Tweet
JUST A FEW NAIVE QUESTIONS ON THE 'ARMENIAN GENOCIDE'
Cem Oguz
New Anatolian, Turkey
May 4 2006
At a symposium held in Kayseri recently Turkish Armenians' Patriarch
Mesrob Mutafyan II wisely argued that it's unethical for both Armenians
and Turks "to ignore each other's responsibility or completely put it
on the other side although responsibilities weren't equal in the brutal
consequence." He then criticized the great powers of the time, ranging
from France to the U.S., since they bore a responsibility as well.
What might be the responsibility of the great powers that the patriarch
touched upon? And what is its relevance today?
During his visit to Ankara two weeks ago, Polish Foreign Minister
Stefan Meller, in response to Turkish criticism regarding the Polish
Parliament's recognition of the so-called Armenian genocide, said that
the decision neither has a binding impact on his country's foreign
policy nor reflects the view of his government. Supposedly the decision
wasn't one taken against Turkey. Since a number Polish citizens
with Armenian roots have carried out significant duties in Poland,
the Polish Parliament considered the decision moral compensation for
Armenian suffering and pain stemming from the 1915 tragedy.
The foreign minister's statement begs one simple question: Is the
Polish Parliament's decision indeed so apolitical?
Just as was the case when the U.S. public TV network PBS a short
while ago aired a controversial documentary on the so-called Armenian
genocide but gave little opportunity for scholars supporting the
Turkish thesis to have a say, every defensive attempt by Turks are
zealously blocked by Armenian diaspora organizations.
If our Armenian friends are so sure that our arguments are baseless
why are they so hesitant about giving us a chance to fall flat on
our faces?
A memorial in Lyon, France honoring those killed in the so-called
Armenian genocide was vandalized just a week before it was to be
unveiled, which, as The New Anatolian's Nazlan Ertan two days ago
wrote, has created a fertile atmosphere for the new law that would
punish genocide deniers with time in prison.
Who might the vandals be? Some men with moustaches, as some circles
are trying to portray, or teenagers being paid in a dark alley by a
guy in a suit?
As of today the number of U.S. states that have passed resolutions
supporting the Armenian allegations has reached 36 in total.
Why then are we heartened on April 24 every year to see that the U.S.
president, whoever he is at the time, has avoided using the term
"genocide" in his message to Armenia and the Armenian Americans? Are
these resolutions passed by U.S. states, on the other hand,
just like the controversial movie "Midnight Express," a sign of
anti-Turkishness? As our U.S. friends do about "The Valley of Wolves
Iraq," shall we complain about it as well?
George W. Bush, in his presidential message this year, interestingly
expressed his willingness to strengthen Armenia's inclusion in the
Euro-Atlantic family.
Doesn't the U.S. president or other Western leaders realize that
the biased Western stance towards the Armenian claims, in turn,
is accelerating the Turkish people's alienation from the West?
TNA recently published a striking news story entitled "New measures
to fight Armenian claims." Due to the fait accompli of the Armenian
diaspora, a high-level and unnamed Turkish source ironically asserted
that sometimes even the foreign ministries of some countries find out,
much to their "surprise," that their parliament took a decision on
the matter. Supposedly Venezuela was a good example. Its Foreign
Ministry officials discovered that a resolution supporting the
Armenian allegations was passed in their Parliament only after it
was condemned by Turkish diplomats. The way these resolutions are
passed is also worth considering. In several cases previously such
drafts were brought to Parliaments during late evening sessions when
the number of deputies present was very few indeed.
This leaves us scratching our heads, wondering why the Turkish
diplomats in Venezuela didn't inform their colleagues before the law
was passed. Or are such arguments merely another reflection of our
diplomats' professional kindness?
Last, but not least, why doesn't Parliament Speaker Bulent Arinc,
instead of making speculative speeches that further divide the public,
convene Parliament on his own initiative to formulate a national
declaration, to be signed by all political parties in and outside
Parliament, reaffirming that the Armenian allegations are unacceptable
and Turkey is ready to pay the consequences of its alleged "denial"
whatever they are? Why do opposition parties, in turn, make this
national cause simply another matter of domestic polemics and populism
despite the fact that they're equally responsible?
Can nobody see that the Turkish people won't forgive those who are
trying to attribute a grave moral flaw to them?
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Cem Oguz
New Anatolian, Turkey
May 4 2006
At a symposium held in Kayseri recently Turkish Armenians' Patriarch
Mesrob Mutafyan II wisely argued that it's unethical for both Armenians
and Turks "to ignore each other's responsibility or completely put it
on the other side although responsibilities weren't equal in the brutal
consequence." He then criticized the great powers of the time, ranging
from France to the U.S., since they bore a responsibility as well.
What might be the responsibility of the great powers that the patriarch
touched upon? And what is its relevance today?
During his visit to Ankara two weeks ago, Polish Foreign Minister
Stefan Meller, in response to Turkish criticism regarding the Polish
Parliament's recognition of the so-called Armenian genocide, said that
the decision neither has a binding impact on his country's foreign
policy nor reflects the view of his government. Supposedly the decision
wasn't one taken against Turkey. Since a number Polish citizens
with Armenian roots have carried out significant duties in Poland,
the Polish Parliament considered the decision moral compensation for
Armenian suffering and pain stemming from the 1915 tragedy.
The foreign minister's statement begs one simple question: Is the
Polish Parliament's decision indeed so apolitical?
Just as was the case when the U.S. public TV network PBS a short
while ago aired a controversial documentary on the so-called Armenian
genocide but gave little opportunity for scholars supporting the
Turkish thesis to have a say, every defensive attempt by Turks are
zealously blocked by Armenian diaspora organizations.
If our Armenian friends are so sure that our arguments are baseless
why are they so hesitant about giving us a chance to fall flat on
our faces?
A memorial in Lyon, France honoring those killed in the so-called
Armenian genocide was vandalized just a week before it was to be
unveiled, which, as The New Anatolian's Nazlan Ertan two days ago
wrote, has created a fertile atmosphere for the new law that would
punish genocide deniers with time in prison.
Who might the vandals be? Some men with moustaches, as some circles
are trying to portray, or teenagers being paid in a dark alley by a
guy in a suit?
As of today the number of U.S. states that have passed resolutions
supporting the Armenian allegations has reached 36 in total.
Why then are we heartened on April 24 every year to see that the U.S.
president, whoever he is at the time, has avoided using the term
"genocide" in his message to Armenia and the Armenian Americans? Are
these resolutions passed by U.S. states, on the other hand,
just like the controversial movie "Midnight Express," a sign of
anti-Turkishness? As our U.S. friends do about "The Valley of Wolves
Iraq," shall we complain about it as well?
George W. Bush, in his presidential message this year, interestingly
expressed his willingness to strengthen Armenia's inclusion in the
Euro-Atlantic family.
Doesn't the U.S. president or other Western leaders realize that
the biased Western stance towards the Armenian claims, in turn,
is accelerating the Turkish people's alienation from the West?
TNA recently published a striking news story entitled "New measures
to fight Armenian claims." Due to the fait accompli of the Armenian
diaspora, a high-level and unnamed Turkish source ironically asserted
that sometimes even the foreign ministries of some countries find out,
much to their "surprise," that their parliament took a decision on
the matter. Supposedly Venezuela was a good example. Its Foreign
Ministry officials discovered that a resolution supporting the
Armenian allegations was passed in their Parliament only after it
was condemned by Turkish diplomats. The way these resolutions are
passed is also worth considering. In several cases previously such
drafts were brought to Parliaments during late evening sessions when
the number of deputies present was very few indeed.
This leaves us scratching our heads, wondering why the Turkish
diplomats in Venezuela didn't inform their colleagues before the law
was passed. Or are such arguments merely another reflection of our
diplomats' professional kindness?
Last, but not least, why doesn't Parliament Speaker Bulent Arinc,
instead of making speculative speeches that further divide the public,
convene Parliament on his own initiative to formulate a national
declaration, to be signed by all political parties in and outside
Parliament, reaffirming that the Armenian allegations are unacceptable
and Turkey is ready to pay the consequences of its alleged "denial"
whatever they are? Why do opposition parties, in turn, make this
national cause simply another matter of domestic polemics and populism
despite the fact that they're equally responsible?
Can nobody see that the Turkish people won't forgive those who are
trying to attribute a grave moral flaw to them?
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress