Gagrule.net

Gagrule.net News, Views, Interviews worldwide

Scholars Speak Out Against Legitimizing Genocide Deniers

By

[The] willingness to ascribe to the deniers and their myths the legitimacy
of a point of view is of as great, if not greater,
concern than are the activities of the deniers themselves.
—Deborah Lipstadt

denial-genocide-posterWATERTOWN, Mass. (Armenian Weekly)— The participation of a number of Armenian studies and genocide studies scholars in the conference “The Caucasus at the Imperial Twilight” in Tbilisi, Georgia, organized by Prof. M. Hakan Yavuz of the University of Utah and sponsored by the Turkish Coalition of America (TCA) has generated a controversy in the diaspora as well as in Armenia over the enabling of genocide denial.

The individual and organization at the heart of this conference have for much of the past decade been actively engaged in efforts to extend denial of the Armenian genocide into academia as well as in the political realm in North America.

Since 2009, the Turkish Coalition of America (TCA), established in 2007, has pumped at least $900,000 into the Yavuz-directed Utah Turkish Studies Project as a continuation of the decades-long campaign to deny, diminish, or otherwise distort the history of the Armenian Genocide. Denial within academia has reached new heights through the publication of genocide denying books by the Utah University Press and other outlets and the organization of four (2010-2013) conferences of which the most recent is the conference in Tbilisi.

The TCA has also lobbied aggressively to block recognition of the Armenian genocide and has engaged in legal actions against, most notoriously, the University of Minnesota and its Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies (CHGS). The suit alleged defamation because the CHGS website had identified the TCA as an “unreliable” source on the Armenian genocide that engaged in genocide denial. The suit was dismissed and the dismissal upheld, with the decision stating that “the Center’s statement about the TCA is true and, therefore, not actionable.” In addition, in 2011 the U.S. House of Representatives Ethics Committee ruled that the TCA had provided some $500,000 in improper gifts in the form of legal counsel to now former Ohio Representative Jean Schmidt.

A key element of the TCA’s mission is to normalize the presentation of denial of the Armenian Genocide within academia. This approach seeks to establish the Turkish state’s denialist narrative as a legitimate historical viewpoint, as just another scholarly “perspective.” In order to succeed, however, they need legitimate scholars to function as “the other side.”

By participating in the Tbilisi conference, scholars, whether intentionally or not, are providing just that “other side” of the “debate” over the Armenian genocide, argued several prominent scholars contacted by the Armenian Weekly.

Prof. Richard Hovannisian
“I learned a long time ago that providing a platform for deniers, under any guise, is a serious mistake because it affords them a claim to legitimacy. It is no less harmful to the cause of serious scholarship to participate in a conference organized and sponsored by a deceptive university professor and an organization that has repeatedly supported the publication of denial literature and initiated legal proceedings against institutions that exclude denial materials from their programs,” said Prof. Richard Hovannisian, former holder of the Armenian Educational Foundation Chair in Modern Armenian History at UCLA.

“No matter how well-intended it may be, participation in such a conference confers on those behind it an unmerited status as partners in a scholarly dialogue when, I believe, the real purpose is to create doubt and undermine honest scholarly investigation,” added Prof. Hovannisian.

Prof. Roger Smith
Prof. Roger Smith, a founding member of the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) and a former president of the association, concurred. “Invitations to conferences such as the one organized by Hakan Yavuz of the University of Utah, a university that has numerous graduate students who are churning out denial of the Armenian Genocide, are simply lures and traps,” he said. “Lures in the sense that it gives the appearance of welcoming dissenting views and appears to offer an opportunity to refute the narrative upheld by ‘historians who hold other views of what took place in 1915.’ It suggests a debate and an assessment of the evidence: a normal process in scholarly inquiry. Some scholars may, not unreasonably, jump at the bait, and hope to dislodge the claims of those who argue that the Genocide never took place, that the Young Turk regime is not responsible for whatever happened, and that, in any case, the term ‘genocide’ is not applicable for a variety of reasons. But the trap is when such well-known, non-denialist, scholars participate in such conferences, they inescapably offer legitimacy to the whole conference, to its framework. And that is precisely what the organizers seek: the appearance of legitimacy for bogus history,” he added.

Marc Mamigonian
Marc Mamigonian, the Director of Academic Affairs of the National Association for Armenian Studies and Research (NAASR), said, “Deniers have already hijacked the discussion of the Armenian genocide to an unhealthy extent through their efforts to manufacture doubt about established historical facts. Participating in forums organized and funded by individuals and entities who promote the Turkish state’s denial of the Armenian genocide only contributes to the myth of a scholarly debate.  This also undermines scholars who strive to create honest scholarship in the face of denial and intimidation. Denial—even if it carries a university imprint—must not legitimized and granted a place at the same table as scholarship, because it does not belong there.”

Prof. Keith Watenpaugh
Prof. Keith Watenpaugh, Associate Professor of Modern Islam, Human Rights and Peace at UC Davis, said, “The Turkish Studies Project (TSP) at the University of Utah, which is the sponsor of this conference is funded by the Turkish Coalition of America (TCA). As a federal judge recently ruled, the TCA is a denialist organization. It uses its money and relationship with the University of Utah to support Armenian Genocide denial through publications and through conferences like the one in Tbilisi. Given the genocide denial framework established by the TSP and its director, the Political Scientist M. Hakan Yavuz, the participation by scholars—Armenian or otherwise—cannot help but lend legitimacy to its broader denialist enterprise. I would not participate in something like this. I am reluctant to criticize the few Armenian scholars who did participate, because I stand in solidarity with all those who resist denial and its corrosive effects, even if I don’t agree with the way they go about doing it.”

Watenpaugh added, “Instead we should be asking questions about the continued relationship between the University of Utah and the TCA. It is hard for me to understand why an important American research university would lend its good name to a political organization that seeks to violate academic freedom by, for example, bringing suit against the Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies at the University of Minnesota, and by promoting the falsification of history through its grants and political advocacy. The real issue here is the fact that the University of Utah has provided an institutional home to genocide denial.”

“Armenians and others should be confident that there are more and better venues of interchange between Turks and Armenians in which elements of their shared past can be examined honestly and in a framework of legitimate historical enquiry. In fact scholarship on late-Ottoman Armenian society and history is one of the most vital fields of history today and the Armenian Genocide is firmly established in the global history of human rights and genocide studies,” Watenpaugh concluded.

Prof. Debórah Dwork
In turn, Prof. Debórah Dwork, the Director of the Strassler Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies at Clark University, told the Armenian Weekly that “there is no reason—none!—to engage genocide deniers, whether they are deniers of the Armenian Genocide or of the Holocaust, or of any other genocide.” She explained, “A conference or debate offers them an arena to make their arguments. Why would I offer them such an arena? Speaking to them, or arguing with them elevates them to the status of legitimate scholars, and their positions to the status of legitimate history. We are not equals and there aren’t two legitimate, equally historically valid ‘sides.’”

According to Prof. Dwork, “engaging with deniers allows them to set the issues to be discussed; it allows them to hijack the historical account. Why should I talk about the points they wish to raise? And please, would someone tell me why I should I waste my time refuting their arguments? Time is the coin of the scholarly realm, and if we spend it on deniers, we are not moving our research forward.” She concluded, “Engaging with deniers thus undermines history thrice over: it offers them a platform; it confers legitimacy upon them, and it diverts scholars from their own research which, of course, plumbs precisely the genocide the deniers refute.”

US Names New Destroyer After Armenian Navy Secretary

By

WASHINGTON—The Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus announced last month that the next Arleigh Burke-class destroyers (DDG) will be named USS Paul Ignatius and USS Daniel Inouye.

Paul-Ignatius“As secretary of the Navy it is my privilege to name these ships to honor a respected naval leader and a true American hero.” Mabus said. “For decades to come, the future USS Paul Ignatius and USS Daniel Inouye will represent the United States and enable the building of partnerships and projection of power around the world.”

The future USS Paul Ignatius (DDG 117) honors Paul Ignatius who served as secretary of the Navy 1967–1969 and as assistant secretary of defense under President Lyndon Johnson. The future USS Daniel Inouye (DDG 118) is named to honor former Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii. Inouye was awarded the Medal of Honor for his actions in Tuscany, Italy, during World War II and later became a U.S. senator. USS Paul Ignatius and USS Daniel Inouye will be the first naval ships to bear these names.

Arleigh Burke-class destroyers conduct a variety of operations from peacetime presence and crisis management to sea control and power projection. They are capable of fighting air, surface and subsurface battles simultaneously and contain a myriad of offensive and defensive weapons designed to support maritime warfare.

Notes of protest won’t hamper Karabakh-Europe ties – expert

By

June 8, 2013 – 12:48 AMT

PanARMENIAN.Net – Official Baku has repeatedly harmed the social, humanitarian and cultural contacts of Nagorno Karabakh, isolating it from the outside world, research fellow at the Black Sea-Caspian Region Institute for Political and Social Studies said.

161445“However, it gradually becomes more difficult for Baku to do that,” Andrey Areshev told PanARMENIAN.Net citing famed opera singer Montserrat Caballé’s visit to Nagorno Karabakh to prove his point.

“It seems that no notes of protest and aggressive media publications will prevent Karabakh from expanding its relations with the cultural elite of modern Europe,” the expert said.

“Causes of conflicts sometimes get unique interpretations. No doubt, Montserrat Caballé’s visit to Artsakh will foster further popularization of Karabakh and Armenian culture in Europe. Interest in Artsakh may stir up interest in Europe’s Christian identity,” Mr. Areshev said.

Ankara displeased with Pope’s statement on Armenian Genocide

By

June 8, 2013 – 12:11614549 AMT

Turkey’s foreign ministry has lodged a formal protest with the Vatican after Pope Francis referred to the mass murder of Armenians as “the first genocide of the 20th century,” Catholic World News reported.

The Pope alluded briefly to the Armenian Genocide during a June 3 meeting with Armenian Catholic Patriarch Nerses Bedros XIX Tarmouni of Cilicia. Several years earlier, while serving as Archbishop of Buenos Aires, then-Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio described the killing and forced deportation of millions of Armenians as “the gravest crime of Ottoman Turkey against the Armenian people and all of humanity.”

Top U.S. intel official challenges reports that spy agencies mined Internet data

By

By Greg Botelho and Matt Smith, CNN

(CNN) — America’s top intelligence official on Thursday night challenged news reports claiming Facebook posts, Gmail messages and more have been intercepted for years in a vast data-mining operation, saying the reports “contain numerous inaccuracies.”

130606191546-nsa-logo-story-topThe Guardian, a British newspaper, and the Washington Post reported Thursday that U.S. intelligence agencies had access to the central servers of nine of the country’s biggest technology firms including Microsoft, Apple, Google, Yahoo and Facebook.

The Post reported the program — called PRISM — underwent “exponential growth” since its founding in 2007. In fact, the newspaper said the program has become the leading source of raw material for the National Security Agency, the secretive U.S. intelligence operation that monitors electronic communications.

Yet several tech giants whose servers were reportedly ensnared in the program denied any knowledge of it Thursday.

And James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, questioned the Guardian and Post articles in a statement Thursday night.

He referred to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which he noted was recently reauthorized by Congress — one of the bodies, along with the executive branch and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, with oversight over aspects of intelligence gathering.

Section 702, Clapper added, “is designed to facilitate the acquisition of foreign intelligence information concerning non-U.S. persons located outside the United States.”

“It cannot be used to intentionally target any U.S. citizen, any other U.S. person, or anyone located within the United States,” he said in his statement.

While he made no mention of data mining, Clapper did defend the American intelligence effort generally, saying, “Information collected under this program is among the most important and valuable foreign intelligence information we collect, and is used to protect our nation from a wide variety of threats.”

Clapper also called out the person or people behind “the unauthorized disclosure of information about this important and entirely legal program,” saying such apparent leaks are “reprehensible and risks important protections for the security of Americans.”

The Post reported that its reporters had been provided a detailed briefing presentation document on the PRISM program.

The program has been running since 2007 and has undergone “exponential growth” since then, the Post reported. It is now the leading source of raw material for the National Security Agency, the secretive U.S. intelligence operation that monitors electronic communications.

According to a briefing slide published by the Guardian, PRISM began with data from Microsoft in 2007. The program began collecting data from Yahoo in 2008 and from Google, Facebook and the message system PalTalk in 2009. YouTube became a source in 2010, Skype and AOL in 2011 and Apple in late 2012, the slide claims.

The NSA declined to comment, but several companies — many of them using similar language — denied Thursday any knowledge of such a program.

Microsoft, for instance, said in a statement it only provides user data when legally required and for specific accounts — adding that “if the government has a broader voluntary national security program to gather customer data we don’t participate in it.”

Jodi Seth, a spokeswoman for Facebook, said the social media giant works to “carefully scrutinize any … request for compliance” and does not give government agencies “direct access” to its servers.

Apple spokesman Steve Dowling offered a similar response — saying Apple hands over information only when a government agency gets a court order. Dowling added that his company has never heard of PRISM.

“We disclose user data to government in accordance with the law, and we review all such requests carefully,” a Google spokesman said in response to the stories. “From time to time, people allege that we have created a government ‘back door’ into our systems, but Google does not have a ‘back door’ for the government to access private user data.”

Even with these denials and Clapper’s defense, President Barack Obama’s administration has come under growing scrutiny in recent days over his record on balancing citizens’ right to privacy and the government’s efforts to combat terrorism.

Patriot Act at center of Verizon phone log controversy

That includes news, first reported on Wednesday by the Guardian and commented on by U.S. politicians, that the FBI and National Security Agency have been collecting the phone records of millions of Americans — specifically Verizon customers and perhaps others — over a several year period.

Days after taking office in 2009, Obama vowed, “Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency.” But on Thursday, the left-leaning Huffington Post conflated Obama with his predecessor George W. Bush while a New York Times editorial said “the administration has now lost all credibility” when it comes to overreaching in the name of fighting terrorism.

“Mr. Obama is proving the truism that the executive branch will use any power it is given and very likely abuse it,” the Times’ editorial said.

Don’t underestimate the ‘invasion of ants,’ says Islamic Gülen over Turkish protests

By

n_48374_4

No one knows how Ants work other than Gulen, have look how Gulen infiltrated United states of America cost to cost controlling all the public charter schools 135 so fare and 600 all over the world indoctrinating American children’s.

Takes one ant to know another one.

Daniel Dravot

The man isn’t a scholar. He was set up in the late 70s by the US to help spread Islamic fundamentalism in Central Asia and Turkey for the purpose of combating “leftism”; that is, secular nationalism, and the influence of the USSR. Thus the war on secular nationalism began with the 1980 coup in Turkey, with the opening of the Imam Hatip schools, Ozal’s neoliberal policies, and the unleashing of Gulen on Central Asia.

 

A blueprint for Diaspora representation in negotiations with Turkey over reparations

By

Below, we present an article by Avedis Hadjian published in the Armenian Weekly.

In the course of almost a century, Armenian institutions’ and individuals’ various stances on Turkey and Genocide recognition have hardened into maximalist g_image444positions. For Armenian maximalists, anything short of a full and complete apology, full and complete restitution of the stolen and expropriated property, as well as full reparations, is to be dismissed as nothing but smoke screens or deliberate attempts by the Turkish state to mislead Armenians and non-Armenians alike. This maximalism is understandable and unsurprising in the face of consistent Turkish negationism. It also blinds to nuances in the extremely complex world of Turkish politics, reducing it to zero-sum games and black-and-white dualities. It prevents Armenians from seeing the subtleties in Turkey’s political scene that may still nudge the Turkish state towards coming to terms with the Armenians and the Genocide, a problem that has been nagging it acutely for the last 50 years, increasingly tarnishing its image and violently contradicting its own historical narrative.

Certainly, at this point it is not clear that this approach will push Turkey to acknowledge the Genocide. Denying the Armenian Genocide has become a recurring, growing embarrassment for well-read Turkish officials, including President Abdullah Gül, Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu, and Culture Minister Ömer Çelik. So massive is the body of testimonies and evidence on the Genocide that the Turkish state is now resorting to petty technicalities and sophisms to deny it, much like embarrassed Catholic priests might today if they were still forced to reject the fact that the Earth orbits the Sun, or had Pope John Paul II not apologized for the persecution of Galileo 350 years earlier.

For reasons that are outside the scope of this article, Turkey has a number of compelling motives for settling the Genocide claims and reaching an understanding with the Armenians. There is a possibility that this may happen soon or at an unexpected moment, which would catch Armenians off guard; for, who would speak on behalf of Armenians should Turkey express readiness tomorrow–literally tomorrow–to engage in dialogue and negotiations?

Below is a very basic blueprint proposed only for negotiations with Turkey. It does not purport to set up a permanent Diaspora-wide representative body or some kind of pan-Armenian Congress. The Diaspora General Assembly outlined here would be empowered solely with establishing principles and a course of action for representing the diaspora’s interests at the negotiations with Turkey. Over the decades, there have been several proposals in this regard; this draft is an attempt to contribute to this pool of ideas, in the hope that eventually a structure along these lines will soon materialize.

Today, the Armenian Diaspora has a plethora of separate—and, for a long time, especially in the Cold War years, rival—organizations that, after a lifetime of service to the community, and free from the accountability as well as the checks and balances that come with democratic organizations, have often developed a sense of entitlement and self-righteousness, as they have helped build from scratch thriving communities after the Armenian nation came very close to extinction. Still, that does not help to create consensus, as every Armenian who has been active in the community knows.

An alternative scenario is one that came close to materializing, with Armenia—presumably under foreign pressure—negotiating directly with Turkey, in the now practically defunct protocols that would have compromised the Diaspora’s demands and interests in any negotiation on Genocide recognition and reparations. In this scenario, the Diaspora—and especially independent diasporan individuals, with no affiliation to any organization—would be excluded. Independent Armenians would also be left out in case of secret negotiations, which is another possibility.

In 1977, at the height of the attacks by Armenian militants against Turkish diplomats as well as ASALA’s terror campaign, there were secret conversations in Switzerland between a Turkish delegation, headed by then-Turkish Foreign Minister İhsan Sabri Çağlayangil, and a delegation of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, or the Tashnagtsagan Party. A person directly involved in these negotiations said the Turkish side had approached the ARF to propose a dialogue. To its credit, the ARF (according to this person) suggested that the two other main Diaspora political organizations, the Ramgavars and Hunchakians, be a party to conversations that might have critical importance for the Armenian nation. For a number of reasons, nothing came out of this meeting during which, in broad lines, the Turkish side asked the Armenians about their expectations on reparations. The Turkish delegation also warned the Diaspora Armenian political leadership to help stop the attacks on Turkish diplomats and targets, saying that if Turkey wanted, it could wipe out the entire party and community leadership.

Those were other times, with a Soviet Armenia deprived of sovereign rights. In this time and place, there would be no justification for secret negotiations. Every Armenian individual, regardless of affiliation, is entitled to have a vote and a voice in the matter of Genocide recognition and reparation negotiations with Turkey. If the Diasporan Armenian representation were limited to the Diaspora establishment, it would not be representative. It would further create the risk of traditional parties monopolizing negotiations in a matter of national importance, excluding independent voices within Armenian communities. Hence, a democratic model needs to be devised.

Armenians need to speak with one voice when negotiating with Turkey. That does not mean there should not be a diversity of opinions among Armenians. It means, by the time the Armenian delegation sits at the table with Turkey, the Diaspora should have reached a consensus on its stance through a democratic process. This article is the draft of a blueprint for such a process that aims to broaden representation as much as possible, giving voice to each individual Armenian in a matter of national importance, which cannot and must not be left only to Diaspora institutions and political parties.

General principles

1) Diaspora communities and individuals shall constitute a bicameral General Assembly—set up solely for the purpose of writing a Charter and electing a delegation to represent the Diaspora in negotiations with Turkey, as part of an Armenian delegation led by the Republic of Armenia—that will be independent of all existing Armenian organizations. The Diaspora General Assembly for Negotiations with Turkey on Genocide Recognition and Reparations will not have the power to address or discuss any other issue that is not strictly related to negotiations with Turkey on Genocide recognition and reparations. This means it will not have the power to address foreign policy issues, such as Turkey’s sanctions against Armenia over the Karabagh War, that pertain to the Republic of Armenia’s government, or any other issue that falls outside its narrowly defined purview.

As in most democracies, the bicameral structure is necessary to make up for the imbalances that would create an excessive bias for the larger communities—including the U.S., France, Lebanon, Argentina, and others—to the detriment of smaller ones, such as Chile, Ethiopia, India, Israel, Uruguay, and Venezuela. The peculiar case of the Armenian community of Istanbul needs to be addressed separately.

Armenian individuals and all Armenian organizations, including the churches—Apostolic, as well as Catholic and Evangelical—that functioned in the Ottoman Empire until at least 1915, and that still exist today, will be represented in the upper house of such a General Assembly.

The bicameral Congress model suits the needs of such pan-Armenian body perfectly. Each Diasporan Armenian community would be entitled to proportional representation according to its number of registered constituents in the lower house, or House of Representatives. A formula needs to be agreed on; for example, one representative per 1,000 constituents. Communities with fewer than 1,000 constituents (such as Venezuela, Mexico, and Ethiopia, for example) may automatically be entitled to at least two representatives. An upper house, or Senate, with two representatives each per community, plus two representatives from each Armenian organization that functioned in the Ottoman Empire in 1915, would make up for the heavier influence the larger communities would have in the lower house. The House and the Senate would roughly have the same faculties they do in representative democracies.

2) Every Diasporan Armenian would be authorized to vote and to run as a representative in the General Assembly. Age requirements, as well as all other voting requirements, should be universal for all Diaspora communities solely for the purpose of the Diaspora General Assembly. Citizens of the Republic of Armenia, including those who live outside of Armenia, will not be entitled to participate in any capacity in the Diaspora General Assembly, as they shall be represented by the Republic of Armenia in negotiations with Turkey over Genocide recognition and reparations.

Organizing the vote will require a joint effort by the community organizations, setting up all the necessary regulations and controls to ensure a fair vote.

3) The requirements to prove Armenian descent may be based on those required by the Armenian state to grant dual Armenian citizenship to persons born outside of Armenia. Given the difficulties that may arise for proofing Armenian descent in the diaspora four generations after the Genocide, proof of Armenian descent (with at least one great-grandparent of Armenian origin) should include at least one of the following:

a) a baptismal certificate from the Armenian Church or from an Armenian church of any denomination, stating the Armenian identity;

b) a baptismal certificate of one of the parents from the Armenian Church stating the Armenian identity;

c) a birth certificate from a country that states the Armenian nationality and/or identity;

d) a birth certificate from a country that states that one of the parents’ nationality and/or identity is Armenian;

e) proof of attendance and/or graduation from an Armenian school;

f) proof of participation or membership in any Armenian church of any denomination or any Armenian organization;

g) any other proof or testimony that demonstrates descent beyond reasonable doubt.

4) The Armenian delegation in negotiations with Turkey will be led by the Republic of Armenia, as the sole inheritor of the Armenian states that preceded it. The Diaspora representation would be subordinated to the Republic of Armenia delegation. While the Diaspora’s claims are equally important and deserve to be heard, Armenia has a critical stake in any negotiations with Turkey as a next-door neighbor, with vital interests at play, including defense. This is especially true when this next-door neighbor has common interests with another enemy-neighbor flanking Armenia on the east, Azerbaijan, with which the country is still in a state of war, despite a relatively fragile cease-fire.

No diasporan demand can or must compromise Armenia’s vital interests. The homeland’s interests override everything. Armenia will have the final say in any negotiations with Turkey. The interests and the security of the Republic of Armenia, as the surviving entity of the Armenian homeland, come first and foremost, and are of paramount importance.

5) The Republic of Armenia will have the last word on matters pertaining to territorial claims on the lands of Western Armenia and Cilicia; all decisions pertaining to treaties between Turkey and Armenia; as well as all other treaties that concern or affect relations between both states. All of the issues regarding sovereign territorial claims will be strictly outside the purview of the Diaspora General Assembly.

6) In close coordination with the Armenian state, the Diaspora General Assembly will draft a Charter establishing the principles of negotiations with Turkey and the matters to negotiate with Turkey, including but not limited to:

a) recognition of the Genocide by Turkey (and matters pertaining to wording and announcement, what is admissible and what is not);

b) reparations for each Armenian individual killed, displaced, or missing during the 1915 massacres and deportations from the Armenian provinces of the Ottoman Empire as well as Istanbul and other locations in the Ottoman Empire (and how to account for them, and devise a formula to calculate reparations for the loss of life);

c) restitution of lost properties and compensation (and what to do in those rare instances where Turkish courts have returned properties to deed holders and already settled insurance claims).

7) Setting up a physical space for such a General Assembly will be costly. Armenian organizations are in no position to embark on such a costly endeavor. Thanks to available technology, it is more than feasible to make this a virtual General Assembly, with sessions carried out via video-conference.

8) This Assembly shall remain in session until negotiations begin with Turkey, when it would elect a deputation to represent the diaspora in the delegation of the Republic of Armenia. The Assembly shall enter into a recess at the start of negotiations with Turkey and for as long as the negotiations continue.

9) The Assembly shall be renewed every four years in worldwide general elections.

10) The Assembly shall dissolve itself when and if a final settlement is reached with Turkey on Genocide recognition and reparations.

As noted above, this proposal is just the draft of a blueprint. It is an individual initiative and it is presented here with the hope that it may set up the basis for a more thorough and comprehensive Armenian Diaspora-wide representative body that will help to negotiate a matter of vital importance to the Armenian nation.

Avedis Hadjian is a writer and editor born in Aleppo, Syria, and raised in Buenos Aires, Argentina, from an early age. He is the author of the forthcoming book A Secret Nation: The Hidden Armenians of Turkey. He has worked as an editor and correspondent in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, China, and South America, and has written for the Los Angeles Times, CNN, Bloomberg News, and other newspapers and news sites. He was educated in Buenos Aires and in Cambridge, England, and lives in New York.

Source: Panorama.am

Anonymous, Syrian Electronic Army hack Turkish govt networks, leak emails incl PM’s

By

Turkish government networks were hacked on Wednesday, compromising the private information of staffers in PM Tayyip Erdogan’s office, a source in PM’s office confirmed to Reut000_par7576351_siers. The attack was in support of the ongoing anti-government protests.

Staff email accounts were reportedly accessed after a phishing attack, and those affected were cut off from the network, a source said.

Anonymous hacked the Prime Minister’s official website (basbakanlik.gov.tr) and gained access to staff email addresses, passwords and phone numbers, the group said in a press release.

Iraqi Kurds criticize growing Turkish influence “Turkification of the Kurdistan Region”

By

Dr. Denise Natali — Ekurd.net 

“Turkey invades Iraqi Kurdistan with its businesses and not tanks”, Nawshirwan Mustafa says.

June 5, 2013

The ties that now bind the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) and Ankara are a welcome reprieve after decades of tension that destabilized the region and stunted economic growth. Alongside generous revenues from Baghdad and KRG pragmatism, Turkey has been a catalyst in rebuilding the Kurdistan Region of Iraq to a level unimagined just five state7113years ago. Economic development has led to political cooperation and mutual commitments to regional security.

Yet, as the Kurdistan Region moves deeper into Ankara’s orbit and away from Baghdad, particularly in developing its energy sector, some Kurdish populations worry that the KRG is substituting one form of dependency for another. These concerns are emerging alongside uneven economic development in the region and proxy wars in Syria. They are also feeding criticism of KRG policies, intra-Kurdish party struggles and nationalist sentiments within the Kurdistan Region and across its borders.

Indeed, since the creation of a federal Iraqi state, Kurdish officials have sought a commercial partnership with Turkey. In 2007, Nawshirwan Mustafa, now head of the Change Movement (Gorran), requested that Ankara “invade Iraqi Kurdistan with its businesses and not tanks” while also reaching out to Turkmen populations in Kirkuk. KRG business-friendly laws and opportunities for Turkish investment have been relatively successful. Today, in 2013, more than half (about 1,150) of the foreign companies in the Kurdistan Region are Turkish. Turkey also is helping to modernize the region’s socio-cultural milieu. Turkish music, clothes, educational institutions and food products allow Kurdish consumers access to better-quality goods and services that are helping to improve the quality of life, at least for some.

Yet, these trends also are having unintended consequences on local nationalist communities, some of whom are increasingly aware of the rapid and uneven nature of the region’s economic development and its perceived threats to Kurdish culture. In criticizing the absence of anything Kurdish and most things Turkish in the local markets, one Kurdish professional in Erbil opined, “We are becoming a banana republic for Turkey.” Other young professionals from Duhok province — the relatively wealthy Iraqi Kurdish–Turkish border area and stronghold of the Barzani family — have indicated that for them “things are going too far.” One specific criticism is of a new Turkish restaurant whose menu is only in the Turkish language.

Fueling this concern of the Turkification of the Kurdistan Region are the KRG’s energy sector development plans. As oil becomes the KRG’s strategic product, the KRG may find itself increasingly vulnerable to Ankara’s political will, particularly if it relies solely on Turkey as an energy transit route. The absence of alternative export routes and infrastructure — neither Iran nor Syria are viable options anytime in the near future — and overreliance on oil as a revenue source (about 95% of the KRG budget) compound this vulnerability. Instead of increasing Kurdish autonomy by circumventing Baghdad with “independent oil exports,” the Kurdistan Region could effectively become less autonomous as an economic vassal state of Turkey.

True, given its landlocked position, the Kurdistan Region depends on regional states, particularly Turkey, for its political and economic survival. Ankara’s role as the lifeline to the KRG was affirmed during the 1990s double embargo against the region, as lucrative profits from the oil-for-food smuggling operation at the Iraqi Kurdish–Turkish border represented about 85% of the KRG’s revenues. Turkey also is considered by some KRG leaders and populations a more dependable partner than Baghdad,www.ekurd.net particularly since it has vested interests in the KRG energy sector and needs cheap Kurdish oil and gas to help meet its rising energy demands. In fact, Turkey has much to gain from Iraqi Kurdish ambitions. At least from a financial perspective, it is unlikely that Ankara or its associated businesses would undermine this relationship given the economic stakes involved.

Still, dependency on Turkey as a sole energy-export route may give the Kurdistan Region less room to maneuver politically, particularly if Erbil’s policy choices or alliances challenge Ankara or if relations sour with Turkey in the future. Even though Turkey can benefit from cheap Kurdish hydrocarbons, this demand would represent a fraction of Ankara’s total energy imports while representing the entirety of the KRG’s exports and revenues. This dependent relationship could undermine the relatively extensive internal sovereignty and foreign policy autonomy the KRG has realized since 2003, despite the difficulties in dealing with the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

These trends are unlikely to alter the Erbil-Ankara alliance or the Iraqi Kurdish energy calculus, particularly as long as the KRG and Baghdad fail to resolve their resource and revenue-sharing disputes. Yet, they pose additional challenges to the KRG’s drive for autonomy and stability via Turkey by enhancing the gap between Kurdish economic and political aims and between KRG elites and local populations. Further, Turkey’s influence in the Kurdistan Region is occurring alongside a Kurdistan Workers Party-led Kurdish nationalist agenda in Syria, an unresolved Kurdish problem in Turkey and attempts to check Massoud Barzani’s power. Unless reconciled with Kurdish nationalist claims, it will continue to magnify divisions between Kurdish nationalists willing to be led by Turkey and those seeking to check Ankara’s influence.

 

 

 

Dr. Denise Natali is the Minerva Fellow at the Institute for National Strategic Studies INSS, National Defense University and the author of The Kurdish Quasi-State: Development and Dependency in Post Gulf War Iraq. The views expressed are her own and do not reflect the official policy or position of the National Defense University, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. government.

1st published on al-monitor.com