Tweet
RAMPANT TURKS STILL IN DENIAL
Phil Davies
Novinite.com
http://www.novinite.com/view_ news.php?id=114357
March 18 2010
Bulgaria
The cavalcade of big black cars, blue lights flashing, little
flags waving, sweeps down from Sofia airport, past the National
Assembly and the watchful statue of Russian Emperor Alexander II,
who helped liberate the country from the Ottoman Empire, to arrive
at the administrative heart of Bulgaria - the Presidency, the Council
of Ministers.
The latest VIP is none other than the Turkish Minister of Foreign
Affairs, on his two-day visit to Bulgaria. He is meeting the President,
the Prime Minister, the Speaker of Parliament, and holding discussions
with Bulgaria's FM, Nikolay Mladenov.
According to Turkish media, the purpose of the visit is to focus on
"bilateral relations, but the recent situation in the Balkans will
also be discussed". Not much given away there, then!
While waiting to find out who actually discussed what during the two
days, it may be interesting to consider what could and should be on
the agenda.
Will the "bilateral relations" meetings - particularly between the
two Foreign Ministers - be merely mutual congratulatory exchanges
on increasing trade, on harmonizing cross-border cooperation, on the
recently agreed details of international transport tariffs?
What is meant by the "recent situation in the Balkans"? What recent
situation? Bulgaria's recent offer to the EU to become a Balkan hub
for encouraging the Western Balkan countries' accession? The problems
of EU accession that Turkey, uniquely, faces, and the declaration
by PM Borisov that Bulgaria is supportive of its neighbor's efforts
to join the European club? In January, on a visit to Ankara, Borisov
stated that "Bulgaria is going to support Turkey's accession to the
EU as Turkey meets all necessary criteria", for example.
[Latest update: the Foreign Ministers' joint press conference on
Thursday afternoon has revealed that, in their discussions, the Nabucco
pipeline project was the "first priority", that they had discussed
energy security and diversification, cooperation in the Black Sea and
Balkans regions, and NATO coordination. All worthy topics, of course.]
Given this latest information, one is entitled to ask what should
have been on the agenda, given the current number of diplomatic
spats involving an ongoing issue in Turkey, and some of the recent
inflammatory statements of Turkish PM Recep Tayyip Erdogan?
The Bulgarian conservative Order, Law, and Justice (RZS) party hit
the nail squarely on the head when, on Thursday morning, they tabled
an official parliamentary declaration demanding that Bulgaria condemn
the Armenian genocide committed by Turkey, and requesting an official
answer from the Bulgarian Prime Minister about the policy of the
cabinet regarding the Armenian genocide during World War I.
Surely, of all current "situations", this one has to be discussed and
resolved - by Bulgaria, at least, if not by all those other countries
who vacillate on the issue, purely because of perceived and selfish
political, strategic and economic interests.
Some 20 or so countries have so far bitten the bullet, and officially
declared they recognize the Armenian atrocities committed by Turks
back in 1915-18 as "genocide". European countries include Cyprus (not
unexpectedly), and major EU players such as France, Germany, Greece
and Italy. The UK parliament remains typically vague, suggesting it
is a matter "for historians, not politicians", even though the three
regional-national assemblies of the UK (Ireland, Scotland and Wales)
have all declared their recognition of the genocide.
Some international bodies, such as the European Parliament and the
Council of Europe, also officially recognize the events as genocide.
But, look at the furor some days ago when Sweden voted in favor
of recognition. And what about the reaction when the US Congress
Committee of Foreign Affairs did the same? "Turkey Outraged",
"Turkey Recalls Ambassadors", read the headlines, in both cases.
US President Obama explicitly supported a declaration of genocide
during his presidential campaign. In January 2008, his web site stated:
"The Armenian genocide is not an allegation, a personal opinion or
a point of view, but rather a widely documented fact supported by an
overwhelming body of historical evidence. America deserves a leader who
speaks truthfully about the Armenian genocide and responds forcefully
to all genocides".
But, following the US preliminary vote, Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton was up on her podium in a flash, stating the Obama
administration would do all it could to oppose a full Congress vote,
adding that "circumstances had changed in very significant ways". This
same volte-face has now been committed by the three most recent
serving US Presidents.
Well, what exactly changed for Obama, one wonders? It wasn't anything
to do with Turkey's support for the Iraq scenario, with US bases
positioned in the country, and road access granted by the Turks. It
wasn't anything to do with lessening dependence on Russia for energy
supplies. Nothing to do with US support for Turkey's EU entry. No,
that's just too cynical.
What exactly is going on, where everyone seems afraid to offend
Turkey with any criticism of its policies, and certainly when it
comes to acknowledging that the Turks committed genocide against the
Armenian population?
Whereas historians generally acknowledge that 1,5 million Armenians
"disappeared" in a systematic program of extermination, Turkey admits
that "only" 300 000 - 500 000 Armenians were killed in the "confusion"
of WWI. (The Hague War Crimes Tribunal considers cases such as the
Srebrenica massacre in Bosnia - where "only" 7 000 - 8 000 died, as
genocide - tending to prove that it's not just a question of numbers,
but of intention.)
The respected British journalist Robert Fisk recently wrote two
trenchant newspaper articles on the subject of the Armenian genocide,
and on the Obama administration's reaction to the situation.
He concludes his article on the Obama reaction thus: "Perhaps it's
worth remembering that in 1939, Hitler asked his generals - before
setting off into Poland to murder the millions of Jews in eastern
Europe - a simple question: "Who now remembers the Armenians?" Well,
Hitler got the answer he would have wanted from Obama this week,"
he writes.
In a longer, chilling item, he uncovers a little-known story of
Armenian children forced into slavery and starvation in Lebanon.
"This is a tragic, appalling tale of brutality against small and
defenseless children whose families had already been murdered by
Turkish forces at the height of the First World War, some of whom
were to recall how they were forced to grind up and eat the skeletons
of their dead fellow child orphans in order to survive starvation,"
he claims, in a detailed and horrific retelling of what went on at
a small outpost in Beirut.
Turkey on the international stage
"A country with an imperial past, valued with a sense of pride
and revisionist ambitions, in which the historic truth about the
violence against subjugated peoples is rigorously tabooed; a country,
where minorities, free speech and different identity are deprived. A
country with immense demographic dynamics, with tens of millions
of poor citizens, living in the world of patriarchal, traditional,
Islamic society."
The above is the way Ognyan Minchev of the independent think-tank IRIS,
sums up the Turkish position. In this assertion, he highlights many of
the acute problems facing Turkey, from an international (and regional)
perspective.
The process of EU integration has inched forward for over 20 years.
Its application to join the EU was first made on 14 April 1987, and
the country has been an associate member of the EU and its predecessors
since 1963. It also joined NATO in 1952, as the second largest member.
Some member states are completely against Turkey's joining, others
want a special, associate status, rather than full membership, and yet
others see the strategic benefits of welcoming Turkey, thus extending
and consolidating the borders of "Europe".
Turkey's performance thus far seems to be woefully inadequate, largely
because of the attitudes quoted above. Its record of freedom of
expression, for example, is lamentable, and seems not to be improving.
Reporters Without Borders ranked Turkey at 122 out of 175 countries in
its 2009 Press Freedoms ratings (Bulgaria slipped to 68th place). The
same organization claims that the government is actively blocking
some 3 700 web sites, including YouTube. It has placed Turkey in its
category of "Under Surveillance", second only to "Internet Enemies".
"In Turkey, taboo topics mainly deal with Ataturk, the army, issues
concerning minorities (notably Kurds and Armenians) and the dignity
of the Nation. They have served as justification for blocking several
thousand sites, including YouTube, thereby triggering a great deal
of protest. Bloggers and netizens who express themselves freely on
such topics may well face judicial reprisals," the RWB report says.
A Kurdish newspaper owner / editor was sentenced in February to 21
years in jail for disseminating "criminal propaganda". A professional
colleague is now facing a 5-year sentence for "insulting the president"
online. Turkey routinely uses its Anti-Terrorist laws to prosecute
journalists - 22 out of 47 such cases in 2009 targeted journalists.
EU negotiations, meanwhile, continue on 12 of the over 30 chapters for
consideration. Many are even now at the official stages of "totally
incompatible", "very hard to adopt", "considerable efforts needed"
- in other words, the country seems to have a long way to go to EU
membership, on whatever basis of acceptance.
Domestically, there is tension between the government and the
opposition. Turkey is, officially, a secular state, but the opposition
clams the present rulers are conservative and pro-Islam. And, there
lies another largely inadequately tackled problem - that of religion.
Europe is wary of an Islamic "invasion". After all, Turkey has
a population of over 70 M, would account for the second-largest
representation in a European Parliament on accession, and, according
to demographic projections, would become the largest member within
10 years. Plus, of course, Europe is nominally Christian.
These religious fears may be exaggerated by scaremongers, of course.
Without wishing to get involved in this most intricate of arguments,
let us just suggest for now that religious attitudes and rules
fundamentally affect associated questions such as human rights
in general, women's and children's rights in particular, and the
respectful consideration of religious and ethnic minorities.
Turkey's Tolerance Level
The Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has recently made
some "interesting" statements on general human rights and particularly
on integration of communities and ethnic groups, which are - frankly,
alarming.
He called a conference in February for Turkish nationals living in
Germany, and urged them not to integrate in their adopted homeland,
advising them to take out citizenship of the new homelands - not to
integrate, but rather to become more politically active.
He also reportedly repeated elements of his widely criticized speech
in Cologne in 2008 in which he said: "Assimilation is a crime against
humanity".
Ali Ertan Toprak, deputy chairman of the Alevi community in Germany,
who was present at the conference, stated that he was appalled by
how often the Turkish government had said Turkish-Germans should
represent the interests of Turkey.
"If opponents of (Turkey's) EU entry to the European Union had been
there, they would have got a whole lot of material for their argument,"
Toprak said.
And, to cap it all, Turkey PM Erdogan this week has voiced the idea
of expelling Armenians from "his" country.
Deutsche Welle reported on Tuesday that has now threatened the future
of thousands of Armenian illegal immigrants currently living in Turkey.
"There are currently 170 000 Armenians living in our country. Only 70
000 of them are Turkish citizens, but we are tolerating the remaining
100 000," Erdogan said while speaking on the BBC Turkish service
on Tuesday.
"If necessary, I may have to tell these 100,000 to go back to their
country because they are not my [Editor's italics] citizens. I don't
have to keep them in my country," he added, as cited by DW.
The actual figures are contested by Armenians, who have estimated
that only some 5 000 have emigrated to Turkey during the past 10 years.
But, whatever the true figures - what is this posturing, threatening
position now being openly expressed by the Prime Minister of -
well, any so-called modern country? The Armenians seem still to be
a convenient scapegoat for an extreme nationalistic, paternalistic
point of view. (And we haven't even mentioned the Kurds!)
So, we are all witnessing a resurgent, puffed-up, nationalistic regime
that, on the one hand, seems desperate to join the EU, and on the
other, is vigorously trying to expand its interests into countries
on its eastern borders, while remaining buried in the past in terms
of currently accepted international norms.
If the Turkish PM were alone in expressing his extreme and expansionist
views, that would be one thing. But his attitudes are fully supported
by his Minister for European Affairs, Egemen Bagis, who stated this
week that: "Believe me, one day Europeans will have to appeal to the
Turkish public to support EU membership. Europe has many problems.
"Tell me, for example," he continued, "how the EU plans to solve its
energy crisis without Turkish help? A large part of the future energy
resources Europe needs will flow through Turkey. And tell me how you
are going to solve your economic and demographic problems? The average
age in Europe is 40, while in Turkey it is 28. Where are you going
to get your work force from? Who is supposed to pay your pensions?"
Well, factually accurate, maybe - and, at the same time, threatening.
What sort of self-aggrandized view is this? How long are these
swaggering, aggressive views to be tolerated on the regional and
international stage? Why are so many nations capitulating to this,
why are they afraid to speak out and put Turkey in its (rightful and
properly respected, but equally respectful) place?
What should we do?
When are we all going to be honest with Turkey, and challenge its
pretensions in a positive way? More to the point, when is Turkey
itself going to be honest, and own up to its own past misdeed with the
Armenians 95 years ago, an issue that still poisons and revolts us all?
And, coming right back home: how are the Bulgarian parliament and
the Prime Minister going to react to the challenge rightly thrown
down by the RZS party? Do they have the courage, with the undoubted
complications of Bulgaria's own history under the Ottoman Empire,
to stand up for humanity and normality?
Shall we continue, each one of us, to sweep this small matter of
genocide under the carpet, so as not to offend the self-appointed
school bully? As the UK says, ask an historian - for we are all
historical witnesses.
Phil Davies
Novinite.com
http://www.novinite.com/view_ news.php?id=114357
March 18 2010
Bulgaria
The cavalcade of big black cars, blue lights flashing, little
flags waving, sweeps down from Sofia airport, past the National
Assembly and the watchful statue of Russian Emperor Alexander II,
who helped liberate the country from the Ottoman Empire, to arrive
at the administrative heart of Bulgaria - the Presidency, the Council
of Ministers.
The latest VIP is none other than the Turkish Minister of Foreign
Affairs, on his two-day visit to Bulgaria. He is meeting the President,
the Prime Minister, the Speaker of Parliament, and holding discussions
with Bulgaria's FM, Nikolay Mladenov.
According to Turkish media, the purpose of the visit is to focus on
"bilateral relations, but the recent situation in the Balkans will
also be discussed". Not much given away there, then!
While waiting to find out who actually discussed what during the two
days, it may be interesting to consider what could and should be on
the agenda.
Will the "bilateral relations" meetings - particularly between the
two Foreign Ministers - be merely mutual congratulatory exchanges
on increasing trade, on harmonizing cross-border cooperation, on the
recently agreed details of international transport tariffs?
What is meant by the "recent situation in the Balkans"? What recent
situation? Bulgaria's recent offer to the EU to become a Balkan hub
for encouraging the Western Balkan countries' accession? The problems
of EU accession that Turkey, uniquely, faces, and the declaration
by PM Borisov that Bulgaria is supportive of its neighbor's efforts
to join the European club? In January, on a visit to Ankara, Borisov
stated that "Bulgaria is going to support Turkey's accession to the
EU as Turkey meets all necessary criteria", for example.
[Latest update: the Foreign Ministers' joint press conference on
Thursday afternoon has revealed that, in their discussions, the Nabucco
pipeline project was the "first priority", that they had discussed
energy security and diversification, cooperation in the Black Sea and
Balkans regions, and NATO coordination. All worthy topics, of course.]
Given this latest information, one is entitled to ask what should
have been on the agenda, given the current number of diplomatic
spats involving an ongoing issue in Turkey, and some of the recent
inflammatory statements of Turkish PM Recep Tayyip Erdogan?
The Bulgarian conservative Order, Law, and Justice (RZS) party hit
the nail squarely on the head when, on Thursday morning, they tabled
an official parliamentary declaration demanding that Bulgaria condemn
the Armenian genocide committed by Turkey, and requesting an official
answer from the Bulgarian Prime Minister about the policy of the
cabinet regarding the Armenian genocide during World War I.
Surely, of all current "situations", this one has to be discussed and
resolved - by Bulgaria, at least, if not by all those other countries
who vacillate on the issue, purely because of perceived and selfish
political, strategic and economic interests.
Some 20 or so countries have so far bitten the bullet, and officially
declared they recognize the Armenian atrocities committed by Turks
back in 1915-18 as "genocide". European countries include Cyprus (not
unexpectedly), and major EU players such as France, Germany, Greece
and Italy. The UK parliament remains typically vague, suggesting it
is a matter "for historians, not politicians", even though the three
regional-national assemblies of the UK (Ireland, Scotland and Wales)
have all declared their recognition of the genocide.
Some international bodies, such as the European Parliament and the
Council of Europe, also officially recognize the events as genocide.
But, look at the furor some days ago when Sweden voted in favor
of recognition. And what about the reaction when the US Congress
Committee of Foreign Affairs did the same? "Turkey Outraged",
"Turkey Recalls Ambassadors", read the headlines, in both cases.
US President Obama explicitly supported a declaration of genocide
during his presidential campaign. In January 2008, his web site stated:
"The Armenian genocide is not an allegation, a personal opinion or
a point of view, but rather a widely documented fact supported by an
overwhelming body of historical evidence. America deserves a leader who
speaks truthfully about the Armenian genocide and responds forcefully
to all genocides".
But, following the US preliminary vote, Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton was up on her podium in a flash, stating the Obama
administration would do all it could to oppose a full Congress vote,
adding that "circumstances had changed in very significant ways". This
same volte-face has now been committed by the three most recent
serving US Presidents.
Well, what exactly changed for Obama, one wonders? It wasn't anything
to do with Turkey's support for the Iraq scenario, with US bases
positioned in the country, and road access granted by the Turks. It
wasn't anything to do with lessening dependence on Russia for energy
supplies. Nothing to do with US support for Turkey's EU entry. No,
that's just too cynical.
What exactly is going on, where everyone seems afraid to offend
Turkey with any criticism of its policies, and certainly when it
comes to acknowledging that the Turks committed genocide against the
Armenian population?
Whereas historians generally acknowledge that 1,5 million Armenians
"disappeared" in a systematic program of extermination, Turkey admits
that "only" 300 000 - 500 000 Armenians were killed in the "confusion"
of WWI. (The Hague War Crimes Tribunal considers cases such as the
Srebrenica massacre in Bosnia - where "only" 7 000 - 8 000 died, as
genocide - tending to prove that it's not just a question of numbers,
but of intention.)
The respected British journalist Robert Fisk recently wrote two
trenchant newspaper articles on the subject of the Armenian genocide,
and on the Obama administration's reaction to the situation.
He concludes his article on the Obama reaction thus: "Perhaps it's
worth remembering that in 1939, Hitler asked his generals - before
setting off into Poland to murder the millions of Jews in eastern
Europe - a simple question: "Who now remembers the Armenians?" Well,
Hitler got the answer he would have wanted from Obama this week,"
he writes.
In a longer, chilling item, he uncovers a little-known story of
Armenian children forced into slavery and starvation in Lebanon.
"This is a tragic, appalling tale of brutality against small and
defenseless children whose families had already been murdered by
Turkish forces at the height of the First World War, some of whom
were to recall how they were forced to grind up and eat the skeletons
of their dead fellow child orphans in order to survive starvation,"
he claims, in a detailed and horrific retelling of what went on at
a small outpost in Beirut.
Turkey on the international stage
"A country with an imperial past, valued with a sense of pride
and revisionist ambitions, in which the historic truth about the
violence against subjugated peoples is rigorously tabooed; a country,
where minorities, free speech and different identity are deprived. A
country with immense demographic dynamics, with tens of millions
of poor citizens, living in the world of patriarchal, traditional,
Islamic society."
The above is the way Ognyan Minchev of the independent think-tank IRIS,
sums up the Turkish position. In this assertion, he highlights many of
the acute problems facing Turkey, from an international (and regional)
perspective.
The process of EU integration has inched forward for over 20 years.
Its application to join the EU was first made on 14 April 1987, and
the country has been an associate member of the EU and its predecessors
since 1963. It also joined NATO in 1952, as the second largest member.
Some member states are completely against Turkey's joining, others
want a special, associate status, rather than full membership, and yet
others see the strategic benefits of welcoming Turkey, thus extending
and consolidating the borders of "Europe".
Turkey's performance thus far seems to be woefully inadequate, largely
because of the attitudes quoted above. Its record of freedom of
expression, for example, is lamentable, and seems not to be improving.
Reporters Without Borders ranked Turkey at 122 out of 175 countries in
its 2009 Press Freedoms ratings (Bulgaria slipped to 68th place). The
same organization claims that the government is actively blocking
some 3 700 web sites, including YouTube. It has placed Turkey in its
category of "Under Surveillance", second only to "Internet Enemies".
"In Turkey, taboo topics mainly deal with Ataturk, the army, issues
concerning minorities (notably Kurds and Armenians) and the dignity
of the Nation. They have served as justification for blocking several
thousand sites, including YouTube, thereby triggering a great deal
of protest. Bloggers and netizens who express themselves freely on
such topics may well face judicial reprisals," the RWB report says.
A Kurdish newspaper owner / editor was sentenced in February to 21
years in jail for disseminating "criminal propaganda". A professional
colleague is now facing a 5-year sentence for "insulting the president"
online. Turkey routinely uses its Anti-Terrorist laws to prosecute
journalists - 22 out of 47 such cases in 2009 targeted journalists.
EU negotiations, meanwhile, continue on 12 of the over 30 chapters for
consideration. Many are even now at the official stages of "totally
incompatible", "very hard to adopt", "considerable efforts needed"
- in other words, the country seems to have a long way to go to EU
membership, on whatever basis of acceptance.
Domestically, there is tension between the government and the
opposition. Turkey is, officially, a secular state, but the opposition
clams the present rulers are conservative and pro-Islam. And, there
lies another largely inadequately tackled problem - that of religion.
Europe is wary of an Islamic "invasion". After all, Turkey has
a population of over 70 M, would account for the second-largest
representation in a European Parliament on accession, and, according
to demographic projections, would become the largest member within
10 years. Plus, of course, Europe is nominally Christian.
These religious fears may be exaggerated by scaremongers, of course.
Without wishing to get involved in this most intricate of arguments,
let us just suggest for now that religious attitudes and rules
fundamentally affect associated questions such as human rights
in general, women's and children's rights in particular, and the
respectful consideration of religious and ethnic minorities.
Turkey's Tolerance Level
The Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has recently made
some "interesting" statements on general human rights and particularly
on integration of communities and ethnic groups, which are - frankly,
alarming.
He called a conference in February for Turkish nationals living in
Germany, and urged them not to integrate in their adopted homeland,
advising them to take out citizenship of the new homelands - not to
integrate, but rather to become more politically active.
He also reportedly repeated elements of his widely criticized speech
in Cologne in 2008 in which he said: "Assimilation is a crime against
humanity".
Ali Ertan Toprak, deputy chairman of the Alevi community in Germany,
who was present at the conference, stated that he was appalled by
how often the Turkish government had said Turkish-Germans should
represent the interests of Turkey.
"If opponents of (Turkey's) EU entry to the European Union had been
there, they would have got a whole lot of material for their argument,"
Toprak said.
And, to cap it all, Turkey PM Erdogan this week has voiced the idea
of expelling Armenians from "his" country.
Deutsche Welle reported on Tuesday that has now threatened the future
of thousands of Armenian illegal immigrants currently living in Turkey.
"There are currently 170 000 Armenians living in our country. Only 70
000 of them are Turkish citizens, but we are tolerating the remaining
100 000," Erdogan said while speaking on the BBC Turkish service
on Tuesday.
"If necessary, I may have to tell these 100,000 to go back to their
country because they are not my [Editor's italics] citizens. I don't
have to keep them in my country," he added, as cited by DW.
The actual figures are contested by Armenians, who have estimated
that only some 5 000 have emigrated to Turkey during the past 10 years.
But, whatever the true figures - what is this posturing, threatening
position now being openly expressed by the Prime Minister of -
well, any so-called modern country? The Armenians seem still to be
a convenient scapegoat for an extreme nationalistic, paternalistic
point of view. (And we haven't even mentioned the Kurds!)
So, we are all witnessing a resurgent, puffed-up, nationalistic regime
that, on the one hand, seems desperate to join the EU, and on the
other, is vigorously trying to expand its interests into countries
on its eastern borders, while remaining buried in the past in terms
of currently accepted international norms.
If the Turkish PM were alone in expressing his extreme and expansionist
views, that would be one thing. But his attitudes are fully supported
by his Minister for European Affairs, Egemen Bagis, who stated this
week that: "Believe me, one day Europeans will have to appeal to the
Turkish public to support EU membership. Europe has many problems.
"Tell me, for example," he continued, "how the EU plans to solve its
energy crisis without Turkish help? A large part of the future energy
resources Europe needs will flow through Turkey. And tell me how you
are going to solve your economic and demographic problems? The average
age in Europe is 40, while in Turkey it is 28. Where are you going
to get your work force from? Who is supposed to pay your pensions?"
Well, factually accurate, maybe - and, at the same time, threatening.
What sort of self-aggrandized view is this? How long are these
swaggering, aggressive views to be tolerated on the regional and
international stage? Why are so many nations capitulating to this,
why are they afraid to speak out and put Turkey in its (rightful and
properly respected, but equally respectful) place?
What should we do?
When are we all going to be honest with Turkey, and challenge its
pretensions in a positive way? More to the point, when is Turkey
itself going to be honest, and own up to its own past misdeed with the
Armenians 95 years ago, an issue that still poisons and revolts us all?
And, coming right back home: how are the Bulgarian parliament and
the Prime Minister going to react to the challenge rightly thrown
down by the RZS party? Do they have the courage, with the undoubted
complications of Bulgaria's own history under the Ottoman Empire,
to stand up for humanity and normality?
Shall we continue, each one of us, to sweep this small matter of
genocide under the carpet, so as not to offend the self-appointed
school bully? As the UK says, ask an historian - for we are all
historical witnesses.