Armenia genocide in brave detail

Sun, Dec. 03, 2006
Phyladelphia Inquirer

By Carlin Romano

A Turkish historian has mined and synthesized the Ottoman Empire's internal documents and memoirs for moral clarity.

A Shameful Act By Taner Akcam Translated by Paul Bessemer.
Metropolitan Books. 483 pp. $30

The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility.

Pope Benedict XVI's just-ended magical military tour of Turkey - with helicopters overhead and riot police bristling on every flank lest he be plugged on his first visit to a Muslim land - revealed a profound truth: Those who forget the past sometimes simply want to forget it.

The pope didn't utter a peep about arriving in a country whose predecessor state, the Ottoman Empire, committed the largest genocide in history against Christians. Of course, it may be that the always-diplomatic Vatican Curia took possession of Benedict's mind and body, having exorcised the former Cardinal Ratzinger's well-known views about Turkey and Islam.

It may also be that the murder of more than one million non-Catholic Christians in the Armenian genocide is a non-homefield matter in the Vatican's current damage-control foreign policy toward Turkey and Islam.

But the upshot - a spectacle of supposed reconciliation between the Papacy and Islam last week that operated without moral memory or judgment - proved embarrassing to anyone who thinks there is no God but truth. Thankfully, we have Taner Akcam's magnificently researched study, A Shameful Act, as rebuke and counterlesson.

Why, as the world press endlessly repeated this last week, is Turkey "99 percent Muslim"? One reason is that Ottoman Sultan Abdul Hamid II, who regarded Armenians as a "degenerate community," ordered the massacre of 200,000 Turkish Armenian Christians in 1894-96.

Another is that a nucleus of future nationalist leaders of the Turkish Republic - known as the "Young Turk" government - embarked in the dying days of the Ottoman Empire (1915-16) on horrific acts of genocide and "ethnic cleansing" to rid Turkey of Christians.

To put it bluntly: In those dying days, Ottoman leaders killed most of Turkey's Christians, just as Nazi Germany would kill most of its Jews.

Hundreds of thousands of Turkey's Greek Christians had already been expelled or killed in 1914. But in 1915, as World War I raged and provided a smokescreen, the Young Turk leaders implemented a "final solution," murdering an estimated one million to 1.3 million Turkish Armenian Christians - two-thirds of the remaining Armenian population of Turkey - through starvation, death marches and execution.

That the Armenian genocide remains little-known in the United States amounts to amnesia about our own history. As powerfully recounted in Peter Balakian's The Burning Tigris (2003), the campaign by prominent Americans from 1892 to 1920 to prevent genocide in Armenia formed the first international human-rights movement in our history, the template for today's struggle over Darfur.

Feminist leader Julia Ward Howe railed against the sultan's massacres. Clara Barton led an 1896 American Red Cross mission to save Armenians. Congress passed a resolution condemning the sultan. Americans donated more than $100 million to Armenian relief aid.

In light of how things ended, the force of American outrage astonishes. Theodore Roosevelt called the Armenian massacres "the greatest crime" of World War I. The American ambassador to Istanbul labeled Turkey "a place of horror."

Despite that, by the early 1920s, the United States abandoned its intent to establish an Armenian homeland and convict Turkish leaders. The military success of Mustafa Kemal (later Atatürk) in establishing the Turkish Republic in 1922 against the wishes of the Great Powers, along with the U.S. decision to let oil politics trump human rights, pushed the Armenian holocaust off center stage.

Ever since, the Turkish Republic has rejected charges of genocide. It describes the Armenian deaths as collateral damage, World War I-style. That's despite postwar Ottoman courts-martial in which officials confessed to a genocidal policy. Turkey still mandates criminal penalties for those who accuse the state of slaughter.

One wishes that all involved in this last week's stagecraft between the Vatican and Turkey had been forced to read Akcam's A Shameful Act and to comment on it. Turkish Nobel laureate Orhan Pamuk calls Akcam's work "the definitive account of the organized destruction of the Ottoman Armenians" by "a brave Turkish scholar."

Some fine earlier books in English have delivered the grim tale. But no scholar has mined and synthesized the Ottoman Empire's internal documents and memoirs with Akcam's assiduous skill. Like Raul Hilberg's The Destruction of the European Jews, A Shameful Act is destined to become a touchstone for other studies.

Akcam, 56, a Turkish sociologist and historian, obtained political asylum in Germany after receiving a 10-year prison sentence at home for working on a student journal. He now teaches at the University of Minnesota. Hardly anti-Turkish, he dedicates his book to Haji Halil, a righteous Turk who, at the risk of being hanged, protected eight members of an Armenian family in his home during the genocide.

As you might expect from an author of such courage, Akcam pulls no punches. Ottoman Turkish leaders "did deliberately attempt to destroy the Armenian population." Turkey continues to deny the genocide because many of the leaders involved in it "later became central figures in the Turkish government" and "admitted openly that the republic could only have been established by eliminating the Armenians and removing their demand for self-determination in Anatolia."

The most striking achievement of A Shameful Act is its depth of detail. Akcam documents every twist of the story - from the political and racist origins of Turkish nationalism to the insistence of Muslims that they had to rule over inferior "infidel" Christians - with multiple sources and shocking quotations.

How, though, to explain the disappearance of such crucial history during the pope's visit? This honesty gap left his visit a moral mess, a pageant of hypocrisies. Turkish newspapers, for instance, kept asking whether the pope would offer yet another, fuller "apology" for remarks on Islam during a recent lecture that had provoked Muslim outrage.

Moral clarity, on the contrary, would suggest that it is Turkey that still owes the pope, Armenians, Christians, and the rest of the world an apology for acts far more heinous than provocative citation. Turkish nationalism, as Akcam shows, took its racist spine partly from Germany and partly from Islamic jihadism. Turkey could do worse than look to 21st-century Germany for instruction on decency, honesty and redemption.

At the same time, the pope won himself no credit by honoring the Vatican tradition of Pius XII - resisted by both John XXIII and John Paul II - of failing to speak truth to power when in the latter's presence. One couldn't help thinking of Hitler's famous question to his generals eight days before invading Poland in 1939. "Who today," he asked, "speaks of the annihilation of the Armenians?"

Not Pope Benedict XVI. Be grateful instead for Taner Akcam. He doesn't wear pretty white vestments, but he speaks the holy truth.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact book critic Carlin Romano at 215-854-5615 or cromano@phillynews.com. Read his recent work at http://go.philly.com/carlinromano.

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

Turkey's ties with France unravel over Armenia dispute

Ankara lashes back over law on Armenia
November 15, 2006
The Associated Press
ANKARA:

Turkey has suspended military relations with France in a dispute over whether the mass killings of Armenians in the last century amounted to genocide, the land forces commander said Wednesday.

The move was the latest backlash against French legislation that, if approved by the French Senate and president, would criminalize denial that the World War I-era killings of Armenians in Turkey were genocide.

France and Turkey, both NATO members, have previously had close military ties, and Turkey has been a buyer of French-made weaponry. But the Turkish military has also blacklisted several French companies in the past in similar disputes over the mass killings of Armenians.

Basbug, announced the suspension to reporters at a reception in Ankara, according to the state-owned Anatolia news agency. The lower house of the French Parliament approved the genocide-denial legislation in October.

"Relations with France in the military field have been suspended," Anatolia quoted Basbug as saying. Asked whether there had been any cancellation of military visits, Basbug said: "There are no high-level visits between the two countries."

Turkey sees the French bill as a hostile, anti-Turkish move, and has said that the lawmakers' vote has already deeply harmed Turkish-French relations. The French bill still needs the approval of the upper house and the signature of President Jacques Chirac to become law.

Turkey vehemently denies that it committed genocide against Armenians, though many nations have classified the killings as such.

Turkey acknowledges that large numbers of Armenians died in mass expulsions and fighting, but says the number of dead is exaggerated and that most were killed in ethnic conflicts as the Ottoman Empire collapsed.

Armenians and many nations say about 1.5 million Armenians were killed in a genocidal campaign devised and carried out by Turkish leaders.

The European Union and the European media have criticized the French bill, saying it is not in line with the principle of free expression and does not promote dialogue with Turkey, which wants to join the EU. The United States also criticized the bill, saying that it got in the way of Turkish-Armenian dialogue.

The Armenian issue is one of the most divisive and emotional in Turkey. Those who classify the killings as genocide are often accused of treason.

EU rebuffed over Cyprus

Turkey will not succumb to European Union "blackmail" in the dispute over the divided island of Cyprus and its bearing on Ankara's prospects of joining the bloc, the Turkish foreign minister said Wednesday, according to The Associated Press and Reuters in Nicosia.

The EU has told Turkey it must open its seaports and airports to ships and planes from Cyprus to avoid a breakdown in EU membership talks, but Ankara does not recognize the government of Cyprus.

"We won't bow to blackmail, in the same way that we did not bow to blackmail in the past," Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul of Turkey said in a speech on the Turkish Cypriot side of the island's capital, Nicosia.

Cyprus has been split between the Greek Cypriot south - whose government is recognized by the international community - and the Turkish Cypriot north since 1974, when Turkish forces invaded in response to an attempted coup by military officers who were trying to unite the island with Greece. Only Ankara recognizes the Turkish-run north.

On another issue that has clouded Turkey's ties to the EU, meanwhile, officials said Wednesday in Ankara that it planned to amend a law that the EU asserts curbs freedom of expression in time for an EU summit meeting in December.

The law, Article 301, which makes it a crime to insult "Turkishness," has been used by nationalists to prosecute writers and intellectuals, although most cases have ended in acquittals. The Justice Ministry is exploring new forms of wording that would make it more difficult for politically motivated lawyers to open cases.

Turkey has warned the EU not to try to arbitrate in the dispute, saying the 25- nation bloc could not help secure a balanced solution because Cyprus is already one of its members.

Gul said that the United Nations should play the role of mediator. "To expect concessions from Turkey by moving the question from the United Nations to the EU is a dead-end road," Gul said.

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

Bush may not prevent recognition of Armenian genocide in Congress

Sunday, November 12, 2006
UMİT ENGİNSOY
WASHINGTON - Turkish Daily News

Efforts to persuade Democratic Congress leaders to stop genocide resolutions may fail, the US administration acknowledges

U.S. President George W. Bush may not be able to prevent the passage of an Armenian genocide resolution in Congress after the rival Democratic Party won the control of both congressional houses in this week's landslide election victory, administration officials admitted.

The Democrats now have the majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate following the largest political earthquake in the United States since Bush's election as president in 2000.

Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat who is expected to take over the House speakership from Republican Dennis Hastert, already has pledged to support the adoption of a genocide legislation in the new Congress.

And Bush administration officials now acknowledge that the president's efforts to stop a new resolution may fail in this dramatically changed political climate.

"The administration will oppose an Armenian genocide resolution as strongly now as it ever has in the past," Matt Bryza, deputy assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, told a small group of reporters here.

"What I'm saying is there's a change in political reality, so it's impossible for us to predict how this new mechanism will work," Bryza said. "We don't have the same mechanism we used to have in place."

In the outgoing Congress, the House International Relations Committee in September 2005 passed two resolutions recognizing last century's Armenian killings in the last days of the Ottoman Empire as genocide, despite opposition from the Bush administration.

But Hastert, a close Bush ally, never has taken the resolutions to a full House vote, prompting angry reactions from U.S. Armenians and their backers in Congress.

However, now it will be up to Pelosi, a member of the Armenian caucus in Congress, to determine the floor vote agenda in the House. On the Senate side, many leading Democratic senators, including new majority leader Harry Reid, are sympathetic to the Armenian cause.

On the eve of the 2000 presidential and congressional elections, the passage of another genocide resolution in a House floor vote was prevented at the last minute. Hours before the planned vote, then President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, intervened personally and successfully urged the Republican House leadership to stop the resolution on grounds of national security.

But under U.S. law, the president dost not have a power to order the House speaker to do or not to do something. In the 2000 case, it was up to the Republican speaker to agree or disagree with Clinton, and he agreed at the last minute, preventing a huge risk of a destroyed relationship with Turkey.

But now when a fresh genocide resolution comes to a full House vote, even if Bush personally intervenes to stop it, as Clinton did in 2000, there will be no guarantees that the new Democratic leadership will step back.

"The Armenian genocide issue probably will be the largest hurdle in U.S.-Turkish relations in the shorter term," said one Washington analyst.

In past cases Turkey has threatened to minimize its relationship with the United States in the event of the passage of a genocide recognition resolution.

A U.S. genocide recognition would be a grand prize for Armenians, and Turkish diplomats fear that such a move would be followed by compensation demands and even territorial claims by the Armenian side.

Although Bush's move to invade Iraq badly damaged Turkey's interests in the region, the Turkish government and diplomats still wished a Republican victory in last Tuesday's elections, fearing that a Democratic control of Congress would bring even worse consequences for Ankara.

But Turks bet on the wrong horse, and the Democrats won.

In the coming months the Turkish side is expected to seek a dialogue with key Democrats in the Congress, including Pelosi and Senator Joe Biden, who is due to become chairman of the Senate's Foreign Relations Committee. But analysts say that chances are slim for Turkish diplomats to dissuade the new Democratic leaders on the Armenian issue.

Pro-Armenian lawmakers are expected to submit fresh genocide recognition resolutions to both the House and the Senate shortly after the new Congress opens in January. The aim will be the passage of at least one resolution before April 24, the Armenian remembrance day in the United States.

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

Romanian nominee for EU commission job sparks questions

27.10.2006 - 09:29 CET | By Lucia Kubosova
EU Observer

European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso has postponed confirmation of Romania's surprise nominee to join his team, with socialist MEPs warning they would be "tough" in screening the candidate they say is known for being "on the payroll of big economic tycoons."

Both candidates for new EU commissioners from the newest member states met Mr Barroso on Thursday (25 October) but only Bulgaria's Meglena Kuneva, currently the country's Europe minister, received the official green light.

Ms Kuneva will be responsible for the consumer protection portfolio in the 27-strong college, an area which Cypriot commissioner Markos Kyprianou oversees at the moment along with health issues which will now become his sole task.

"Consumer protection is central to the European citizen's agenda and while we have achieved a lot for Europe's consumers already, there is a substantial work ahead which I am sure Ms Kuneva can take forward," Mr Kyprianou said.

However, after Thursday's discussions, Mr Barroso said talks with Bucharest on its nomination of Varujan Vosganian - a liberal senator and keen free market promoter - were "ongoing."

The commission was reportedly taken aback by the surprise nomination as Mr Vosganian did not previously feature among the mooted candidates and is currently linked to an internal Romanian government row, according to the Financial Times.

The tension has also risen a notch following a statement by two prominent socialist MEPs - Hannes Swoboda and Jan Marinus Wiersma - who argue that the Romanian nominee is "unknown" in European circles and his background should be closely "explored."

"What is known is that he has been very much on the right-wing of politics and on the payroll of big economic tycoons," said the deputies, referring to Mr Vosganian's business contacts and noting that they would strive to prevent the commission's push to the right.

But Romanian leader Calin Popescu Tariceanu defended his candidate for the Brussels job and pointed out that the socialists' claims were pure speculation.

"They said they will have a fair attitude towards all candidates for the position of European commissioner and there is no need to view this matter from the perspective of political groups within the European Parliament," said Mr Tariceanu.

Mr Vosganian's nomination has also been marred by Romanian media speculation he collaborated with Soviet-era secret police, the Securitate, while Turkish press writes the ethnic Armenian's prominent role in recent Armenia genocide memorials is causing ripples in Ankara.

The European Parliament will be involved in confirming the two new commissioners, with the date of the vote on their nomination - before or after the countries' January 2007 accession - remaining unclear.

The plenary vote will be preceded by hearings where MEPs will grill the would-be commissioner on issues both directly connected to their portfolios and their general opinions and political and economic thinking.

Tough screening by MEPs in 2004 lead to a couple of nominee changes before Mr Barroso's commission was approved, with the most notorious case being the removal of the Italian candidate, Rocco Buttiglione, for his controversial statements on the role of women in society and on gays.

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.