Historians will write the true history of Near East TO: Letter@Globe.com The Boston Globe Dear Sir/Madam: Jackie Abramian's article "Why is Armenian Genocide unrecognized" (4/23/2002, p.A15) is an example of why the Turkish side of the story needs to be heard more often if the truth about the so-called Armenian genocide is ever to come out. Abramian, an Armenian writing in a newspaper with sizable Armenian readers, can only perpetuate bias, because the other side's story is not given sufficient coverage by the same paper. For years, Turks ignored the Armenian allegations, and preferred to leave it to the historians. But, few historians with adequate skills to read the old Turkish script could be able to adequately investigate what really happened. Some of these were Turkish, and their research remained in Turkish historical circles. Other historians like Prof. Justine McCarthy, Prof. Bernard Lewis at Princeton, and Prof. Stanford Shaw of U.C.L.A., all prominent in their field of Near East Studies, refuted the Armenian allegations, and believe the events of WWI were part of a regional life-and-death conflict where both sides have savagely fought the other, and therefore, the events were not genocide. Just a few years ago over seventy U.S. historians signed a statement to the same effect. I believe the picture created in the Western world by increasingly vocal Armenian Diaspora will soon be changing. The vast Ottoman archives covering the period in question have been open to researchers and put on the Internet. Historians are also searching Russian, British and other archives for documents. And, a research institute solely devoted to the study of the Turkish-Armenian conflict of the past 140 years has begun to produce scholarly articles regarding the events. These are important new initiatives that can shed light on the Armenian allegations of genocide from the point of view of international scholars. This will hopefully bring to an end to the influence of biased opinions of missionaries and Armenians like Jackie Abramian in the Western world. Historians will finally write the true Near Eastern history. Gunes Ecer California *** Ottoman Armenians declared war against the Empire "Armenia has stubbornly refused to present its genocide claim to the World Court" TO: Letters to the Editor Los Angeles Times Glendale Press News Re: Karen S. Krim April 22, 2002 report, "Remembering the history" To the Editor: Karen S. Krim's report on the Armenian genocide claim clamors for more balance. Armenians historically were a favored minority in the Ottoman Empire and occupied the commanding heights of the civil service and the economy. Extremists hoping to gain independence in the late 1800s began a series of terrorist incidents against Ottoman Muslims. The terrorism was intended to provoke an overreaction by the Ottoman rulers and the intervention of European powers. Ottoman Armenians declared war against the Empire -- a classic case of treason-even before World War I commenced. They slaughtered Ottoman Muslim soldiers and civilians alike in places like Van and Bitlis. When the war ended, 2.5 million Muslim corpses blighted the landscape. A United Nations human rights body has refused to endorse the Armenian genocide allegation, most recently on October 5, 2000. Armenia has stubbornly refused to present its genocide claim to the World Court as authorized by the Genocide Convention. Armenians have fabricated telegrams, a quote from Adloph Hitler that the Nuremburg Tribunal excluded as evidence for want of authenticity, and a Russian painting in seeking to prove their genocide allegation. More than 1,000 Ottoman soldiers were prosecuted and punished (62 were executed) for maltreatment of Armenians. Armenians were generally left undisturbed outside militarily sensitive areas, such as Istanbul and Izmir, during the war; all Armenian employees of the state remained in place. Armenians have championed state laws in California, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Connecticut that prohibit the teaching of any non-Armenian view of the genocide issue, a first cousin of laws prohibiting public school instruction in evolution. After the Ottoman defeat and with full access to their archives, the top British legal experts concluded that no reliable evidence implicated Ottoman officials in Armenian massacres. That conclusion followed more than 2 years of meticulous investigation, including records and reports of the United States State Department. Sincerely, Bruce Fein General Counsel Assembly of Turkish American Associations, Washington, D.C. *** Istanbul's Name is Not "Constantinople" To: Merriam-Webster Dictionary dhopkins@Merriam-Webster.com Mr. Hopkins, I sincerely appreciate your willingness to consider making the change [i.e. changing Istanbul's name from "Constantinople" to "Istanbul"]. I agree that your dictionary should be as accurate as possible. The fact that the English speaking world recognized the name as Istanbul in 1930, does not diminish the fact that this is what the city was called by the government which ruled it. As "Constantinople" is not an English translation of "Istanbul," it only makes sense to use Istanbul in the definition. To my knowledge, different names are used in describing cities only when the original name is translated for English. Some examples (not sure of the spelling of these) of this include Kobnhaven which we know as Copenhagen, Geneve which we know as Geneva, Roma which we know as Rome, Moskva which we know as Moscow, and Beograd which we know as Belgrade. I sincerely hope you change this in your definition in both your online and print versions. I thank you for your time. Sincerely, Burak Tombuloglu Member & Webmaster, ATA-DC Virginia *** A Mountain of Discrediting Facts Letters to the Editor The Boston Globe Boston, Massachusetts Re: Jackie Abramian April 23, 2002 Op-Ed, "Why is Armenian Genocide unrecognized?" To the Editor: Jackie Abramian's Armenian genocide polemic against Turkey neglects a mountain of discrediting facts. Even before World War I commenced, Ottoman Armenians became de facto belligerents against the Empire every bit as much as Al Qaeda is a belligerent against the United States. In a classic case of treason, hundreds of thousands of Armenians defected to fight, spy, and plunder for the enemies of the Ottomans, slaughtering civilians and soldiers indiscriminately in places such as Van and Bitlis. They boasted of their gruesome Muslim bucheries and wartime perfidy at the Paris Peace Conference in hopes of winning an independent state. For every Armenian tragedy during the Great War, Ottoman Muslims have two or three to match. Princeton Professor, Bernard Lewis, the gold standard for impartial Middle East studies, staunchly denies the genocide claim. He is joined by other acclaimed academics such as Stanford Shaw of U.C.L.A. and Justin McCarthy of the University of Louisville. And a human rights organ of the United Nations has twice refused to endorse the genocide story, most recently on October 5, 2000. Tens of thousands of Armenians were left undisturbed outside militarily sensitive zones, such as Istanbul and Izmir. Ambassador Henry Morgenthau's views were disputed by Secretary of State Robert Lansing and his successor as Ambassador to Turkey, Rear Admiral Mark Bristol. Ottoman officials prosecuted and punished more than 1,400 soldiers for maltreatment of Armenians (and 62 were executed). The highest legal authorities in Great Britain convincingly advised against any prosecution of Ottoman officials (more than 100 detained on Malta) for want of reliable evidence of complicity in Armenian massacres. The British meticulously investigated for more than two years, including a request for U.S. State Department records and reports and a reveiw of Ottoman archives, and turned up nothing incriminating that could withstand court scrutiny. Sincerely, Bruce Fein General Counsel Assembly of Turkish American Associations Washington, D.C.

Turkey and the United States have both been victimized by terrorism.  Their responses have been equally resolute.  September 11 speaks for itself.  Far less is known of Turkey's longstanding fight since 1984 with the Marxist-Leninist-Secessionist PKK, listed by the United States and several European nations as a terrorist organization.  The PKK has been responsible for more than 30,000 deaths, including scores of teachers, and the displacement of millions of civilians.  The chief victims have been Turkish citizens of Kurdish ancestry whom the PKK cynically professes to represent.

With the assistance of United States intelligence, Turkey apprehended PKK terrorist leader Abdullah Ocalan from his redoubt in the Greek Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya.  He was prosecuted and convicted of terrorist crimes in an open judicial proceeding that met general international human rights standards.

The PKK is now but a shadow of its former self, but Turkey still confronts right-wing and left-wing domestic terrorist organizations aiming to destroy its flowering secular democracy.

Turkey offers no refuge for the likes of Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, or other hate-filled terrorist organizations, unlike other neighbors of Israel and Afghanistan. 

Indeed, its bilateral ties with Israel have thickened in recent years; it warmly supports the Mitchell-Tenet American peace plan for the Middle East; and, it is scheduled to assume command on the international force in Afghanistan on June 22 to prevent a re-birth of international terrorism there.           

Turkey is an ally that should not occasion moral or human rights reservations.  Its democratic awakening admittedly has been fitful.  Founded in 1923 on the ruins of the Ottoman Empire, the Republic of Turkey featured a staunchly secular constitution under the aegis of Ataturk, the George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison of the new nation.  Ataturk boldly abolished the Caliphate in 1924 (despite jihad threats from extremist Muslims), and enthusiastically embraced western democratic ideals and practices.  That was and remains unique in the annals of Islam.
    

But political cultures do not change overnight. Think of the distance between the Magna Charta in England and responsible parliamentary government, or the century between the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in the United States and equal rights for blacks. Analogously, Turkey's march towards democracy since Ataturk has been interrupted thrice by military interventions to rescue the nation from virtual anarchy or dismemberment. But even those were by and large attempts to free democracy from the clutches of extremism.

Today, Turkey sports a freely elected national parliament; a fully responsible prime minister; a president elected by the national assembly who vocally champions human rights, a parliamentary human rights oversight committee along side an executive branch human rights minister; and, an independent judiciary.

Turkey's democratic qualities strengthen by the day.  The print and broadcast media routinely assail the government for all kinds of shortcomings. Civil society is blossoming and a true grassroots democracy is taken over the old political system that is mainly based on personality cults. The influence of public opinion on government policies steadily climbs.  The parliament itself has ratified 34 liberalizing constitutional amendments informed by western democratic models.  Last March 26, it backed sweeping human rights initiatives addressing local government autonomy, freedom of association and expression, the civil service, court procedures, and police abuses.  Equally important, the vast majority of Turkish citizens welcome Turkey’s Western vocation, democratic disposition and secularism, which is demonstrated by the fact that mainstream parties that embody these tenets garner over 75 percent of the votes in any given election.

Turkey gives lie to the proposition that Islam and democracy are doomed to clash.  That message is a tonic to the United States campaign for democratic regimes in Muslim nations-not only in the Middle East-but in the Balkans, Central Asia and Asia.

The national security interests of the United States and Turkey generally overlap.  Turkey proved a stalwart ally during the United States military interventions in Bosnia and Kosova to foil the villainies of indicted war criminal Slobodan Milosevic and his henchman. Turkey’s cooperation with the US has contained Saddam Hussein's regime and its would-be repression of Iraqi Kurds.  Both nations have worked hand in glove to promote pipelines transiting the Caucuses and Turkey to carry coveted oil and natural gas supplies to Western markets Mediterranean without hazarding Black Sea pollution. 

A thickening United States alliance with Turkey will be worth substantially more than the price of admission in fighting terrorism, promoting democracy, and spreading human rights.

Orhan Kaymakcalan
President
Assembly of Turkish American Associations

EU-Alternatives for Turkey?
By Vural Cengiz Treasurer, ATAA-This article is not about ATAA's delegation trip to Bulgaria. Instead, I would like to talk about a joke which has been mentioned widely at the Bulgarian and Russian sites on Internet this week.

It is about "Kozloduyi" nuclear reactor of Bulgaria. European Union has declared in early April that Bulgaria had to close down its Kozloduyi reactor with three others to comply with the European Union regulations. This demand hit Bulgaria as hard as EU's human-rights requirements hit Turkey. Bulgarians can not pay higher electric bills but cheap electricity is not possible for Bulgaria without this nuclear reactor. Also, Bulgarian exporter industrialists are asking how they will compete with their European counterparts. This frustration gave birth to the wisecrack in the country that "Pope John Paul will visit Bulgaria in May." The country's jokers suggested the government take Pope to the reactor and name the reactor after Pope! They reasoned: "No European can demolish a reactor which has Pope's name on it."

Turkey's issues are much harder than a nuclear reactor to spin a joke about them. There is a very long list of conditions for Turkey to satisfy before Turkey can be looked at as a real member of the Union. The list is not getting shorter but longer every month. The decision about "Armenian genocide" is the one pushing its way to be the latest item in the list. And God knows what the next issues are going to be to satisfy the EU authorities.

In Turkey, "being a realist" is the name of the game: businessmen are calling "to accept all demands of EU and changing all the laws as demanded" in the name of being a realist. On the contrary, "not pushing further already changed civil-rights laws for minority issues" is seeing the realities of Turkey. Unfortunately, there is no easy way to find a consensus in the country. Joking about any of the issues is not easy. If Pope visited Turkey, I am sure it would create a few new problems which no one will be able to write a joke about. Turkey is far behind Bulgaria today in that regard. Actually, seeing what Bulgars are going through gives reason to be more pessimistic about Turkey's membership.

Seventh President of Turkey, Kenan Evren, told in a Turkish-American meeting last month in Florida that he strongly doubts Turkey's membership in EU. "Even if it happens one day, I am not sure if my grandchildren will be able to see it,." he said. As a general warned the Turkish government last month, Turkey may need to make a second-plan ready for itself.

Some economists argue lately that Turkey's low-level trade is one of the reasons for Turkey's economical problems. It makes sense when we think how closeness to marketplace and lowering transportation costs are economically important. If this is the case, developing relations with Syria would make Turkey a "next door" neighbor to two free-trade partners of the United States: Israel and Jordan. Since Syrian Congress has passed many free-market laws and the new President is willing to change the country, Syria may want to follow Turkey's path and stop supporting terrorism in the region. Thus, a regional market can be developed under the leadership of Turkey and including Israel and Jordan. Adding Azarbaijan, Georgia, Ukraine and even Russia, could create a partnership for Turkey in the region which both Europe and United States will have to take very seriously. Also the old partners of Russia (Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan)would be very interested in joining the new club.

Turkic countries gave chance to Turkey to build an alliance for the countries who share same language, religion and culture; however Turkey did nothing to take the leadership. In 1996, Kyrgyzystan, Kazakhstan and later Uzbekistan joined the "Shanghai Forum" with Russia and China to establish a new economic alliance. Shanghai Forum would be very interested in Turkey's membership in such an alliance. Can Europeans complain about Turkey's new alliances in the Middle-East or Asia? Well, who says anything to Britain's Commonwealth or France's French Speaking Countries Union?

Working on such plan would yield the benefit of Turkey both enjoying new trade benefits and standing firmer against its European allies. This would also give the chance to Europe to understand what this determined applicant, Turkey, is capable of doing. A bridge-country between East and West, Turkey, could be a new bridge between Western and Eastern economies.

The question is: shall Turkey take a brave step or wait till Europe finishes with her totally first?

Armenian question and the Western powers
By Seyfi Tashan, Turkish Daily News, April 2002-In March 1915 when the Russian forces began to move towards Van and immediately Armenians of Van began a general revolt massacring all the Turks in the vicinity easing the way for Russian forces. Armenian question and the Western powers

The chief of staff of the Third Army had to write to the Ministry of War, requesting that the Armenian gangs behind the Ottoman lines were causing serious disruptions in the supply lines and that Armenians living in these areas aiding and abating these gangs should be moved to other parts of the empire or outside the empire and in their place Moslems who were driven from Caucasia be settled.

The suggested move was very similar to the one carried out by the United States against the Japanese Americans in the second world war with the difference that the Japanese Americans had not yet indulged in any anti-American activity whereas in Eastern Turkey the Armenians were engaged actively in hostilities.

The conditions that obtained in Eastern Turkey were hospitable neither for Turks, nor for other people living in the region. Poverty, cold, epidemics were claiming lives. During the war with the Russia, about 90,000 Turkish soldiers had died mostly from cold and disease. Altogether more than 3 million Ottoman subjects had died because of war, deportations, massacres and disease in Eastern Turkey.

Western powers became interested and appointed themselves protectors and guardians of the Christian communities in the Ottoman Empire as from the beginning of the 19th Century.

Their pressure as well as the desire of the Ottoman Sultan the principle of equality among all citizens of the Empire was introduced. Nevertheless, the French continued to be the protectors of Catholics, the Russians of the Orthodox and Britain and the United States of the Protestants living in the Ottoman Empire. It was however very difficult for the Ottoman reformists to adopt European state norms although significant progress was made in higher education and modernization of the army.

The Ottoman State joined the "droite public European" (in other words European Concert) in the middle of the 19th century (1856 Paris Conference).The target of destroying the Ottoman empire that began with the formation of the Kingdom of Greece in 1828 remained intact for the major European countries namely France, Britain and Russia. In the Berlin Conference of 1878 the Western powers appointed themselves officially the guardians of Christians in the Ottoman empire and advanced the privileges granted to Christians and foreigners. Britain which had hitherto considered the existence of the Ottoman Empire for the protection of their interests in Asia had changed its policy in favor of creating smaller states one of which would be an independent Armenia. This naturally lead them to encourage secessionist activities among the Arabs and the Armenians. Greece was already coveting the Ottoman lands as they considered themselves as the inheritors of the Ottoman Empire. The Armenians who were very close to the Turks in respect to their culture and way of life and many of whom occupied responsible political positions in the Government as Ministers, ambassadors and administrators, by the end of the century, engaged in acts terrorism and caused frequent incidents in the cities and Armenian gangs were attacking and pillaging Turkish villages. In 1894 a serious fight broke-out in Bitlis between Armenian gangs and Turkish local forces.

The beginning of the First World War found the Ottoman State as an ally of Germany and at war with Britain, France and Russia. Ottoman troops were engaged fighting with the British in Gallipoli and in the Middle East, with the Russians in the Carpathian mountains in Romania and in Eastern Anatolia. As a natural component of the War the Western powers preferred to use Christian minorities, particularly the Armenians in Eastern Anatolia as fifth columns. The famous Laurence of Arabia was inciting the Middle East Arabs to revolt. In the Russian Army and Armenian Brigade was fighting against the Ottoman third army and Armenian Hinchak and Dashnasiun guerillas were attacking Ottoman supply lines and villages behind the front while they were supplied and protected by Armenian villages and financed by Armenian landowners

In the winter of 1915 the situation had become untenable. In March 1915 when the Russian forces began to move towards Van and immediately Armenians of Van began a general revolt massacring all the Turks in the vicinity easing the way for Russian forces.

The chief of staff of the Third Army had to write to the Ministry of War, requesting that the Armenian gangs behind the Ottoman lines were causing serious disruptions in the supply lines and that Armenians living in these areas aiding and abating these gangs should be moved to other parts of the empire or outside the empire and in their place Moslems who were driven from Caucasia be settled. The suggested move was very similar to the one carried out by the United States against the Japanese Americans in the second world war with the difference that the Japanese Americans had not yet indulged in any anti-American activity whereas in Eastern Turkey the Armenians were engaged actively in hostilities. But the conditions that obtained in Eastern Turkey were not hospitable neither for Turks, nor for other people living in the region. Poverty, cold, epidemics were claiming lives. During the war with the Russian about 90, 000 Turkish soldiers had died mostly from cold and disease. A! ltogether more than 3 million Ottoman subjects had died because of war, deportations, massacres and disease in Eastern Turkey.

Finally on April 24, 1915 the Ottoman Government closed Armenian revolutionary committees and arrested their leaders. In May the Ottoman Council of Ministers issued a decree for deportation of the Armenians in Eastern Turkey to Syria, Iraq and Palestine with strict instructions that they were treated carefully and compassionately. This decree No.1331/163 of May 1915 clearly defined the details of the protection to be given to the deportees. This deportation order was not extended to Armenians living in Istanbul or generally in Western Turkey. Out of some 700,000 Armenians who were transported some lives were lost as a result of large scale military and bandit activities through which they passed, as well as the general insecurity and blood feuds which some tribal forces sought to carry out as the caravans passed through their territories. During this entire deportation process the Ottoman Government gave permissions to a number American philanthropic organizations to help th! e deportees. Despite the claims of the Armenian nationalist organizations which conducted a sinister campaign against the Turks accusing them for genocide, they have kept silent the Armenian role in pursuit of their desire to set up an independent Armenia on Turkish soil for committing terrible massacres of Turks between in Eastern Turkey particularly after 1917 when Russian troops has withdrawn after the Bolshevik revolution and left the control to Armenians as well as those wanton killings of Turks by Armenians who accompanied the French forces in South Eastern Turkey. After the first world war the British tried to find evidence to accuse the defunct Ottoman administrators but failed to find any evidence of responsibility.

Large numbers of Armenians eventually settled down in Syria, the Lebanon, France and the United States. Since the Armenian Church had been given the task of managing the civil affairs of the Armenian Community under the Ottoman rule, when the Ottoman Empire began to weaken it became the hotbed of Armenian nationalism. The same characteristic of the Church was carried to the Armenian Diaspora; and in order to keep the Diaspora from becoming dissolved they encouraged Armenian nationalism with Turkish hostility and the events of 1915 became the unifying myth among the Diaspora. Thousands of books and articles were written by Armenian authors, films were sponsored to present the deportation from Eastern Turkey as a so called "genocide". In order to justify the claims so-called Armenian historians based themselves on openly falsified documents, and waged a vitreous campaign against the Turks. These falsifications have been demonstrated by universally well known historians such as!

Bernard Lewis or Stanford Shaw and many others... Having failed to persuade the historians the Armenian leader tried to persuade the parliaments to accept resolutions or laws to make them accept and declare the events of 1915 as genocide; something which serious historians

In 1917 Russian troops left those portions of Eastern Anatolia which they had occupied. The vacuum they left was filled by Armenian troops in the Russian army as well as Armenian irregulars who conducted large pogroms in the Turkish villages in Eastern Turkey, where large numbers of Turks were slaughtered. Nevertheless Turkish army soon returned and Armenian troops had to withdraw. Two treaties were signed between Turkey and Armenia in 1920 in known as Kars and Ardahan treaties the terms of which were later included in the Moscow Treaty between Turkey and Bolshevik Russia in 1921. These treaties defined the present borders between Turkey and Caucasia as final.

Following the war of independence the new Turkish Republic had signed in 1923the Treaty of Laussane which defined the borders of present Turkey. This did not stop the Armenians from making demands on Turkey basing themselves on the false accusations of genocide. Because of their pressure the United States Senate failed to ratify a a Turkish-American treaty confirming the terms of the Lausanne Treaty. Ataturk, the founder of the modern Turkish Republic had expressed his sentiments by expressing to the then American Ambassador to Turkey Joseph Grew by saying that it was impossible to comprehend how an enlightened and advanced nation could become subservient to the demands of a fanatical minority. Nevertheless during the pre-Second World war years little was heard from Diaspora activities. But they continued a sly and sinister campaign of slander against Turkey and the Turks led by Armenian churches and activists, infiltrating school books, media and film industries in an effort for presenting the 1915 deportation as a genocide. Diaspora activity against Turkey continued and was concentrated where there were Armenian nationalist churches.

Immediately after the Second World, Soviet Union had demanded the cession of the provinces of Kars and Ardahan to the Soviet Republic of Armenia, among other Soviet demands that initiated the Cold War period. Armenians who were also instigated by Moscow organized a big meeting in Erivan demanding land from Turkey. They also conducted a campaign against Turkey's membership in the United Nations during the San Francisco conference.

Because of the cold war and the value of Turkey for the Western alliance as a bulwark seems to have quieted the Diaspora in the United States. In fact, in 1954 we have witnessed a strange phenomenon which the writer has personally witnessed. After the comradeship in arms between US and Turkish troops in Korea in 1950 and following Turkey's admission to NATO membership, the then President of Turkey Mr. Celal Bayar was invited to pay state visit to the United States by President Eisenhower. He was welcomed in New York with a ticker-tape parade on the Broadway and both houses of the US Congress gave him a standing ovation as the leader of a much valued ally. The Armenian Diaspora did not wish to stay behind. They volunteered to conduct the entire public relations work in preparation for the visit of the Turkish President visit to California where Armenians were concentrated. This visit became a demonstration of a renewed Turkish Armenian friendship.

However, the Turkish American alliance soon became what George Harris called in the title of his well-known book a "troubled alliance". In 1964 when the Greek leadership in Cyprus had taken over the Government by coup d'etat and a massacre of Turks, Turkey wanted to use its treaty rights and intervene in the affairs of the island. This was strongly objected by the United States.. Following the signing of the first documents of Detente between US and USSR during the visit of President Nixon to Moscow in 1972, the decision of the Turkish government to allow controlled poppy plantation in 1973 and the Turkish military intervention in Cyprus the relations between Turkey and the United States soured to the degree of an imposition of an arms embargo by the United States.

The diaspora activity against Turkey increased during this period in parallel with the estrangement between Turkish and US governments. The murder of the Turkish Council General in Los Angeles in 1973 triggered the Armenian ASALA terrorism which resurrected and this time turned against Turkish diplomats costing the lives of more than forty distinguished Turkish diplomats. The Turkish-French relations began to sour following the decision of Marseille Municipal Council to erect a monument in memorial of the so-called Armenian genocide which resulted in the withdrawal of the Turkish Ambassador to Paris. The next Turkish Ambassador to Paris was murdered by ASALA in 1975. It was well known that there was an understanding between the French Government and the Armenian terrorists that so long as they did not attack French targets they would not be disturbed in France. This arrangement continued until the Armenian bombed the Orly airport in Paris causing many casualties. Then quietly the ASALA assassinations of Turkish diplomats were terminated. Instead the Armenian lobby in United States concentrated its efforts to pass a resolution through the US Congress accepting an Armenian genocide. So far these attempts have failed but the efforts of the Armenian Diaspora to influence the US congress continue to this date. According press reports Armenians have provided substantial financial support to US senatorial elections for candidate to support their cause in the US congress.

It is clear that the Republic of Armenia is in collusion with the Diaspora in the Anti-Turkish campaign. After the break down of the Soviet Union Armenia had occupied about 20% of the Azerbaijani territory driving out Azeri people forcing them to live in poverty in refugee camps. Turkey recognized the independence of Armenia but did not establish diplomatic relations until progress was made in the Minsk process of OSCE in the discussions between Armenia and Azerbaijan. After having rid himself of such diehard aides like Hovanissian, the President of Armenia Mr. Ter Petrosian had made some initiatives giving a hope for progress in negotiation which would also entail the opening of diplomatic relations and the borders with Turkey and provide access for this land-locked impoverished country to high seas the Turkish market. However, the extreme nationalists brought down Mr. Petrosian who was always suggesting moderation to Diaspora and was replaced by the President of Nagorno-Karabagh and the extremely nationalist Dashnak majority of the parliament. The new leaders of Armenia relying on the economic and financial support provided by the Diaspora or secured by them receive highest per capita foreign aid from the United States, which does little to urge them to seek an agreement with Azerbaijan; on the contrary, US Congress withholds any economic assistance to that country.

The acceptance by the French Parliament on January 18, 2001 of a law accepting that a genocide had taken place against the Armenians in 1915 rightfully caused furor in the Turkish public opinion, particularly because the French parliamentarians by passing the law and the Government by promulgating it, had put themselves in the place of historians who had never been able to prove that there was a genocide. The French moves were further aggravated by the Paris Municipal Council which later decided to erect a monument in memory of the so-called genocide, creating in Turkey a great anger and astonishment about the callousness of the French politicians.

It should be remembered that during the years 1972-1986 Turkish French relations passed through their coolest years, particularly because of the activities of the Armenians and the support given by France to Greek membership to the European Economic Community to the exclusion of Turkey. After 1986 Turkish-French relations were improved and political, economic and cultural relations were revitalized. Many French companies invested in Turkey or benefited from State adjudications. Under these circumstances one wonders why French Parliament and Government approved this clearly anti-Turkish action to the degree of making an unsubstantiated claim into a law of France. Was it really a stupidity or due to a myopic expectation of electoral support for a handful of parliamentarians, or was it an expression, in the French way, of their criticism and disdain of Turkish attitude against the French supported CFSP.

Whatever the cause is this French behavior will not deter Turkey from its European vocation and will not force Turkey to readjust its polices towards Armenia or CFSP; but the historic Turkish French ties will have an enduring scar.

Furthermore, if this to be interpreted by the current nationalist leaders of the Armenian Republic as a political success that might change Turkish attitude towards Armenia to condone what they have done in Azerbaijan, they may be mistaken.

Carelessness with Genocide
Bruce Fein*-The anti-fraud provisions of the federal Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 criminalize financial portraits that mislead because of what they either omit or assert. Enron and its tycoons, for example, stand at the abyss of prosecution because the company's financial statements allegedly neglected to disclose mountains of debt.

If commercial touting triggers such unforgiving penalties for misleading omissions, it would seem that historical treatments of genocide claims would be equally scrupulous of full disclosure to the audience. Genocide the crime of crimes-uniquely stigmatizes the accused. Its repercussions may include reparations or territorial adjustments. And when taught to unsuspecting youths as gospel deserving terrorist revenge, the genocide assertion seems a second cousin of criminal incitements.

Simple fairness and morality, therefore, should awaken history authors to an exceptional duty of care and analysis in approaching genocide accusations. But Samantha Power's genocide tract, "America and the Age of Genocide," recently uncurtained at a Holocaust Memorial Museum, seems acutely wanting on that score as regards the alleged Armenian genocide.

It features in Chapter 1 under the gruesome title, "Race Murder." Ms. Powers sermonizes as an historical verity: "In 1915 [Interior Minister Talaat Pasha] had presided over the killing by firing squad, bayoneting , bludgeoning, and starvation of nearly 1 million Armenians. In a footnote, the author acknowledges much lower estimates by non-Armenian scholars, such as Stanford Shaw, much higher estimates by Armenian sources, and the claim that the majority of Armenian casualties stemmed from suppressing a rebellion, not from exterminating a race.

Ms. Power, however, never deigns to explain why she preferred her 1 million figure as most reliable. That omission is no quibble because genocide, as distinguished from other crimes under international law, is a matter of degree. Much more important, however, is the author's failure seriously to address the strong argument that the Armenian casualties were occasioned by legitimate wartime concerns of the Ottoman Empire and ruthless massacres of Muslims perpetrated by Armenian traitors.

No country in the world has ever failed to take stern measures against reasonably suspected treason during war. The United States, for instance, detained in concentration camps approximately 120,000 of citizens and resident aliens of Japanese ancestry on the West Coast during World War II despite the conceded absence of evidence of disloyalty. The Ottoman triumvirate during World War I, in contrast, held incontestable evidence of Armenian treason in hopes of creating an independent Armenian state. The Armenians themselves trumpeted their national security perfidy and anti-Ottoman belligerent status to the World War I victors. Emblematic was the following excerpt of a December 3, 1918 letter from Boghos Nubar, President of the Armenian National Delegation to the Paris Peace Conference, to Mr. Stephen Pichon, French Foreign Minister, reminding him:

"That the Armenians have been, since the beginning of the war, de facto belligerents, as you yourself have acknowledged, since they fought alongside the Allies on all fronts, enduring heavy sacrifices and great suffering for their unshakeable attachment to the cause of the Entente:

"In France, through their volunteers, who started joining the French Legion in the first days and covered themselves with glory under the French flag;

"In Palestine and Syria, where Armenian volunteers, recruited by the National Delegation at the request of the government of the Republic itself, made up more than half of the French contingent and played a large part in the victory of General Allenby, as he himself and the French chiefs have declared;

"In the Caucasus, where, without mentioning the 150,000 Armenians in the Imperial Russian Army, more than 40,000 of their volunteers contributed to the liberation of a portion of the Armenian vilayets, and where, under the command of their leaders, Antranik and Nazerbekoff, they, alone among the peoples of the Caucasus, offered resistance to the Turkish armies, from the beginning of the Bolshevik withdrawal right up to the singing of an armistice."

In other words, according to Armenian icon and spokesman Bogus Nuhar, Ottoman Armenians from the outset of World War I warred against the Empire with zeal and efficacy. The Ottoman answering relocation measures from militarily sensitive areas (leaving tens of thousands undisturbed in Istanbul and elsewhere), which admittedly was mishandled and triggered the prosecution of more than 1,000 Ottoman soldiers, seem surely a wartime imperative, not a genocidal act of racism.

Stanford J. Shaw and Ezel K. Shaw write in History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, elaborate: "The Russian army of the Caucasus also began an offensive toward Van with the help of a large force of Armenian volunteers recruited from among refugees from Anatolia as well as local Caucasian residents. Leaving Erivan on April 28, 1915, only a day after the deportation orders had been issued in Istanbul and long before news of them could have reached the east, they reached Van on May 14 and organized and carried out a general slaughter of the local Muslim population during the next two days while the small Ottoman garrison had to retreat to the southern side of the lake.

An Armenian state was organized at Van under Russian protection, and it appeared that with the Muslim natives dead or driven away, it might be able to maintain itself at one of the oldest population centers of ancient Armenian civilization. An Armenian legion was organized to expel the Turks from the entire southern shore of the lake in preparation for a concerted Russian drive into the Bitlis vilayet."

In a supreme act of authorial irresponsibility when an issue as wrenching and profound as genocide is at stake, Ms. Powers nonchalantly ignores the powerful evidence that discredits her Ottoman-Armenian story. She largely apes Ambassador Henry Morgenthau's dubious narrative without explaining why his reliability is superior to the credibility of his detractors. Don't readers deserve more? Or does Ms. Powers disdain them like Enron's duped investors?

*Constitutional scholar and attorney Bruce Fein is an ATAA Adjunct Scholar.

Scholars dispute genocide claims
By Yusuf Selcuk Ateskanu, USC Daily Trojan April 23, 2002-Armenian terrorists bombed UCLA professor Stanford Shaw's house in 1977 when Shaw's research revealed that Armenian allegations about the genocide could not be supported by historical evidence. Turkish diplomats were also victims of Armenian extremists; Gurgen Yanikian initiated a series of terrorist acts toward Turkish diplomats in southern California, assassinating Turkish Consul General Mehmet Baydar and Consul Bahadir Demir in Santa Barbara on Jan. 27, 1973.

Kemal Arikan, Turkish Consul General at Los Angeles, was another victim of the terrorist attacks. Armenian militant Hampig Sasunian killed him on Wilshire Boulevard when he stopped at a traffic light on Jan. 28, 1982.

Between 1973 and 1995, Armenian terrorists committed 110 acts of terror (70 bombings, 39 armed attacks and one occupation) in 38 cities in 21 countries, according to various newspaper reports. In these attacks, 42 Turkish diplomats and four foreign nationals were killed, while 15 Turks and 66 foreign nationals were wounded. These groups targeted Shaw with the intent of destroying his evidence and documents because he revealed the facts do not match Armenian horror tales. The terrorists killed Turk diplomats, including Baydar, Demir and Arikan, just because they represented the government that the groups blame for the alleged genocide between 1915 and 1923.

Throughout the United States - including in front of Tommy Trojan - various Armenian groups will be gathering April 23 and 24 to commemorate the alleged genocide. Most of them will use distortions to offer one-sided misrepresentations of the events that took place between the Turkish and Armenian citizens of the Ottoman Empire during and after World War I. They will claim that the Ottoman Empire instigated a policy of genocide against its Armenian citizens. But scholars have proven that these allegations are not based on historical facts but on myths, fake documents and forgeries.

Bernard Lewis, professor of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University, said, "There is no evidence of a decision (of Ottoman government) to massacre. On the contrary, there is considerable evidence of attempt to prevent it."

For decades, Armenian groups perpetuated their childhood horror stories. Yet many incidents of fake documents that these groups use to support their claims - such as the infamous Talat Pasha telegrams ordering the murder of Armenians, or the quote from Hitler allegedly acknowledging the "extermination of the Armenians" - have been revealed as forgeries or debunked by history scholars.

For instance, on Aug. 2, 1984, an article in America's leading Armenian newspaper, "Reporter," reported: "Historian of Armenian descent (Dr. Robert John) says (the) frequently used Hitler quote is nothing but a forgery" and therefore "should not be used" as the evidence of genocide.

Despite the heavy pressure, most American scholars refuse to call the events a genocide. More than 70 American scholars who specialize in Turkish, Ottoman and Middle Eastern studies published an open letter to the U.S. Congress in the New York Times and Washington Post on May 19, 1985 disputing Armenian characterizations of the events of WWI.

History professor Justin McCarthy summarized the findings of his research on the Armenian allegations in his testimony in front of the House International Committee: "Assuming one-sided evil has led to an unfortunate approach to the history of the Armenians and the Turks. Instead of investigating the history of the time without prejudice, all the guilt has been attached to one side. Once the Turks were assumed to be guilty, the search was on to find proof. The process has been one of assertion and refutation.

"It was asserted that Talat Pasha, the Ottoman Interior Minister, had written telegrams ordering the murder of Armenians, but these proved to be forgeries.

"It was asserted that letters published during WWI by the British Propaganda Office showed Turkish guilt, but these have proven to have been sent by missionaries and Armenian revolutionaries, both of whom were less than neutral sources.

"It was asserted that courts martial by a post-war Turkish government proved that Turks had engaged in genocide, although careful examination of the records shows that the charges were included among long lists of crimes brought by a government under control of British occupiers lists that include all sorts of actions that are demonstrably false and include anything that would please the conquerors."

Since Armenian claims lack the support of academic research, they have developed a strategy to legislate their version of history by heavily lobbying the U.S. Congress to pass resolutions recognizing their allegations. Furthermore, scholars who attempt to independently and objectively research Armenian claims - such as UCLA's Shaw - were subject to threats, harassment, intimidation and outright attacks.

Turkish students and their guests at USC have also experienced these hostile manners. Outraged Armenian fanatics disrupted the annual Turkish nights twice, in April 1994 and 2000. Turkish night is intended to be merely a cultural event, with no political motivations, yet demonstrators appeared to protest the alleged genocide. Nobody was hurt physically, thanks to the prompt action of the Department of Public Safety and the Los Angeles Police Department, who escorted us to our residences. However, it is not possible to express the extent of our emotional distress due to these offensive acts.

As Turkish students at USC, we do mourn for both Armenian and Turkish people who perished during continual warfare before, during and after WWI. However, we do not accept the distortion of the historical facts to promote hatred toward a nation. Let us overcome the prejudice and do our part to create a peaceful world.

Guest editorial writer Yusuf Selcuk Ateskan is a graduate student in electrical engineering and president of USC-TURKSA.

Possibilities for the future of Cyprus
By Benjamin Tyree, The Washington Times, April 26, 2002-The U.N.-monitored, cloaked-from-the-media, discussions regarding the divided island nation of Cyprus may yet provide an example of how estranged ethnic communities can become reconciled. At present, tiny Cyprus, with 3,500 square miles, or less than half the size of Israel, is making slow and uncertain but occasionally perceptible progress in a healing dialogue between the leaders of its once violently torn Orthodox Greek and Muslim Turkish groups, totaling less than 800,000 people.

The internationally recognized Republic of Cyprus controls less than two-thirds of the island, and a large majority of its population, chiefly those of Greek origin and culture.

The less populous Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) is officially recognized only by Turkey. Turkish troops have occupied this area as a protectorate for their Turkish Cypriot compatriots since 1974, following a decade of intermittent ethnic clashes between factions of the indigenous Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities. Four decades ago, many Greek Cypriots sought "enosis," or union with Greece. Today, the Republic of Cyprus seeks reunification of the island as a "bicommunal, bizonal, federated state," with a single international identity. [TT’s Note: The Greek-Cypriots do not recognize "bi-zonality" and insist on re-settling Greek immigrants to some villages in the TRNC.] The TRNC's Turkish Cypriot population has been diminished by emigration but augmented by citizens of Turkey (estimates range between 40,000 and 115,000) settled there over the objections of the Republic of Cyprus. The TRNC remains skittish about reunification, and has sought recognized sovereignty for itself and a looser confederation.

Held out to Turkish Cypriots and to Turkey are the benefits of Turkish-speaking communities becoming part of the European Union, after the Republic of Cyprus is finally admitted, perhaps by the end of this year. Trade, tourism and EU aid would flow to both Cypriot communities. The relationship between the two ethnic communities would be managed in the larger context of EU human-rights assurances and other rules. But Turkish Cypriots express worries about a reprise of the strife-ridden past and possible economic domination by the Greek Cypriots. Property-rights issues are another hurdle.

Greek Cypriots argue that Turkey's prospects for eventual EU membership would be facilitated by Turkish becoming an official EU language (as one of the languages of Cyprus), and by ending the island's division. Resolving the Cyprus question would, moreover, augur well for continued, closer rapprochement between NATO members Greece and Turkey and could provide a democratic example for a civil settlement of the longstanding tensions between the Orthodox Christian and Islamic populations throughout the nearby Balkan region.

Thus far, the Republic of Cyprus has held the cards of recognition and support by international organizations and has assumed a modern stance supportive of full rights for all citizens of Cyprus -- Greek and Turkish Cypriot alike.

The TRNC has held the cards of old injuries and grievances and of support by Turkey. But these may be diminishing assets as all parties look expectantly toward accession to the pan-ethnic EU and a wider future. American sources familiar with the Cyprus question say key obstacles to its resolution include Turkey's security concerns -- plausible or not -- regarding any future role on the island by parties unfriendly to Turkish interests.

One U.S. source agreed that the issues involving post-1974 Turkish settlers from Anatolia could prove more difficult than [Greek] Cypriot officials like to think. The Republic of Cyprus views the settlers as part of an illegal and internationally opposed occupation of the north by Turkey. [TT’s Note: Turkish intervention in 1974 was not illegal. It was actually mandated by the Guarantee Treaty of February 11, 1959, signed in Zurich, Switzerland. When Greece and Britain, as the other two signatories to the Zurich treaty, have refused to execute their responsibilities as the guarantors of the independence of Republic of Cyprus, Turkey had to intervene to save the Turkish-Cypriots from a certain annihilation. It is a sign of either ignorance or bias that Western commentators still refer to the Turkish intervention as "illegal."]

But Greek Cypriot officials display no disposition for wrenching expulsions. In recent discussions with journalists, former Cyprus President George Vassiliou emphasized financial incentives to facilitate repatriation of the settlers to Turkey. A right of settlement is evidently acceptable for those who have intermarried with the indigenous population. There have been vague suggestions, difficult to pin down, that place of birth might provide a basis for certain rights. However, Demetris Christofias, president of the Cyprus House of Representatives, emphasized during a mid-April Washington visit that parentage would be the decisive element in citizenship. Mr. Vassiliou earlier mentioned limited residency rights or work permits might be possible for settlers who prove to be economic assets.

American observers note that financial commitments to Cyprus upon its accession to the EU -- involving hundreds of millions of Euros -- will result in major development of the island's infrastructure with huge economic implications for a nation of its small size and population. Some of the present settlers, one U.S. source hinted, might turn out to be needed and preferable to other outside sources of labor from the Middle East.

Weighing on U.S. foreign-policy thinking is the crucial role of Turkey as a moderate Muslim nation, providing a counterpoint to Islamic religious extremism, and a staging area for the Western allies in any widened Middle East war. Cyprus itself would remain uninvolved, but large British air bases held there as British sovereign territory would be in play.

Nearly two generations after bloody intercommunal clashes, it would be better for both sides in Cyprus to recognize the inherent dangers of retaining or renewing what Mr. Christofias described as the "past mistakes of chauvinists on both sides."

Benjamin Tyree is deputy editor of the Commentary pages of The Washington Times.

Let's talk Turkey
By Jed Babbin, The Washington Times, April 25, 2002, LONDON-For all the talk about our Saudi, Egyptian and Jordanian "allies," America really has only two allies in the Islamic world. Pakistan has been most visible in the war in Afghanistan, and its president, Pervez Musharraf, has been an outspoken critic of terrorism and the culture that produces it. But the widening gap between American interests and our so-called Arab allies is as plain as Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's refusal to meet with Colin Powell last week. If the Arab nations are to play any role, other than adversary, in the war against terror, we need to find a way to narrow that gap.

It may be that Turkey
-- one of our strongest allies and our only other real ally in the Islamic world -- can succeed where we failed. If it does, it will be without fanfare because, when it can, Turkey avoids the center stage. Turkey has been the southeastern cornerstone of NATO for decades. Its strategic location put it directly in the path of Russian plans to expand into the Middle East. Turkey controls the only passages from the Russian Black Sea ports to the open ocean, and shares an eastern border with Iraq. For all of its strategic importance, Turkey often gets little respect from us or from our European allies. Early in the Clinton presidency, former Turkish Prime Minister Turgut Ozal died [on 17 April 1993]. His personal dedication to NATO should have earned him the honor of presidential attendance at his funeral. Mr. Clinton didn't go, and neither did Vice President Gore, who rejected the duty. Mr. Gore apparently thought that having himself look more important than his predecessor was more important than honoring a valuable ally. Poor Dan Quayle went to so many funerals that some called him America's ambassador to the dead. Turkey forgave, even if it did not forget. Now, with our attention turning to Iraq, Turkey's interests must be accounted for in our plans to remove Saddam Hussein. Iraq poses a more complex matter than it appears, because what comes after Saddam is important to Turkey and, in the long run, to us as well. There is a substantial Kurdish minority in Turkey, and two Kurdish opposition parties in northern Iraq. The Kurdish-Iraqi opposition is split between Masoud Barzani's Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), in the north near Syria, and Jalal Talabani's Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) in the south, near Iran. Neither of the two is capable of toppling Saddam, and the KDP lacks sufficient strength to ensure a stable government after Saddam is gone.

The other half of that problem is that Mr. Talabani's PUK is dominated by Shiite Muslim fundamentalists who would turn Iraq into another Iran. Neither America nor Turkey can allow that, because of Iraq's oil and the fact that a fundamentalist government in Iraq would foment revolutions in the surrounding nations.

In a private interview last week
Turkey's ambassador to the United States, Dr. O. Faruk Logoglu, said that Turkey will not accept a partitioned Iraq. President Bush has agreed that partitioning Iraq will be unacceptable to America as well. Planning for a new and undivided government for Iraq will take time. Our campaign against Iraq is on hold until it is done.

Turkey, like America, cannot accept Iraqi possession of weapons of mass destruction. Turkey would prefer U.N. inspections over military action. But like America, Turkey is very skeptical that Saddam will ever cooperate. The ambassador would not say if Turkey would join an attack on Iraq. But there is little reason to doubt that Turkey would join the fight, whether or not other Muslim countries give even their tacit consent to an attack.

Over the past two months, American diplomacy has failed conspicuously to get anything from any Arab nation -- other than contemptuous opposition -- for our plan to remove Saddam Hussein. Vice President Cheney struck out quietly in his eleven-nation tour in March. Mr. Powell could not have gotten more fanfare in failure if he had taken a marching band on the road between Ramallah and Tel Aviv. The gulf that separates America and the Arab nations is widening. If we soon make any progress in narrowing it, the progress is more likely to result from Turkish diplomacy than our own.

To get Turkey and Greece to agree on almost anything is extraordinary. But in these strange days, the Turkish and Greek foreign ministers will soon travel together to the Middle East to test the waters for a historic summit. Their mission is not to gather a coalition to fight Iraq. It is to see if they can relieve any of the growing tension between the Arab world and the West. The two ministers plan to meet with Yasser Arafat as a start, and possibly with their counterparts from other nations in the region. If the two foreign ministers meet with Mr. Arafat, they will ask him to participate in a meeting such as the one proposed by Mr. Powell last week. Unlike Mr. Powell's approach, it would place Turkey and Greece -- one Islamic nation and one Christian nation -- in the place of the honest broker that America cannot now occupy.

Turkey and Greece may be able to accomplish what Ariel Sharon and Colin Powell failed to do -- to make all the Middle Eastern Arab nations responsible for making and enforcing peace. If Turkey and Greece can maneuver the Arab nations into a position of responsibility for peace, there can be real progress toward it. To succeed, Turkey and Greece will have to convince the Arab states to use Mr. Arafat for a different purpose than before. He always has been a pawn, and his terrorism makes it impossible for him to be party to the end game. But the Arab nations can include the Palestinians in an agreement between them and Israel that would both recognize Israel and guarantee its right to exist, as well as establish a Palestinian state. Every serious player will sacrifice a pawn to win the game.

Jed Babbin was a deputy undersecretary of defense in the first Bush administration.