Tweet
The Armenian Weekly On-Line
80 Bigelow Avenue
Watertown MA 02472 USA
(617) 926-3974
[email protected]
http://www.a rmenianweekly.com
The Armenian Weekly; Volume 74, No. 8; March 1, 2008
Commentary and Analysis:
1. Reflections on the Murder of Hrant Dink
By Dennis R. Papazian
2. An Overdue Housecleaning
By Paul Ternamian
3. Even Rambo Gets to Go Home
By Garen Yegparian
***
Reflections on the Murder of Hrant Dink
By Dennis R. Papazian
The following is the text of the speech delivered by Prof. Dennis Papazian
on Feb. 15 in N.J during a panel disucssion organized by the ANCs of N.Y.
and N.J.
If I were Turkish, I would like to see my country have freedom of inquiry,
freedom of speech, freedom to investigate and freedom to express their
current opinion. Without freedom to investigate and freely debate, truth
cannot be found and society cannot be healed.
First, I would like to confess to being an Armenian patriot and activist. I
was executive director of the Armenian Assembly of America back when all the
Armenian political parties were a part of it. I also chaired a meeting at
the United Nations, arranged by Set Momjian, attended by over 80 Armenian
organizations trying to find a common denominator to help them cooperate and
coordinate their activities for the good of the community.
Unfortunately, nothing came of those endeavors as the constituent units of
the Armenian Assembly separated and began to compete in Washington, D.C.,
and most Armenian organizations went their own way. Since then, I have tried
to steer a middle course, remaining in my own community but always reaching
out to others.
I have always tried to think outside the box. Problem solving is not easy,
and it is always useful to at least think of possible new solutions for old
problems. While the community has made a great deal of political progress,
we are painfully aware that our relatively low absolute numbers prohibit
reaching the successful resolution of our issues. Certainly we are more
effective than our numbers would suggest, but in this world of horrendous
competition, we often find ourselves up against groups numbering in the
millions, organized nations and states, with millions if not billions of
dollars. That competition applies in particular to nation-states, such as
Turkey and others.
So new ideas may be useful even though we have made great progress. I am
proud that as the founding director of the Armenian Research Center at the
University of Michigan-Dearborn, I was the one who brought Taner Akcam, on
the advice of Vahakn Dadrian, to America and supported him for several
months while he studied the English language and orientated himself to the
American academic world.
Taner lived with my family and I for several weeks as we tried to fine
proper housing for him. It was through Taner that I first met Muge Gocek and
other Turkish scholars, some of whom recognize our tragedy and others who
did not.
I tried to understand Taner and his motives. Many Armenian nationalists
maintained that you are either with us or against us. I don't accept that
simplistic view. What I discovered was that Taner was interested in bringing
democracy to Turkey and felt that he could do this in part by exploding old
taboos and having Turkey confront its real history. Many of my Armenian
friends felt that this was not enough, that to be acceptable to us Dr. Akcam
should adopt our whole program. I did not agree.
I did the mathematics. There are some 80 million citizens of Turkey, of whom
perhaps 12 million are Kurds, and another two or 3 million are of various
nationalities, both Muslim and Christian. We Armenians number perhaps 8
million in the whole world. Of course we have many allies in various
European countries and here in the United States, but our odds of success
would be much greater if we could get five or six or more million Turks in
Turkey to acknowledge the Armenian genocide and to fight for a more open
society in Turkey.
A famous Armenian scholar told me outright that we Armenians have our own
problems and had no business trying to help Turkey toward democracy and an
open society. I disagreed then, and I disagreed now.
My attitude is that Armenians should help Turks develop an open society,
just as the Armenians were a progressive element in the Ottoman Empire in
the past. Perhaps my view is more like that of Hrant Dink than of my friend,
the famous Armenian scholar. Both Hrant Dink and I loved all Turks not
infected with hatred and animosity toward minorities. After all, they too
are part of human society and it is humane people who will solve our
problem. We need to find a word for these Turks to separate them from the
reactionary chauvinists who willy-nilly support the Turkish "deep state"
(that ugly coalition of military men, many in the courts and among the
prosecutors, and mafia-like elements), but I am sorry to say I am still
looking for such a name. Perhaps some of you can help me. It would make our
strategies more productive.
Once again I did the mathematics. The Armenians were subjects of the Ottoman
state for some 500 years. If the Turks and Armenians reproduced at a typical
rate, and I must suppose that they did, there should be as many Armenians on
the face of the earth as Turks in historic Armenia. Obviously, there are
not. Of course, many Armenians died during the mistreatment and frequent
massacres within the empire (some localized and some sponsored from the
center), but in my opinion the vast majority of the Armenians who
disappeared before 1915 accepted Islam and are in fact assimilated. I think
if we studied the DNA of those today who consider themselves Turks, we would
fine that a dramatic proportion would have the same DNA as the Greeks and
Armenians who inhabited Anatolia before the arrival of the Turks.
It is also my suspicion that if we tested the DNA of Armenians, particularly
those in Armenia, we would find a significant proportion of Turkish DNA. If
this is all true, then what separates us-Turks and Armenians-is not so much
blood or race as it is culture and tradition, although we must certainly
admit that culture and tradition can be an overwhelmingly negative force.
It is also well known that many Armenians were taken into Turkish households
during the genocidal period from 1915 through 1923. While after 1919, many
were allowed to to leave and rejoin their own Armenian people, many remained
and eventually entered the Turkish mainstream. That means that today's Turks
are perhaps as often the progeny of the victims as often as they are of the
perpetrators. Hrant Dink understood this when he claimed there were more
than two million Armenians living in Turkey today. As a consequence of this
heritage, every Turk today can decide whether he is the offspring of a
perpetrator or a victim, since very often they are descended on one side or
the other from an erstwhile Armenian.
This is why it was not so far-fetched to witness the demonstration after
Hrant Dink was assassinated, when hundreds of thousands of people carried
signs saying "We are all Armenian," "We are all Hrant Dink." Indeed, more
Turks than is realized can claim to be either Armenian or Turkish by
inheritance, depending on their disposition.
What is frightful to me, and apparently frightful to Hrant Dink, is the
rampant denialism among many people in Turkey today. I wish I could find a
word to distinguish among Turkish people according to their attitude toward
freedom of speech and acceptance of the reality of Turkish history.
Denialism is frightful to me, as it was to Hrant Dink, because it is not
only a denial of past reality, but an expression of present day hatred for
the victims. It is only by continuing to dehumanize the victims that those
recalcitrant Turks continued to rationalize the genocide in their own minds.
In other words, genocides are often denied for the same set of reasons they
are carried out. Denial, as we know, is the final stage of genocide. Once a
people is forgotten, it is all over. As one Turkish author pointed out,
"Genocide denial is a radical variation on the theme of the old, frankly
racist, bloodthirsty triumphalism." We killed you then and we would like to
finish the job. What other reasoning can justify the current blockade of
Armenia?
Hrant Dink's assassination set off a mighty struggle for Turkey's soul which
may last for decades. Clearly, Dink's assassination was aided and abetted,
if not outright prearranged, by the ultra-nationalists who, unfortunately,
are still in control of Turkey's army, police, bureaucracy and courts. When
I first heard of his cold-blooded murder, I was absolutely sick at heart.
For me, the tragic murder seemed to dash any hope for genocide recognition
and Turkish-Armenian reconciliation.
As I see it, Hrant attempted to do two things : first, to mainstream the
Armenians in Turkey as Turkish citizens and full participants in Turkish
society and, secondly, to explain the Armenian ethos to Turkish society to
further reciprocal understanding. Despite Hrant's efforts through Agos, his
bilingual Turkish-Armenian newspaper, I believe that the Armenians of Turkey
continue the struggle to maintain their unique identity in the face of the
forces, natural and imposed, of assimilation. After all, it is their right
as embedded in the Treaty of Lausanne.
I also believe that the nationalists of Turkey still refuse to recognize
Armenians as true citizens of Turkey with full human, civil, and legal
rights. This is a backward view, more suitable to the Middle Ages than to
modern, multi-ethnic societies. How can Turkey hope to be admitted into the
European Union if it remains a chauvinistic, narrow-minded state?
As most observers, I was absolutely amazed to see the public outpouring of
sympathy represented by the hundreds of thousands who marched in the streets
and followed the cortege in the funeral. For a moment, I had a vision that
the promise of 1908 was finally being realized-that all people in Turkey,
every nationality, would be free and equal under the law. I had high hopes
that Turkish civil society had finally come of age and was expressing its
refusal to live in the shadow of the old Turkish reactionary elites, and
that they were ready to establish themselves as the arbiters of Turkey's
future. Subsequent events, however, dashed my hopes and brought me to the
somber realization that the battle for Turkey's soul would not be an easy
one. The more things change, the more they remain the same. And Turkey has a
long road ahead of it to becoming a true democracy and realizing the
beneficent advantages of true multiculturalism.
Hrant Dink rightly pointed out that:
"We suffer from serious illness due to the poor relations between our
people, Turks and Armenians... Armenians [in Turkey] live in an unshakable
state of paralysis, while Turks live with an uncurable paranoia. We both
require clinical assistance.. Who will help to cure us? Is this the
responsibility of French Parliament? Or of the United States Congress? Who
will prescribe an antidote? Which doctor will diagnose our condition? My
answer is this: Armenians must help to cure Turks and Turks must help to
cure Armenians. Without exception, there is no other prescription, no other
doctor and no other effective treatment."
Some of my Turkish acquaintances tell me that recognition would come quicker
if Armenians left off their political campaigns in the United States and the
major European countries or recognition. They say that outside pressure can
never change Turkey. There is a bit of truth in that ; in the final
analysis, it is the Turks who must recognize the genocide and make some sort
of restitution. I don't speak out openly, since I do not like to needlessly
alienate people, but I do say to myself, "Sure, recognition cannot be
forced, but you would not even be thinking about a if it were not for
outside pressure."
The refusal of Turkey to confront its past will negate its ability to fully
enter the modern world. This is especially true of the Armenian issue-the
greatest of all taboos in Turkey, one that was present at the creation of
the state and represents the principal "other" of Turkish national identity.
Hrant Dink was killed because he understood Turkey only too well. The
reactionary powers feared the strength of his reasoning. They feared, and
still fear, the light of truth. On the other hand, there is no reason to
hope that there is still light at the end of the tunnel. Recently, a passel
of reactionaries including the perennial persecutor of those who dared to
speak the truth openly, Kemal Kerinsciz, were arrested and apparently will
be put on trial. The present-day government finds itself in a difficult
position. It cannot afford to totally alienate the military establishment as
it attempts to bring about reform. Unfortunately, there are everyday issues
that have a higher place in the public's concern that must currently be
dealt with. But it is my hope, that as the present government moves to
reform society, it will eventually take up the issue of the Armenian
genocide and bring it to an equitable conclusion.
-------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- ----------------
2. An Overdue Housecleaning
By Paul Ternamian
Tradmarked by Presidential hopeful Barack Obama, "change" now appears to be
the campaign slogan shared by both Democratic candidates. As we gradually
wave goodbye to the Bush administration's eight catastrophic years at the
helm and slowly sieve the crop of willing successors on both sides of the
floor, "change" is definitely in need. But how does one begin to cleanse the
putrid a-Bush mess that has been eight years in the making? The plausible
answer is "the State Department," say the pundits.
To effectively evaluate the State Department's policies against House
Resolution 106, one must understand the misleading and distorted arguments
presented that deliberately sway and intentionally misinform politicians.
Only by understanding and analyzing their Machiavellian covert methods can
we effectively counter their assault.
Leading the charge against the resolution and various other Armenian
initiatives, such as regional security, economic development and investment
opportunities, are the notorious tandem of Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice and Secretary of Defence Robert Gates. When members of Congress are
invited to travel to Turkey, which happens with great frequency, the State
Department organizes their sojourn and schedules their meetings. It will be
naive to assume that these planned trips are only friendly visits by
congressmen from one NATO member to another. These sprees are specifically
tailored for senators, congressmen and senior policy advisors, who have been
briefed by the State Department to discuss significant issues like
H.Res.106. What is important to note is that these politicians and peddlers
of influence are sent not only to meet with Prime Minister Erdogan and his
AK party cronies, but more importantly to meet top local American
businessmen, political party organization representatives and various
special interest groups, like the American Chamber of Commerce and the
American Defence Industrial Core stationed in the country.
Ever since this Administration's inauguration, the unity and political
tenacity of the Armenian diaspora has been tested on numerous occasions. The
best example was the State Department's appalling and inexcusable decision
to add Armenia to the list of terrorist states. This meant that male
Armenian citizens visiting the U.S. would be subjected to strenuous
additional screening and fingerprinting. To ensure unopposed passage and
slow community opposition to this draconian measure, the list was
deliberately released on a Friday afternoon. What was particularly
objectionable and disturbing was that Armenia is the only country in the
region without a terrorist group operating within its borders and the only
non-Al Queda supporter on the list.
However, after forwarding a torrent of more than 10,000 webfaxes and
webmails to the President over the weekend, the true brawn of our community
leadership and mobilization capabilities came through. Much to the dismay of
the State Department, Azerbaijan and Turkey, Armenia was rightfully removed
>From this terrorist list the following Tuesday. It is hurdles like these
that the State Department continually erects in our path to justice and
reparation. They thrive to divert our collective attention and derail our
resources to test the resilience and determination of the Armenian
community-just to see if we're still kicking.
Glancing back at the Bush Administration's horrendous tract record, the
State Department's first attempt to amend Turkish-Armenian relations was the
establishment of a joint commission, better known as the Turkish Armenian
Reconciliation Commission (TARC). This farcical State Department creation
was made up mostly of Turkish members, a few diasporan Armenians, and former
Armenian government officials. It was strategically established at the turn
of the century, just as the first U.S. genocide resolution was picking up
steam. However, there was more to this insidious calculated move than is
often realized. In the late 1990's, France, Italy, Sweden and Vatican City
officially recognized the Armenian genocide. This surge of recognitions by
several major European countries, coupled with growing support of the 2000
U.S. Armenian Genocide Resolution, compelled Turkey to squeal for help.
Even though the then-Armenian government denied any direct connection with
TARC, many former senior government officials were members of this joint
commission. Under immense pressure from the Armenian diaspora, the State
Department eventually suspended support for its ridiculous attempt at
undermining our quest for justice, and TARC was rightfully terminated.
However, this did not signal a permanent end to the State Department's
malevolent ambitions.
In spring 2006, two specific events startled Turkey and the State
Department. The first major blow was the passage of the law criminalizing
genocide denial by individuals in France, a setback for all those working
against genocide recognition. The second and more significant event was
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper's recognition of the Armenian
genocide in April. Not only was Canada the first major English-speaking ally
to officially recognize the genocide, but the fact that this affirmation
emanated from a Conservative right-leaning government took Turkey and the
U.S. by total surprise. As a result, Turkish pressure began to mount on the
U.S. and the wheels started churning for the State Department to resurrect
and recreate a new joint commission. However, this time there was one
exception: To ensure insulation, the diaspora was not invited to
participate.
Over a year ago, just as H.Res.106 started to gain serious momentum, the
State Department began to construct fallacious arguments used to brief
Congress and government officials to convince them to vote against the
resolution. There are two main arguments used by the State Department in
opposition to the resolution.
The first is that "the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey are in
the process of establishing a new joint commission of academics and
histories to establish the facts in parallel with efforts to establish
official bi-lateral relations." Members of Congress are intentionally
misinformed by special envoys and are led to believe that voting for
H.Res.106 will support the continual conflict between both countries. The
logic goes, because Armenia and Turkey have finally come together, hand in
hand, under this joint pseudo-commission to discuss important regional
issues, which will help establish official bi-lateral relations, why should
Congress get involved and pass this resolution? It will only anger our NATO
ally and more importantly complicate the reconciliation efforts between
Turks and Armenians who are finally going to come to a decision on their
own.
It is unfortunate, however, that these pathetic attempts to undermine and
brainwash unsuspecting members of Congress is frequently effective. The
argument's major flaw is the assumption that both governments have agreed to
participate in this joint commission. The Armenian government and Armenian
Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian have neither endorsed nor accepted any such
offer, and refuse to participate as the veracity of the genocide has already
been irrefutably established by numerous credible sources worldwide.
In addition, the State Department has strategically and surreptitiously
linked two entirely separate issues: the idea of a joint commission with
that of bilateral relations. Turkey's unwavering stance is that without a
joint commission there can be no bilateral relations and separating these
two distinct issues puts us in a stronger position by showcasing Turkey's
intransigence. The worst possible decision by the Armenian government would
be to agree to this new joint commission, as it would confirm that the facts
have not been indubitably established and thus validate this ridiculous
argument. By excluding members of the diaspora, the State Department
attempts to undermine our collective efforts by portraying us as a nuisance
to forward progress and to avoid another "TARC-ing." With continual pressure
for Armenia's participation in the joint commission by the State Department,
it has become evident that the Bush Administration's ultimate goal is to use
this opportunity as a means of coercing Armenia to forgo the coveted and
just reparations claims in exchange for bilateral relations, an open border,
and the development of a port facility for lines of communications and trade
in Trabizon.
The State Department's second argument is that passage of H.Res.106 will
lead to an intensely negative and nationalistic backlash response working
against those in Turkey who are now calling for a) a comprehensive review of
the events and b) creating bilateral relations with Armenia. This argument
shifts its focus away from establishing a joint commission and once again
attempts to weave the precondition of determining the facts of the genocide
with the creation of bilateral relations. The glaring flaw in this argument
is the actual lack of serious calls for a comprehensive and constructive
review of the genocide because anyone who attempts to introduce serious
reconciliation is swiftly marginalized and silenced.
Hrant Dink's cold-blood murder for calling it "genocide" and Orhan Pamuk's
numerous death threats despite never calling for a comprehensive review or
even labeling it as "genocide" are just some heinous examples of the fate of
one who dares to speak the truth. Ultimately, the State Department's tacit
support for this climate of obtuse oppression emboldens the present Turkish
government-and their paid lackeys in Washington-to create the illusion of
forward movement, while undermining the recognition, reparation and
reconciliation processes. With a 17-year blockade and still no embassy in
Armenia, there has been no tangible movement toward change in attitudes even
before this administration took office in 2000.
As chants for "change" gradually get louder and more fervent as we approach
election day on Nov. 4, Armenians all over the world will wonder if this
whiff of change emanating from Washington will permeate the corridors of the
State Department and create a much overdue surge of principled policies that
will support justice, enhance regional security and create economic
stability in the Caucuses free of prejudice.
Toronto, Ontario
------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------- ---
3. Even Rambo Gets to Go Home
By Garen Yegparian
There I was, just in for a view of gratuitous violence. I admit it. I was in
the mood for some serious blood-and-guts. Based on a friend's
recommendation, having read about the body counts in this flick, and
completeness (I confess to having seen the previous ones in the series too),
I went to see "Rambo."
I was not disappointed in my lust for gore. But I got a lot more. I was
actually moved to a few tears by the scene where villagers were killed off.
All I could think was, "How similar this scene must be to our plight a
century ago. What a good presentation of genocide at the micro level." So
the stage was set, my mind was in "genocide" mode.
Early in the film there's a discussion between Rambo, who's catching snakes
and fish for a living, and his obvious love interest (though this is never
clearly requited), who's there to do missionary work. She asks why he's not
back in the states and if he has family there. The response is, "A father I
suppose." This sets the stage for the end of the movie.
After all the bloodletting is done... After Sylvester Stallone's somewhat
right wing and/or cynical, yet with a ring of truth, views are manifested:
you can't change anything despite good intentions; you've gotta kill; better
to die for something than live for nothing. After the heroine and a few
others are rescued and the evildoers killed off.the movie ends with Rambo
arriving on foot at what is evidently his father's ranch. Three-and-a-half
decades after the Vietnam that created a killing machine with a profound
sense of loyalty and justice/vengeance that renders Rambo something of a
sociopath, he goes home.
So, when, I keep wondering, is it our time? When do Armenians get to go
home? When will justice be served in the Armenian highlands of planet Earth?
When do we return to Giligia, Gareen, Gars, Moosh, Sepasdia, Van.
80 Bigelow Avenue
Watertown MA 02472 USA
(617) 926-3974
[email protected]
http://www.a rmenianweekly.com
The Armenian Weekly; Volume 74, No. 8; March 1, 2008
Commentary and Analysis:
1. Reflections on the Murder of Hrant Dink
By Dennis R. Papazian
2. An Overdue Housecleaning
By Paul Ternamian
3. Even Rambo Gets to Go Home
By Garen Yegparian
***
Reflections on the Murder of Hrant Dink
By Dennis R. Papazian
The following is the text of the speech delivered by Prof. Dennis Papazian
on Feb. 15 in N.J during a panel disucssion organized by the ANCs of N.Y.
and N.J.
If I were Turkish, I would like to see my country have freedom of inquiry,
freedom of speech, freedom to investigate and freedom to express their
current opinion. Without freedom to investigate and freely debate, truth
cannot be found and society cannot be healed.
First, I would like to confess to being an Armenian patriot and activist. I
was executive director of the Armenian Assembly of America back when all the
Armenian political parties were a part of it. I also chaired a meeting at
the United Nations, arranged by Set Momjian, attended by over 80 Armenian
organizations trying to find a common denominator to help them cooperate and
coordinate their activities for the good of the community.
Unfortunately, nothing came of those endeavors as the constituent units of
the Armenian Assembly separated and began to compete in Washington, D.C.,
and most Armenian organizations went their own way. Since then, I have tried
to steer a middle course, remaining in my own community but always reaching
out to others.
I have always tried to think outside the box. Problem solving is not easy,
and it is always useful to at least think of possible new solutions for old
problems. While the community has made a great deal of political progress,
we are painfully aware that our relatively low absolute numbers prohibit
reaching the successful resolution of our issues. Certainly we are more
effective than our numbers would suggest, but in this world of horrendous
competition, we often find ourselves up against groups numbering in the
millions, organized nations and states, with millions if not billions of
dollars. That competition applies in particular to nation-states, such as
Turkey and others.
So new ideas may be useful even though we have made great progress. I am
proud that as the founding director of the Armenian Research Center at the
University of Michigan-Dearborn, I was the one who brought Taner Akcam, on
the advice of Vahakn Dadrian, to America and supported him for several
months while he studied the English language and orientated himself to the
American academic world.
Taner lived with my family and I for several weeks as we tried to fine
proper housing for him. It was through Taner that I first met Muge Gocek and
other Turkish scholars, some of whom recognize our tragedy and others who
did not.
I tried to understand Taner and his motives. Many Armenian nationalists
maintained that you are either with us or against us. I don't accept that
simplistic view. What I discovered was that Taner was interested in bringing
democracy to Turkey and felt that he could do this in part by exploding old
taboos and having Turkey confront its real history. Many of my Armenian
friends felt that this was not enough, that to be acceptable to us Dr. Akcam
should adopt our whole program. I did not agree.
I did the mathematics. There are some 80 million citizens of Turkey, of whom
perhaps 12 million are Kurds, and another two or 3 million are of various
nationalities, both Muslim and Christian. We Armenians number perhaps 8
million in the whole world. Of course we have many allies in various
European countries and here in the United States, but our odds of success
would be much greater if we could get five or six or more million Turks in
Turkey to acknowledge the Armenian genocide and to fight for a more open
society in Turkey.
A famous Armenian scholar told me outright that we Armenians have our own
problems and had no business trying to help Turkey toward democracy and an
open society. I disagreed then, and I disagreed now.
My attitude is that Armenians should help Turks develop an open society,
just as the Armenians were a progressive element in the Ottoman Empire in
the past. Perhaps my view is more like that of Hrant Dink than of my friend,
the famous Armenian scholar. Both Hrant Dink and I loved all Turks not
infected with hatred and animosity toward minorities. After all, they too
are part of human society and it is humane people who will solve our
problem. We need to find a word for these Turks to separate them from the
reactionary chauvinists who willy-nilly support the Turkish "deep state"
(that ugly coalition of military men, many in the courts and among the
prosecutors, and mafia-like elements), but I am sorry to say I am still
looking for such a name. Perhaps some of you can help me. It would make our
strategies more productive.
Once again I did the mathematics. The Armenians were subjects of the Ottoman
state for some 500 years. If the Turks and Armenians reproduced at a typical
rate, and I must suppose that they did, there should be as many Armenians on
the face of the earth as Turks in historic Armenia. Obviously, there are
not. Of course, many Armenians died during the mistreatment and frequent
massacres within the empire (some localized and some sponsored from the
center), but in my opinion the vast majority of the Armenians who
disappeared before 1915 accepted Islam and are in fact assimilated. I think
if we studied the DNA of those today who consider themselves Turks, we would
fine that a dramatic proportion would have the same DNA as the Greeks and
Armenians who inhabited Anatolia before the arrival of the Turks.
It is also my suspicion that if we tested the DNA of Armenians, particularly
those in Armenia, we would find a significant proportion of Turkish DNA. If
this is all true, then what separates us-Turks and Armenians-is not so much
blood or race as it is culture and tradition, although we must certainly
admit that culture and tradition can be an overwhelmingly negative force.
It is also well known that many Armenians were taken into Turkish households
during the genocidal period from 1915 through 1923. While after 1919, many
were allowed to to leave and rejoin their own Armenian people, many remained
and eventually entered the Turkish mainstream. That means that today's Turks
are perhaps as often the progeny of the victims as often as they are of the
perpetrators. Hrant Dink understood this when he claimed there were more
than two million Armenians living in Turkey today. As a consequence of this
heritage, every Turk today can decide whether he is the offspring of a
perpetrator or a victim, since very often they are descended on one side or
the other from an erstwhile Armenian.
This is why it was not so far-fetched to witness the demonstration after
Hrant Dink was assassinated, when hundreds of thousands of people carried
signs saying "We are all Armenian," "We are all Hrant Dink." Indeed, more
Turks than is realized can claim to be either Armenian or Turkish by
inheritance, depending on their disposition.
What is frightful to me, and apparently frightful to Hrant Dink, is the
rampant denialism among many people in Turkey today. I wish I could find a
word to distinguish among Turkish people according to their attitude toward
freedom of speech and acceptance of the reality of Turkish history.
Denialism is frightful to me, as it was to Hrant Dink, because it is not
only a denial of past reality, but an expression of present day hatred for
the victims. It is only by continuing to dehumanize the victims that those
recalcitrant Turks continued to rationalize the genocide in their own minds.
In other words, genocides are often denied for the same set of reasons they
are carried out. Denial, as we know, is the final stage of genocide. Once a
people is forgotten, it is all over. As one Turkish author pointed out,
"Genocide denial is a radical variation on the theme of the old, frankly
racist, bloodthirsty triumphalism." We killed you then and we would like to
finish the job. What other reasoning can justify the current blockade of
Armenia?
Hrant Dink's assassination set off a mighty struggle for Turkey's soul which
may last for decades. Clearly, Dink's assassination was aided and abetted,
if not outright prearranged, by the ultra-nationalists who, unfortunately,
are still in control of Turkey's army, police, bureaucracy and courts. When
I first heard of his cold-blooded murder, I was absolutely sick at heart.
For me, the tragic murder seemed to dash any hope for genocide recognition
and Turkish-Armenian reconciliation.
As I see it, Hrant attempted to do two things : first, to mainstream the
Armenians in Turkey as Turkish citizens and full participants in Turkish
society and, secondly, to explain the Armenian ethos to Turkish society to
further reciprocal understanding. Despite Hrant's efforts through Agos, his
bilingual Turkish-Armenian newspaper, I believe that the Armenians of Turkey
continue the struggle to maintain their unique identity in the face of the
forces, natural and imposed, of assimilation. After all, it is their right
as embedded in the Treaty of Lausanne.
I also believe that the nationalists of Turkey still refuse to recognize
Armenians as true citizens of Turkey with full human, civil, and legal
rights. This is a backward view, more suitable to the Middle Ages than to
modern, multi-ethnic societies. How can Turkey hope to be admitted into the
European Union if it remains a chauvinistic, narrow-minded state?
As most observers, I was absolutely amazed to see the public outpouring of
sympathy represented by the hundreds of thousands who marched in the streets
and followed the cortege in the funeral. For a moment, I had a vision that
the promise of 1908 was finally being realized-that all people in Turkey,
every nationality, would be free and equal under the law. I had high hopes
that Turkish civil society had finally come of age and was expressing its
refusal to live in the shadow of the old Turkish reactionary elites, and
that they were ready to establish themselves as the arbiters of Turkey's
future. Subsequent events, however, dashed my hopes and brought me to the
somber realization that the battle for Turkey's soul would not be an easy
one. The more things change, the more they remain the same. And Turkey has a
long road ahead of it to becoming a true democracy and realizing the
beneficent advantages of true multiculturalism.
Hrant Dink rightly pointed out that:
"We suffer from serious illness due to the poor relations between our
people, Turks and Armenians... Armenians [in Turkey] live in an unshakable
state of paralysis, while Turks live with an uncurable paranoia. We both
require clinical assistance.. Who will help to cure us? Is this the
responsibility of French Parliament? Or of the United States Congress? Who
will prescribe an antidote? Which doctor will diagnose our condition? My
answer is this: Armenians must help to cure Turks and Turks must help to
cure Armenians. Without exception, there is no other prescription, no other
doctor and no other effective treatment."
Some of my Turkish acquaintances tell me that recognition would come quicker
if Armenians left off their political campaigns in the United States and the
major European countries or recognition. They say that outside pressure can
never change Turkey. There is a bit of truth in that ; in the final
analysis, it is the Turks who must recognize the genocide and make some sort
of restitution. I don't speak out openly, since I do not like to needlessly
alienate people, but I do say to myself, "Sure, recognition cannot be
forced, but you would not even be thinking about a if it were not for
outside pressure."
The refusal of Turkey to confront its past will negate its ability to fully
enter the modern world. This is especially true of the Armenian issue-the
greatest of all taboos in Turkey, one that was present at the creation of
the state and represents the principal "other" of Turkish national identity.
Hrant Dink was killed because he understood Turkey only too well. The
reactionary powers feared the strength of his reasoning. They feared, and
still fear, the light of truth. On the other hand, there is no reason to
hope that there is still light at the end of the tunnel. Recently, a passel
of reactionaries including the perennial persecutor of those who dared to
speak the truth openly, Kemal Kerinsciz, were arrested and apparently will
be put on trial. The present-day government finds itself in a difficult
position. It cannot afford to totally alienate the military establishment as
it attempts to bring about reform. Unfortunately, there are everyday issues
that have a higher place in the public's concern that must currently be
dealt with. But it is my hope, that as the present government moves to
reform society, it will eventually take up the issue of the Armenian
genocide and bring it to an equitable conclusion.
-------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- ----------------
2. An Overdue Housecleaning
By Paul Ternamian
Tradmarked by Presidential hopeful Barack Obama, "change" now appears to be
the campaign slogan shared by both Democratic candidates. As we gradually
wave goodbye to the Bush administration's eight catastrophic years at the
helm and slowly sieve the crop of willing successors on both sides of the
floor, "change" is definitely in need. But how does one begin to cleanse the
putrid a-Bush mess that has been eight years in the making? The plausible
answer is "the State Department," say the pundits.
To effectively evaluate the State Department's policies against House
Resolution 106, one must understand the misleading and distorted arguments
presented that deliberately sway and intentionally misinform politicians.
Only by understanding and analyzing their Machiavellian covert methods can
we effectively counter their assault.
Leading the charge against the resolution and various other Armenian
initiatives, such as regional security, economic development and investment
opportunities, are the notorious tandem of Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice and Secretary of Defence Robert Gates. When members of Congress are
invited to travel to Turkey, which happens with great frequency, the State
Department organizes their sojourn and schedules their meetings. It will be
naive to assume that these planned trips are only friendly visits by
congressmen from one NATO member to another. These sprees are specifically
tailored for senators, congressmen and senior policy advisors, who have been
briefed by the State Department to discuss significant issues like
H.Res.106. What is important to note is that these politicians and peddlers
of influence are sent not only to meet with Prime Minister Erdogan and his
AK party cronies, but more importantly to meet top local American
businessmen, political party organization representatives and various
special interest groups, like the American Chamber of Commerce and the
American Defence Industrial Core stationed in the country.
Ever since this Administration's inauguration, the unity and political
tenacity of the Armenian diaspora has been tested on numerous occasions. The
best example was the State Department's appalling and inexcusable decision
to add Armenia to the list of terrorist states. This meant that male
Armenian citizens visiting the U.S. would be subjected to strenuous
additional screening and fingerprinting. To ensure unopposed passage and
slow community opposition to this draconian measure, the list was
deliberately released on a Friday afternoon. What was particularly
objectionable and disturbing was that Armenia is the only country in the
region without a terrorist group operating within its borders and the only
non-Al Queda supporter on the list.
However, after forwarding a torrent of more than 10,000 webfaxes and
webmails to the President over the weekend, the true brawn of our community
leadership and mobilization capabilities came through. Much to the dismay of
the State Department, Azerbaijan and Turkey, Armenia was rightfully removed
>From this terrorist list the following Tuesday. It is hurdles like these
that the State Department continually erects in our path to justice and
reparation. They thrive to divert our collective attention and derail our
resources to test the resilience and determination of the Armenian
community-just to see if we're still kicking.
Glancing back at the Bush Administration's horrendous tract record, the
State Department's first attempt to amend Turkish-Armenian relations was the
establishment of a joint commission, better known as the Turkish Armenian
Reconciliation Commission (TARC). This farcical State Department creation
was made up mostly of Turkish members, a few diasporan Armenians, and former
Armenian government officials. It was strategically established at the turn
of the century, just as the first U.S. genocide resolution was picking up
steam. However, there was more to this insidious calculated move than is
often realized. In the late 1990's, France, Italy, Sweden and Vatican City
officially recognized the Armenian genocide. This surge of recognitions by
several major European countries, coupled with growing support of the 2000
U.S. Armenian Genocide Resolution, compelled Turkey to squeal for help.
Even though the then-Armenian government denied any direct connection with
TARC, many former senior government officials were members of this joint
commission. Under immense pressure from the Armenian diaspora, the State
Department eventually suspended support for its ridiculous attempt at
undermining our quest for justice, and TARC was rightfully terminated.
However, this did not signal a permanent end to the State Department's
malevolent ambitions.
In spring 2006, two specific events startled Turkey and the State
Department. The first major blow was the passage of the law criminalizing
genocide denial by individuals in France, a setback for all those working
against genocide recognition. The second and more significant event was
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper's recognition of the Armenian
genocide in April. Not only was Canada the first major English-speaking ally
to officially recognize the genocide, but the fact that this affirmation
emanated from a Conservative right-leaning government took Turkey and the
U.S. by total surprise. As a result, Turkish pressure began to mount on the
U.S. and the wheels started churning for the State Department to resurrect
and recreate a new joint commission. However, this time there was one
exception: To ensure insulation, the diaspora was not invited to
participate.
Over a year ago, just as H.Res.106 started to gain serious momentum, the
State Department began to construct fallacious arguments used to brief
Congress and government officials to convince them to vote against the
resolution. There are two main arguments used by the State Department in
opposition to the resolution.
The first is that "the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey are in
the process of establishing a new joint commission of academics and
histories to establish the facts in parallel with efforts to establish
official bi-lateral relations." Members of Congress are intentionally
misinformed by special envoys and are led to believe that voting for
H.Res.106 will support the continual conflict between both countries. The
logic goes, because Armenia and Turkey have finally come together, hand in
hand, under this joint pseudo-commission to discuss important regional
issues, which will help establish official bi-lateral relations, why should
Congress get involved and pass this resolution? It will only anger our NATO
ally and more importantly complicate the reconciliation efforts between
Turks and Armenians who are finally going to come to a decision on their
own.
It is unfortunate, however, that these pathetic attempts to undermine and
brainwash unsuspecting members of Congress is frequently effective. The
argument's major flaw is the assumption that both governments have agreed to
participate in this joint commission. The Armenian government and Armenian
Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian have neither endorsed nor accepted any such
offer, and refuse to participate as the veracity of the genocide has already
been irrefutably established by numerous credible sources worldwide.
In addition, the State Department has strategically and surreptitiously
linked two entirely separate issues: the idea of a joint commission with
that of bilateral relations. Turkey's unwavering stance is that without a
joint commission there can be no bilateral relations and separating these
two distinct issues puts us in a stronger position by showcasing Turkey's
intransigence. The worst possible decision by the Armenian government would
be to agree to this new joint commission, as it would confirm that the facts
have not been indubitably established and thus validate this ridiculous
argument. By excluding members of the diaspora, the State Department
attempts to undermine our collective efforts by portraying us as a nuisance
to forward progress and to avoid another "TARC-ing." With continual pressure
for Armenia's participation in the joint commission by the State Department,
it has become evident that the Bush Administration's ultimate goal is to use
this opportunity as a means of coercing Armenia to forgo the coveted and
just reparations claims in exchange for bilateral relations, an open border,
and the development of a port facility for lines of communications and trade
in Trabizon.
The State Department's second argument is that passage of H.Res.106 will
lead to an intensely negative and nationalistic backlash response working
against those in Turkey who are now calling for a) a comprehensive review of
the events and b) creating bilateral relations with Armenia. This argument
shifts its focus away from establishing a joint commission and once again
attempts to weave the precondition of determining the facts of the genocide
with the creation of bilateral relations. The glaring flaw in this argument
is the actual lack of serious calls for a comprehensive and constructive
review of the genocide because anyone who attempts to introduce serious
reconciliation is swiftly marginalized and silenced.
Hrant Dink's cold-blood murder for calling it "genocide" and Orhan Pamuk's
numerous death threats despite never calling for a comprehensive review or
even labeling it as "genocide" are just some heinous examples of the fate of
one who dares to speak the truth. Ultimately, the State Department's tacit
support for this climate of obtuse oppression emboldens the present Turkish
government-and their paid lackeys in Washington-to create the illusion of
forward movement, while undermining the recognition, reparation and
reconciliation processes. With a 17-year blockade and still no embassy in
Armenia, there has been no tangible movement toward change in attitudes even
before this administration took office in 2000.
As chants for "change" gradually get louder and more fervent as we approach
election day on Nov. 4, Armenians all over the world will wonder if this
whiff of change emanating from Washington will permeate the corridors of the
State Department and create a much overdue surge of principled policies that
will support justice, enhance regional security and create economic
stability in the Caucuses free of prejudice.
Toronto, Ontario
------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------- ---
3. Even Rambo Gets to Go Home
By Garen Yegparian
There I was, just in for a view of gratuitous violence. I admit it. I was in
the mood for some serious blood-and-guts. Based on a friend's
recommendation, having read about the body counts in this flick, and
completeness (I confess to having seen the previous ones in the series too),
I went to see "Rambo."
I was not disappointed in my lust for gore. But I got a lot more. I was
actually moved to a few tears by the scene where villagers were killed off.
All I could think was, "How similar this scene must be to our plight a
century ago. What a good presentation of genocide at the micro level." So
the stage was set, my mind was in "genocide" mode.
Early in the film there's a discussion between Rambo, who's catching snakes
and fish for a living, and his obvious love interest (though this is never
clearly requited), who's there to do missionary work. She asks why he's not
back in the states and if he has family there. The response is, "A father I
suppose." This sets the stage for the end of the movie.
After all the bloodletting is done... After Sylvester Stallone's somewhat
right wing and/or cynical, yet with a ring of truth, views are manifested:
you can't change anything despite good intentions; you've gotta kill; better
to die for something than live for nothing. After the heroine and a few
others are rescued and the evildoers killed off.the movie ends with Rambo
arriving on foot at what is evidently his father's ranch. Three-and-a-half
decades after the Vietnam that created a killing machine with a profound
sense of loyalty and justice/vengeance that renders Rambo something of a
sociopath, he goes home.
So, when, I keep wondering, is it our time? When do Armenians get to go
home? When will justice be served in the Armenian highlands of planet Earth?
When do we return to Giligia, Gareen, Gars, Moosh, Sepasdia, Van.