.20
[3] Richard G. Hovannisian, “Armenia on the Road of Independence,” University of California Press,
1969, p. 242
[4] He was one of the Christian missionaries in the late 19th century in the Ottoman Empire.
[5] Edwin Munsell Bliss, “Turkish Cruelties Upon the Armenian Christians,” Monarch, Chicago, 1896
p.557-558
[6] Major General J.G. Harbord, “Plain Pact About Asia Minor and the Trans-Caucasus,” The New York
Times, Feb. 22, 1919
[7] “Report to Maj. Gen. James. G. Harbord, US Army Chief, American Military Mission to Armenia on
Political Factors and Problems,” Capt. Stanly, K. Hornbeck, Ord. Dept., United States, on board USS
Martha Washington, Oct.16,1919, p. 6
[8] Harbord, "Conditions in the Near East," p.10

THE GENOCIDE TERROR: THE ARMENIAN BILL IN FRANCE PARLIAMENT

Sedat Laciner

Thursday , 12 October 2006

Turkey's membership to the EU has been a test of democracy and "Europeanness" for the EU rather than Turkey.

We were used to harsh criticisms of the "Europeans" about Turkey's economy, democracy etc. Until now, they have scolded the Turkish people and the Turks have listened to them.

Most of the time, the EU side was right in its criticisms. They kept on saying "human rights", "end the torture", "consolidate your democracy", "liberalize your economy" and many more. There were of course some unjust criticisms too. Particularly, the Cyprus and the Aegean disputes and the Armenian issue were giving us signs from the "dark side" of Europe. But it has never been this much dirty.

MODERN WITCH HUNT

Even listing the incidents one after another will be enough to demonstrate how 'Europe' is in a stalemate and how it nurtures a medieval "monster" within itself:

After September 11, so to say "the witch hunt" started in Western Europe against the Euro Muslims and Euro Turks. Being a Muslim has been equated with being a "potential terrorist" even in countries like the Netherlands and England, which are thought to be "minority heavens." Many Muslims in these EU countries have unjustly been detained, and have remained in cells as if they were criminals. Some were proven innocent and released. Neither apology nor compensation. The detentions are still continuing. Those whose skin color is darker or who look like Middle Easterner now have to walk faster in the streets because of the attitude of the security forces towards them.

The Denmark daily Jyllands-Posten's cartoon contest, which had an obvious aim of insulting the Prophet of Islam, and the publication of these cartoons in Denmark were also provocations. Turkey noticed that a crisis was imminent and called for a meeting to calm down the situation. However, the Denmark's PM Anders Fogh Rasmussen ignored these calls, and what is more, gave a lesson of "Europeanness" to Turkey. He said "is Turkey European or not, it should decide on that." Moreover, he strictly and impolitely rejected the requests of ambassadors of Muslim countries to Copenhagen for a meeting with him. "There is nothing to talk" he said. But the fears have come true. The Muslims, whose Prophet was depicted as "terrorist", "murderer" and "barbarian" by the Danish newspaper, organized protests in many countries. Because they knew that it was not only the Prophet but also themselves who were being insulted. The one depicted in the cartoon was not only the Prophet, but the whole Muslim community, whose number is more than 1 billion. The Muslims were identical with terrorists in the subconscious of the Danish. When the Danish products were boycotted in the Muslim world, Rasmussen abruptly changed his attitude. He personally called the Muslim ambassadors for a meeting. But it was too late. The relations between the Christian and Muslim worlds had been seriously damaged.

There is another scandal and it is again in Denmark. The youth organization of People's Party of Denmark, the rightist, if not racist, political party, organized a contest of humiliation of the Muslims' Prophet. This party is the third largest party in Denmark and supports the government outside. Again, the aim is to insult the Muslims. Those members, who are mocking with Islam, are portraying a "typical" Muslim by hanging grenades on their belts. For Denmark, all these events must be considered as "freedom of speech." But nobody talks about principles such as respect to faith and religion, keeping the balance of ethnic relations, and discouraging the intercultural hatred and violence. The freedom of thought openly turns out to the "freedom of insult and incitement." As a matter of fact, the freedom of speech is just a tale. 'The Christian Europe' cannot control its annoyance after Turkey's membership process has become a serious affair. There is a 'monster' in Europe which feels the clash of civilizations in its very veins particularly after the September 11. This monster is the monster which burned the Jews in Spain alive; the monster which could exterminate people at the hands of the Nazis because they were Gypsies, Jews or black. This monster is religionist and racist. This monster is fanatic, naughty and fully ignorant. Don't pay attention to the science and technology cover on Europe, because the monster beneath is so strong.

***

And the Netherlands. A country seen as a fortress of liberalism and democracy. The political parties in this country are so privileged that the Dutch cannot afford to close a party which defends pedophilia and zoophilia. They say "Let everyone speak. The essence of democracy is the freedom of thought and speech." But in the Netherlands, rejecting the Armenian claims against the Turks is a bigger mistake than even pedophilia. Three Turkish candidates were deprived to run for the elections from their party lists just because they did not agree with the Armenians. What is more, these parties, which dropped the candidacy of the three Turks, were not marginal or small ones. One was the party in power, and the other was the main leftist party. In short, it is even impossible to voice different opinions in the Netherlands, even in main current Dutch political parties.

How will the Turks in this country, whose number is about 450.000, voice their demands if political channels are closed to them?

Who will bear the responsibility if al-Qaeda says that "the Netherlands even doesn't allow you to enter the parliament? You think differently from the Armenians but they cannot even tolerate that?"

What will the results of excluding the Turks, who are the most harmonious and peaceful Muslim minority in Europe, from the system?

AND FRANCE.

Nowadays, we have been experiencing "Armenian genocide insanity" from France to the Netherlands, from Germany to Belgium. The Armenian claims are not new. For almost a century, the Armenians have been trying to get the great powers press Turkey with the hope of getting a homeland in Anatolia. They have tried many ways: Terror, assassinations, financial aid to the terrorist organizations in Turkey, boycotting Turkish products, issuing anti-Turkey bills in various parliaments etc. But they have failed. They have failed not because Turkey was a very strong country or the Turkish lobbies have done their best to stop these attempts. It was because the Armenian claims were so weak even baseless. It was because their method was wrong. It was because slandering a whole nation was illogical by just relying on claims. It was because it was against the nature of any small or big country to judge and blame a state or a nation based on the claims of just one side. And had the Armenians been right, they would have applied to courts, not parliaments.

Despite this picture, France approved the Armenian claims (I prefer calling them "obsessive belief") in the parliament in 2001 as if they were the historical facts. The President of France also approved the bill and the Armenian claims were legalized in France. According to these claims, the Turks slaughtered 1.5 million Armenians in 1915, that is, during the Ottoman State period. The name of this action is, they say, "genocide". I cannot help myself but ask: Since the 1915 incidents were "genocide", why does France pass the law as late as 2001. What have the French politicians been doing until now? For example, why didn't they take that decision when France invaded the Ottoman territories at the end of the World War 1 and seized all the Ottoman official documents? Why didn't they arrest and try the "criminals"? Why didn't they investigate the Armenian claims on the spot instead of cooperating with the Armenians to kill thousands of Turks and Kurds at that time? OK, let's assume that France was unaware of the situation because of the joy of victory, but how come the French politicians haven't remembered the so-called "genocide" for 86 years? And didn't they think of the 1915 Incidents while they were slaughtering the 1.5 million Algerian Arabs? Have they compared the Armenian claims with what the French soldiers have done in Africa and Asia?

We can ask more questions to France because the decision has no legal or political logic. The bill was passed in the parliament thanks to the 30-40 radical-militant pro-Armenian legislators' insistence in the pre-election period. Other MPs, who did not want to draw the anger of 300.000 Armenian votes in France, did not even participate the voting of the bill. As a result, there was "genocide of facts" in the French Parliament, and the others just watched it.

The current step is more tragicomic. The French Parliament first issued the bill which approved the Armenian claims as true; they are now trying to criminalize to say "lie" to the lies. The French parties, which have been captured by the Armenian origin MPs and their supporters, are not aware of what impact they will have not only on Turco-French relations but also themselves and Europe.

Some rightist, religionist and racist people, like Sarkozy, support the idea of "Christian Europe", and these people are endorsing anything which is against Turkey. Recently, the TUSIAD's (Association of Turkish Businessmen and Industrialists) Brussels Representative has asked why he was so opposed to Turkey's membership. His answer was "I know the Arab world very well." Sarkozy, who is the minister of interior of France, a candidate for presidency and has been a politician for years, thinks that Turkey is an Arab country!

I have written it above: The monster which Europe nurtures inside is not only racist and religionist but also ignorant. Imagine, Mr. Sarkozy's 'knowledge' on Turkey is not limited with that. He says "shall we just let the 100 million Muslim Turks to migrate Europe?" The French Minister of Interior Nicolas Sarkozy thinks that the population of Turkey is 100 million. One cannot say that he rounded the number. The discrepancy equals to three times of Greece's population. Let's assume that Turkey's population is 100 million. How ignorant and militant is the one who thinks the all of the Turks will flow to the European cities once Turkey is a full member. It is obvious that Sarkozy sees himself as a Pope in the Medieval Age. He sees Turks invading Europe in his nightmares every night!

On the other hand, the leftist groups in France have been the "captive" of the Armenian constituents and lobbies. The Armenian lobby, which spends more than 100 billion dollars for the Armenian cause each year, has made this affair an industry. They have formed up a strong network consisting of universities, parliaments, companies and even movie theaters. They are using the Armenian Diaspora very well for this job. The country where the Armenian "genocide" industry has been most successful is France. But the France's current pathetic situation is not only because of Armenians' attempts in that country.

The most important reason for this extreme behavior of France is Turkey's speedy progress towards full EU membership. Turkey has been breaking growth records in the last five years. It has become the 17th (or 18th) largest economy of the world. There are no obstacles for the Turkish economy to be in the top ten in the near future. Turkey has surprised the entire Europe with its reforms in the last few years. Turkey's realization of numerous reforms in a few years was defined by the European countries as "outstanding." The Turkish economy and the maturity of its politics were seen as sufficient in 2004 and 2005 for the EU membership, and as a result, the EU decided to start accession talks. In other words, the full membership of Turkey, a country which has been procrastinated since 1959, has become a serious issue for the EU. Turkey could be a full member if nothing is done. For the first time, a Muslim country would be a member of EU with equal rights. This scenario has been the nightmare of many people in Europe. First, the Pope said "the Europe is Christian; Turkey should establish a union with Arabs". These words were noted down by the Turks, never to be forgotten. This is perhaps the reason why the strongest reaction to the Pope's words on the Prophet of Islam has come from Turkey. However, the Pope was not alone unfortunately. The German PM Angela Merkel also opposed Turkey's membership in 2004. Though the French President Jacques Chirac ostensibly approved Turkey's accession talks, in other occasions he said "don't worry, many things will change until the accession talks finish and their membership depends on the results of the referendum in France." This is a very disrespectful attitude, and in fact, it is a fraud. The French President, who promised full membership in written agreements and mobilized Turkey's economy and politics for this aim, was thinking just the opposite in reality, and he has done everything to impede Turkey's membership. Chirac was unable to criticize Turkish democracy and economy, and he was unable to reverse the signatures he made. So, he wanted to use the Cyprus issue and then the Armenian issue against Turkey. The Cyprus issue is a problem which the world has been unable to solve for decades. The United Nations peacekeeping force, UNFICYP, was deployed in Cyprus in 1964, and it is still there. That is to say, France knows that conditioning Turkey's membership to the solution of the Cyprus problem means delaying Turkey's accession for many more decades. But the most effective way to hinder Turkey's entry to the EU is the Armenian issue:

There are claims and counterclaims, and it is almost impossible for any party to convince the other one in this issue. The Armenians blame Turkey and Turks with one of the world's worst and most insulting crime, genocide, by relying on statements such as "my grandfather said this, my grandmom said that". Naturally Turkey or any country cannot admit such accusations. In such a case, conditioning Turkey's membership to the acceptance of the Armenian claims means intentionally excluding Turkey from the EU forever. A problem which hasn't been solved for a century cannot be solved in a short time, and anyone in the EU knows that the Armenian issue cannot be solve in couple of days or years. The Armenians are not aware of the situation. The Armenians in the Diaspora are content with their lives. They are making money, reputation and power through the difficulties of the Armenians in Armenia. On the other hand, Armenia Armenians cannot even decide on their fate. The country is headed by a diaspora Armenian from Nagorno-Karabakh, Robert Kocharian, who is obsessed with the Turks and more territories. Mr. Kocharian is an Armenian from the Diaspora, who later obtained Armenian citizenship. He talks of nothing but blood and war. He stays in the power thanks to his discourse on creating tensions and obtaining more territories. He stays in power thanks to the militants recruited from Karabakh. He even repressed street demonstrations by using the Karabakh militants.

Even the Greeks realized that an EU-member Turkey is better than a Turkey outside the EU, but Armenians. If Turkey becomes a full member of the EU, Armenia will become a neighbor of the Union. This probably means that the border between Turkey and Armenia will be opened, and the Armenians will prosper. For the moment, there are more than 70.000 Armenians from Armenia who are living and working in Turkey. Some are babysitters, some are servants, and some others work in constructions. Most of them come to Turkey illegally or as tourists. But then, they find a job and start living in Turkey with bad conditions. They are taking care of children and houses of Turks, who have been presented to them as "the perpetrators of genocide" for the years. These Armenians are surprised of the Turks' trust in them. These Armenians, who were afraid of being treated badly in Turkey, after a while see that being an Armenian has no advantage or disadvantage in Turkey. So, they work in Turkey and send remittances to Armenia motherland. I don't think that 70 million Turks will emigrate to European cities once Turkey is an EU member, but I will not be surprised if the number of Armenians living in Turkey reaches at least 1 million. As a matter of fact, the population of Armenia has dropped from 3,2 million to 2-2,5 million during the Kocharian period. If Turkey becomes an EU member, this number is likely to drop to 1,5 million. In other words, what the Diaspora has wanted will come true: The Armenians will have returned to Anatolia! This is just a joke, but it is apparent that Armenia will be the most profitable country from Turkey's accession to the EU.

IS FRANCE SINCERE?

As I have discussed before, the issue has nothing to do with the Armenians. They are only the pawns in the attempts to hinder Turkey's membership. It is so obvious that France is not sincere in its support to the Armenian claims. When the Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan asked for the withdrawal of the Armenian "genocide" bill from the French Interior Minister Sarkozy, the minister had three conditions:

1. "The Commission (proposed by Turkey for the investigation of the historical disputes between Turks and Armenians by historians) be set up of any person, not only historians,

2. Abrogate the Article 301 of the (Turkish) Penal Code, which restricts the freedom of thought in Turkey according to Mr. Sarkozy,

3. Assure the opening of Armenia-Turkey border."

If the 1915 Incidents were really a genocide, which was legalized by the French Parliament, and if this crime is so grave that even its denial will be punished, how come Mr. Sarkozy propose such conditions to Turkey in exchange for the withdrawal of the bill? What is the relationship between Turkey's Article 301 and "not punishing" the ones who denies the so-called genocide? Let's say, if Turkey becomes the most democratic state in the world and if Turkey opens its borders fully with Armenia, will that change the history? What can be the relationship between the Armenian bill in the French Parliament and the participation of historians or businessmen in the joint Turco-Armenian commission set up to investigate the allegations?

It is clear that France's priority is not recognizing Armenian claims as "genocide", or punishing those who deny it. Their problem is neither the Armenians nor the historical facts. Their real objective is to exclude Turkey from the EU, and forcing Turkey to act under the French influence. That's why they offer to make bargain on crucial principles like 'genocide' and 'freedom of speech'.

Another indication of France's lack of sincerity is the exclusion of scientists or researchers from the current bill. In other words, if an ordinary citizen or a politician denies the Armenian claims, he/she may be imprisoned up to five years, according to the French bill, but if a researcher, historian or an academician commits the same "crime", he/she will not be punished at all. Is there such logic of law? If an act is a crime, it is a crime for everyone. So, can there be a rule which dictates that a professor doesn't have to stop in the traffic if the light is red, but an ordinary citizen has to stop in red light? And if the subject in question is the biggest crime, that is, genocide, can there be such levity? If someone denies the Holocaust in France, do the authorities check his profession to punish him?

WHAT BENEFITS ARE EXPECTED?

It is surprising that those who haven't recognized the Armenian claims as genocide for 86 years, and who haven't considered penalizing the denial of Armenian claims for 91 years have suddenly found "the right way." Timing is important. So, what do the French expect to receive from the bill?

Ostensibly, they want to support the Armenians. Chirac, in his last visit to Armenia, clearly stated that the Turks committed Armenian genocide. Moreover, he presented acceptance of the Armenian claims as a precondition for Turkey's EU membership. On the other hand, Chirac has neither condemned nor criticized Armenia's invasion of Azerbaijani territories. He only said "put a little bit more effort in solving your problems with Azerbaijan." He definitely did not mention the Hocali Massacre (if not genocide) committed by the Armenians during the Karabakh War, or the Armenian terror in the 1970s and 1980s which claimed the lives of many Turkish diplomats. And now, the bill penalizing the denial of the Armenian claims. As one would remember, France approved the Armenian claims as a historical fact in 2001. France claims that it has fulfilled a historical justice. Secondly, Paris maintains that Turkey should open its border with Armenia and establish good neighborhood relations before entering the EU.

Despite all these policies, France's approach doesn't help a Turco-Armenian rapprochement at all. On the contrary, this policy intensifies the reactions in Turkey against the Armenians and undermines the credibility of France and the EU in the eyes of the Turkish public opinion. One cannot expect the Turks to be tolerant towards the Armenians, who always make intrigues against Turkey. Moreover, those who attribute the biggest crime of the world to the Turkish people must admit that this is not a good way of solving the problem. The people who have good will and are constructive don't take one-sided decisions. Insulting is not a good way to initiate dialogue. On the other hand, French Parliament's attempt to silence Turkish people on Armenian allegations has eroded the credibility of France and the EU in Turkey. Even the most pro-Western politician or author cannot defend the EU at the moment. Those who criticize Turkey on the issue of freedom of speech cannot explain the five years imprisonment for having a different view in France. The EU authorities, criticizing the court decisions in Turkey, cannot explain the expulsion of three Turkish politicians from their parties in Netherlands just because of their different views on the Armenian issue. From time to time, there are people who take the Article 301 as an example. They say "you are preventing the discussion of the Armenian issue in Turkey with the Article 301." But the Article 301 has nothing to do with the Armenian issue. The Article regulates the insults on Turkishness, and similar laws in one way or another also exist in other European countries, like Italy. Prevention of insults to a nation or individuals is a matter which has to be protected by laws. It is true that this law has been sometimes abused and that some people have been unjustly tried. Among these people are Elif Shafak and Hrant Dink. But none of these authors were found guilty on the basis of the Article 301. We definitely wouldn't like to see them tried. But those who sue these authors are not state authorities, but "ordinary citizens", and the courts have to consider the petitions. The Article can be amended or a better practice can be applied. But there is no similarity between the Article and the bill that France wants to pass. Turkey is the most liberal country on the earth to discuss the Armenian issue. You cannot discuss the issue neither in Armenia, nor Switzerland nor the Netherlands. In these countries, if you claim something different than the Armenians do, you will be silenced, you will be imprisoned. You may lose your job. The state institutions may insult you for your different ideas than the Armenians. And whether you are a professor or a diplomat, the outcome is the same. The case filed against the Turkish consular general in France is a good example. Similarly, the warrant of arrest issued for the Chairman of the Turkish History Institution, Prof. Yusuf Halacoglu, in Switzerland just because Halacoglu was thinking differently than the Armenians is another example. Last year Armenia authorities imprisoned a Turkish historian when he wanted to make research in Yerevan.

The situation in Turkey, however, is completely different. You will find many pro-Armenian books in any of the bookstores in Turkey. Most of the significant Armenian language books on the issue have been translated into Turkish language and Turkish readers freely can reach the Armenian books now. Pro-Armenian scholars and authors can freely express their views on Turkish TV and radio channels. There are pro-Armenian scholars at state and private Turkish universities. The newspapers are full of Armenian approach. Under these circumstances, we can say that only Turkey in the world left to discuss freely the historical Armenian claims relations, but no where.

12 October 2006

Sedat LACINER: Director, USAK & Davos Economic Forum Young Global Leader 2006

BA (Ankara University), MA (University of Sheffield), PhD (King's College, University of London)