A LETTER ABOUT GENOCIDE FROM AN ARGENTINEAN DEPUTY
View By By Abdulhamit Bilici

Today’s Zaman, Turkey
Feb 25 2007

As April gradually approaches, discussions over genocide have once
again appeared on the agenda. But we have a rather different situation
now: There is the distinct possibility that the Armenian theses might
be approved of in the US Congress.

As always, the US administration is against the draft bill. But this
time, political stability is somewhat different. Tensions between
the Democrats and the Bush administration are high after it lost its
Congressional majority in the last elections over which many see as
the war in Iraq. Besides, the US House of Representatives has Nancy
Pelosi as the Democratic speaker, who has constantly approved of the
genocide thesis and who is so tough and uncompromising in her views
that she did not even accept to meet with Turkish FM Abdullah Gul.

For reasons that relate both to the significance and weight of mutual
relations for the world, a possible American approval of the draft
bill will of course lead to various interpretations. But, this will
not be the first time the draft bill gets parliamentary approval.

Unfortunately, many countries, including Russia, Canada, France,
and the Netherlands, have approved of similar draft bills. As you
may also know, Argentina joined in January the list of countries that
recognized the genocide claims. Unanimously passed by the Senate on
Dec. 13, 2006, the draft bill began to take effect on Jan. 11 after
Argentinean President Nestor Kirchner granted his official approval
to it. The Argentinean version of the bill suggests announcing every
April 24 as a day remembrance to improve tolerance and respect among
people in memory of the Armenian genocide, as well as allowing students
and employees of Armenian origin to take April 24 off each year.

Turkish Foreign Ministry officials in Argentina worked hard to prevent
the draft bill from being granted parliamentary approval.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoðan personally wrote a letter
to the Argentinean president to convey his concerns. But none of
this worked.

One cannot help asking: Why is it the Armenian thesis, and not the
Turkish one, that finds acceptance? There may be more than one answer
to this question, though it is difficult to cite animosity toward Turks
or sympathy for Armenians as a reason. Obviously the Armenian lobby
is working relentlessly, and it is getting the results it wants. We
cannot, however, even succeed in explaining our thesis plausibly,
accounting the real story and making clear how some Armenians were
promoted to important positions in the Ottoman system of government,
or elucidating the conditions that existed during World War I,
in spelling out the corporation of Armenians with the enemy, and in
arguing that there were Armenians living in many parts of the country
at a time when the genocide is argued to have happened, and even that
some Ottoman officials were convicted and sentenced to prison because
they made mistakes with the immigration process. Our thesis remains
so unknown across the world that some senior foreigner officials who
think about this issue do not even know that the incident happened
during Ottoman times.

After the draft bill was passed in Argentina, I asked Mauricio Bossa,
an Argentinean deputy, whom I met at an international meeting, why
they made a decision of this kind. Bossa’s letter of response showed
how the Armenian claims received acceptance and highlighted the fact
that the Turkish theses remain almost unheard-of. The following
are statements from Bosso, who left the parliament in early 2006:
"As you may know, there is a very important Armenian community living
in Argentina. In my country, there are people of Armenian descent
who occupy significant positions. A considerable proportion of those
people are wealthy. And as you may guess, the Armenian lobby here is
quite organized and powerful. The lobby has been working toward this
goal for a long time. In my view, the Argentineans are taking sides
with Armenian theses as they maintain very little contact with people
who support the Turkish theses. In fact, we had a similar draft bill
in the 1990s, when the politics at the time played a major role in
convincing former President Carlos Menem to veto it because he had
strong ties with the US administration.

"My personal approach to this subject is complex. I have many
friends of Armenian origin and, naturally, I know quite well of
their position. Besides, I have special sensitivity toward people
who were exposed to religious or political discrimination. This
is my impression of this situation: This incident took place many
years ago. And it happened before the 1920s when Turkey was not yet
politically transformed. Is today’s Turkey the same as the Turkey in
the early 20th century? Turkey is trying to become a member of the
European Union as a country with strong ties to the West. Under these
circumstances, I have difficulty in making sense of discussions over
something that happened one hundred years ago. "Most importantly,
I want to better know the Turkish thesis about the issue. I admit
that I only know about the Armenian thesis and nothing about the
Turkish one, if we don’t count the meeting we had."

Bosso concluded his letter suggesting that I speak to an Armenian
journalist who wanted to know more about the Turkish thesis.

Isn’t it obvious that we have a long way to go to make ourselves
understood? As long as we do not walk this way, will we ever have
the right to be put out with anyone else?

–Boundary_(ID_rLegdy3TzYHIGawm75cMTA)–
From: Baghdasarian