Sainthood For Armenians Who Died 100 Years Ago

SAINTHOOD FOR ARMENIANS WHO DIED 100 YEARS AGO

Orlando Sentinel, FL
April 19 2015

By Jeff Kunerth

They prayed for the lost and the forgotten. They prayed for the
martyrs and the survivors. They prayed for those who died and whose
deaths have been denied.

On Sunday, the congregation of the Soorp Haroutiun Armenian Church
near Windermere held a requiem for the estimated 1.5 million Armenians
killed between 1915 and 1923. It marks the 100th anniversary of what
the Armenians call genocide.

The disappearance of two-thirds of the Christian Armenian population
from Muslim Turkey is explained by the Turks as both an exaggeration
and a voluntary exodus brought on by World War I. If atrocities
occurred, Turkish officials say, it was the byproduct of war. But
they insist there was no systematic plan to annihilate the Armenian
population — the definition of genocide.

Members of Soorp Haroutiun church, though, remember it differently.

The survivors carried with them stories not unlike the Jews and Poles
and other victims of ethnic cleansing.

Anna Tabirian’s grandmother was 6 years old when she, her three
siblings, and mother were forced from their home in Turkey. Her two
youngest sisters died of thirst and starvation in the desert of Syria.

Turks found her mother and took her away. The grandmother and her
11-year-old sister became the property of a Turkish family, who used
them as servants.

Years later, her grandmother’s father who was away on business,
paid the Turkish family for his daughters’ release.

“Every time she would tell this story, she would cry and say in her
words, ‘Until the day I die, if grass grows over my heart, I will never
forget that,’ ” said Tabirian, 50, a member of the church’s council.

Lucine Harvey, a founding member of the Soorp Haroutiun church in 1985,
tells the story of her mother, who was 12 when she was shot by a Turk.

“He left her for dead, but before he did that my mother had a niece
five years old, and he took the little girl, threw her into the creek,
and made my mom watch her drown,” said Harvey, 75, of Windermere.

Last week, Pope Francis acknowledged the systemic murder of Armenians
as the first genocide of the 20th century. The United States and
Israel are not among the 22 countries in the world that recognize
what happened to the Armenians as genocide.

But inside the Armenian church, there was no debate. In the social
hall, there was a banner that said “100 Years of Remembrance 1915-2015
The Armenian Genocide.” A Christmas tree was reconfigured into a
“martyr tree” decorated with 3-by-5 index cards containing the names
of relatives who survived or lost their lives.

In his Sunday sermon, visiting priest Father Daniel Findikyan talked
about the upcoming event on Friday, April 24, when the Armenian Church
will officially recognize the those who died as martyrs and saints.

“For the first time in centuries, the entire Armenian church will
come together and canonize those Christians who were massacred in
the event of the genocide as saints of the church,” Findikyan told
the congregation of about 70 people.

Findikyan preached that it didn’t matter when, if ever, Turkey
acknowledges what happened to its Christian population 100 years ago.

Those who died because of their religious beliefs did so with the
martyr’s belief that God was there with them, he said.

“As we battle these conflicting feelings — sadness over the loss of
ancestors, anger at the injustice and the denial of truth — there is
also some sense of hope that God is with us,” he said. “It has taken
100 years, but the Armenian people can see in that disaster glimmers
of God’s presence.”

From: A. Papazian

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/os-sunday-armenian-martyrs-20150419-story.html

24 Avril : 100eme Triste Anniversaire Du Genocide Armenien

24 AVRIL : 100EME TRISTE ANNIVERSAIRE DU GENOCIDE ARMENIEN

1915-2015

Les Turcs ottomans, afin qu’existe “une patrie”, devaient
exterminer tous les chrétiens, les Grecs, héritiers historiques et
revendicateurs de l’Asie Mineure, les Arméniens et les Assyriens. Il
fallait qu’ils soient abattus ou déplacés. Les Arméniens furent
exterminés lors du génocide de 1915. En effet, entre 1914 et 1923,
un véritable nettoyage ethnique a été opéré. ( Génocide des
Arméniens, des Grecs du Pont-Euxin, de Smyrne, des Assyriens, …).

En conclusion, plus de 3 500 000 victimes

Comment peut-on oublier… ?

ΠÏ~IÏ~B μÏ~@οÏ~AοÏ~Mμε να ξεÏ~GάÏ~CοÏ…με… !

1914 : Phocée Centième anniversaire du massacre des Grecs de Phocée
(Cliquez ici) La ville de Phocée comptait 15 000 habitants.Le premier
exode eut lieu le 29 mai 1914 ; ces derniers furent massacrés et
d’autres chassés. Les réfugiés sont retournés, en 1919, chez eux
où ils furent a nouveau massacrés et chassés.

1915 : Arménie, premier génocide du XXème siècle Le samedi 24 avril
1915, a Istanbul (Constantinople), capitale de l’empire ottoman, 600
notables arméniens sont assassinés sur ordre du gouvernement. C’est
le début d’un génocide , le premier du XXème siècle. Il y aura
environ 1 500 000 victimes dans la population arménienne de l’empire
turc. Le gouvernement turc a décidé d’exterminer tous les Arméniens
résidant en Turquie. Il fallait mettre fin a leur existence, aussi
criminelles que soient les mesures a prendre et ne tenir compte ni
de l’âge, ni du sexe.

ÃŽ~UÏ~@ιÏ~DέΔοÏ…Ï~B Ï~DοÏ…Ï~B ξεÏ~AιζÏ~NÏ~Cαμε… Enfin,
nous avons réussi a les déraciner… (ÃŽ~ZεμάΔ
ÃŽ’Ï~DαÏ~DοÏ~MÏ~Aκ, 13 ÃŽ’Ï…γοÏ~MÏ~CÏ~DοÏ… 1923) – (Kémal
Ataturk 13 aoÔt 1923)

1919 : Génocide du Pont-Euxin Génocide du Pont-Euxin (Cliquez ici)
Le 19 mai 1919, débute le massacre au Pont-Euxin ; 353 000 Grecs
sur 700 000 qui y vivaient depuis le XIème siècle av. J.-C. furent
exterminés.

1922 : Génocide de Smyrne Génocide de Smyrne (Cliquez ici) Le samedi
9 septembre 1922, entre 10 et 11 heures , la cavalerie turque entra
a Smyrne. Beaucoup de cavaliers portaient des rameaux d’olivier en
criant “KORMA” (n’ayez pas peur). C’était la tactique adoptée par
les Turcs avant le massacre. Le massacre débuta dans le quartier
arménien, suivi du massacre des Grecs. Le dimanche 10 septembre,
entre 16 et 17 heures, les Turcs capturèrent Mgr Chrisostomos,
Archevêque métropolitain de Smyrne. Suite au génocide de Smyrne,
on dénombra 850 000 a 1 000 000 de victimes sur une population de
2 000 000 d’habitants.

1915- 1922 : Génocide des Assyriens Le génocide assyrien a eu lieu
durant la même période et dans le même contexte que le génocide
arménien et celui des Grecs. Les estimations sur le nombre total de
morts varient. Certains rapports citent le nombre de 270 000 morts,
bien que les estimations récentes aient révisé ce chiffre au nombre
plus réaliste de 500 000 a 750 000 morts, représentant environ 70 %
de la population assyrienne de l’époque.

Lire la suite sur Diaspora Grecque, lien plus bas

lundi 20 avril 2015, Jean Eckian ©armenews.com

D´autres informations disponibles : sur Diaspora grecque

From: A. Papazian

http://www.armenews.com/article.php3?id_article=110558

Ataturk’s ‘Johnnies And Mehmets’ Words About The Anzacs Are Shrouded

ATATURK’S ‘JOHNNIES AND MEHMETS’ WORDS ABOUT THE ANZACS ARE SHROUDED IN DOUBT

Paul Daley

The heartfelt speech attributed to Ataturk about Turks and Australians
in Gallipoli is historically dubious, extensive research shows

The reported words of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk on a wall on the Gallipoli
Peninsula. Photograph: Mike Osborne/AAP

Monday 20 April 2015 08.27

Those heroes that shed their blood and lost their lives … You are
now lying in the soil of a friendly country. Therefore rest in peace.

There is no difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets to us
where they lie side by side here in this country of ours … You, the
mothers who sent their sons from faraway countries, wipe away your
tears; your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace. After
having lost their lives on this land they have become our sons as well.

These famous, heart-rending words, attributed to Mustafa Kemal Ataturk,
who was a commander of Ottoman forces at the Dardenelles during the
first world war and later the founder of modern Turkey, grace memorials
on three continents, including at Anzac Cove, Gallipoli. A procession
of Australian prime ministers, from Bob Hawke to Kevin Rudd to Tony
Abbott, have spoken them to invoke a supposedly special bond between
Australia and Turkey forged amid the slaughter of the 1915 Gallipoli
campaign in which some 8,700 Australian and more than 80,000 Ottoman
troops died.

As Australia prepares to commemorate the centenary of the British
invasion ofGallipoli on 25 April, the authenticity of these emotive
words, supposedly uttered in 1934 and interpreted in Australia as a
heartfelt consolation to grieving Anzac mothers, are being challenged
with assertions that there is no credible definitive evidence Ataturk
ever wrote or spoke them.

Cengiz Ozakinci, a Turkish writer about his country’s politics and
history, has spent a decade researching the purported Ataturk quote.

“The words that appear with the signature ‘Ataturk 1934’ in the
English inscriptions on the monuments … do not belong to Ataturk,”
he writes in the April edition of the Turkish scholarly cultural
journal Butun Dunya.

Meanwhile the Australian organisation, Honest History, has undertaken
its own detailed research. It says the words are set in stone in
Anzac memorials “without proper evidence”.

Today Honest History, which is supported by some of Australia’s leading
historians and writers, publishes documents relevant to its research
on the purported Ataturk speech.

David Stephens, secretary of Honest History, said: “They are lovely
words but we really don’t know that Ataturk ever said or wrote them.

It detracts from the dignity of commemoration, whether it is in
speeches or memorials, if we keep quoting these words and putting his
name under them without proper evidence. Doing it again and again,
as we have done in Australia and Turkey, just sets in stone what may
well be a myth.”

And no myth endures in Australia quite like Anzac.

An apparent historical miscarriage

Advertisement

Sentimentality, decades of Anzac mythologisation, sloppy
Turkish-English interpretation, and diplomatic convenience appear
to have manifested in a historical miscarriage that attributes to
Ataturk, who died in 1938, words and sentiments for which there is
little but unreliable hearsay evidence that he composed or spoke.

Commonwealth departments, state governments, local authorities and the
Australian War Memorial have officially asserted Ataturk “delivered”
and, or, wrote the words in 1934 to the first delegation of British,
Australians and New Zealanders to visit Gallipoli.

The Turkish embassy in Australia calls them “Ataturk’s words to the
Anzac mothers”.

Kevin Andrews, the Australian defence minister, opened a recent
international Gallipoli symposium in Canberra with “Ataturk’s own
words”. A British conference speaker observed that the words have
become the single most frequently quoted piece of writing about
Gallipoli and were mentioned at least four times on one day alone at
the conference.

Generations of journalists have referred to the words. In an article
about the Anzac legend in 2014 the New York Times reported: “In
1934 Ataturk famously wrote to Australian mothers saying ‘having
lost their lives on this land they have become our sons as well’
“. They have made it into the Guardian as well.

One Australian, Captain Harry Wetherell, who served on Gallipoli
with the 5th Australian Light Horse Regiment, was among 700 guests
in a delegation organised by the Royal Naval Division Officers’
Association that sailed to the Dardanelles aboard the Duchess of
Richmond in April-May 1934. They laid wreaths at numerous sites.

But mention in the day’s English or Australian press of the famous
words being spoken on behalf of Ataturk are hard to find. Surely, had
such emotionally resonant words for the British empire been spoken on
Ataturk’s behalf – as so much Turkish and Australian history asserts
they had been by his interior minister and long-time political ally,
Sukru Kaya – they would have been reported?

Journalists and writers covered the pilgrimage. They included the
English Gallipoli veteran Stanton Hope, who filed for British papers
and the Sydney Morning Herald.

“A Turkish delegation led by the governor of Chanak added their
tribute both at Lone Pine and the New Zealand memorial on Chunuk
Bair,” Hope wrote. But he made no mention of Kaya in any contemporary
article. Later in 1934, Hope’s book, Gallipoli Revisited, offered
a detailed account of the pilgrimage. It doesn’t mention Ataturk’s
purported speech, although it includes a photograph of Kaya at a
wreath-laying ceremony.

The pilgrims did, however, hear briefly and indirectly, from Ataturk
who – according to the Sydney Morning Herald – “sent a message of
greeting to the British ambassador to Turkey who presided at the
ceremonial luncheon on board the liner”.

It read: “I am much touched by your cordial telegram. I send warmest
wishes to all of you during your devout pilgrimage.”

On Anzac Day 1934, in response to a request from an Australian
newspaper, the Star, Ataturk had written what was immediately
considered to be an Anzac tribute, even though he made no mention of
Australians or New Zealanders: “The landing at Gallipoli on April 25,
1915, and the fighting which took place on the peninsula will never
be forgotten. They showed to the world the heroism of all those who
shed their blood there. How heartrending for their nations were the
losses that this struggle caused.”

Ataturk’s message to the Star was republished with slight variations
in other newspapers across the world.

Four years earlier, Ataturk – again responding to an Australian
media request – did specifically praise Anzacs, reportedly saying:
“Whatever views we of the present or future generations of Turks may
hold in regard to the rights or wrong of the world war, we shall never
feel less respect for the men of Anzac and their deeds when battling
against our armies … They were nearer to achieving the seemingly
impossible than anyone on the other side yet realises.”

These are, undoubtedly, laudatory sentiments about the Anzacs. But they
lack the emotive resonance of the purported – and now contentious –
1934 “Johnnies and the Mehmets” speech attributed to him.

Ataturk, again responding to a request, told Brisbane’s the Daily Mail
on Anzac Day 1931 that the Anzacs were a worthy foe. These words come
closest to anything I’ve seen to his purported 1934 speech inscribed
on the monuments. “The Turks,” he said, “will always pay our tribute
on the soil where the majority of your dead sleep on the windswept
wastes of Gallipoli.”

FacebookTwitterPinterest Graves near Anzac Cove on the Gallipoli
Peninsula. Photograph: Mike Osborne/AAP

These, and other words from his statement to the Daily Mail, have
the same poetic ring – perhaps even the same emotional and diplomatic
intent – as “the Johnnies and the Mehmets” speech. But they are not
the same.

Ataturk died in 1938. Australian obituaries followed. It is curious
the famous Johnnies and Mehmets speech received no mention here with
his passing, given it was supposedly delivered in 1934.

In its obituary Adelaide’s the Advertiser, for example, said: “One
cannot pass from this phase of his remarkable life without recalling
the message which he sent to the Australian government [sic] four
years ago on Anzac Day.” The paper then quoted the message that
Ataturk had sent to the Star.

‘Beautiful words’

So precisely how and when did the “Johnnies and the Mehmets” words
make it into the public consciousness in Turkey and Australia?

In November 1953, the Turkish newspaper Dunya published an interview
with Kaya in which he says he delivered a speech at Gallipoli in
1934 drafted by, and on behalf of, Ataturk, praising the Turkish and
enemy troops. Ozacinki says the words Kaya claimed to have spoken are:
“Those heroes that shed their blood in this country! You are in the
soil of a friendly country. Rest in peace. You are lying side by side,
bosom to bosom with Mehmets. Your mothers, who sent their sons from
faraway countries! Wipe away your tears. Your sons are in our bosom.

They are in peace. After having lost their lives on this soil they
have become our sons as well.”

In 1960 the president of the New South Wales Returned Sailors’
Soldiers’ and Airmens’ Imperial League of Australia, Bill Yeo, led
a delegation of 45 other Gallipoli veterans to the Dardanelles.

According to Brisbane’s the Courier Mail of 25 April, 1964,
at Gallipoli they were read “a special message from the Turkish
government”.

The message included: “Oh heroes, those who spilt their blood on this
land, you are sleeping side-by-side in close embrace with our Mehmets.

Oh mothers of distant lands, who sent their sons to battle here, stop
your tears. Your sons are in our bosoms. They are serenely in peace.

Having fallen here now, they have become our own sons.”

The words – while literally similar, and evocative in emotional tone
and intent of those questionably attributed to Ataturk on memorials at
Anzac Cove, on Anzac Parade in Canberra and in New Zealand’s capital,
Wellington – do not mention “the Johnnies and the Mehmets” together.

Fast forward to a chance encounter on the Dardanelles between a retired
Turkish schoolteacher, Tahsin Ozeken, and an elderly Australian
Gallipoli veteran on 15 April, 1977. Ozeken carried a Gallipoli
Peninsula guidebook, Documented guide for Eceabat, published in 1969.

Ozeken read to the Gallipoli veteran a section from the book he
attributed to Ataturk: “Those heroes that shed their blood in this
country! You are in the soil of a friendly country. Rest in peace.

“You are lying side by side, bosom to bosom with Mehmets. Your mothers,
who sent their sons from faraway countries! Wipe away your tears. Your
sons are in our bosom. They are in peace. After having lost their
lives on this soil they have become our sons as well.”

FacebookTwitterPinterest The grave of an Australian soldier, J
Blundell, on the Gallipoli Peninsula. Photograph: Mike Osborne/AAP

Other English translations vary slightly. None include the words “no
difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets”. None even mention
the “Johnnies”.

The veteran, delighted at Ataturk’s purported words, swapped personal
details with Ozeken.

Ozeken wrote the words down for the veteran to take home, which he did,
and read them to a Brisbane Anzac veterans’ meeting.

Ozeken, in an October 1977 letter to Ulug Igdemir, head of the Turkish
Historical Society, said he’d “mentioned [to the Australian] the
remarkable statement which I suppose had been made by Ataturk while
on a visit to … the battlefields in the years between 1928-1931”.

Ozeken’s letter to Igdemir enclosed another from an Australian
Gallipoli veteran,Alan J Campbell, of Brisbane, who identified himself
as “chairman of the Gallipoli Fountains of Honour Committee”.

Campbell, a stalwart of the Queensland Country party, wrote that his
organisation was finalising a Gallipoli memorial for Brisbane.

“We were all very impressed by your quotation by that greatest Turk,
Ataturk, by the side of Quinn’s post at Anzac, we think it a very
wonderful statement and we would be anxious to have it inscribed upon
a metal plaque on the Fountains,” Campbell wrote.

According to Igdemir (who reproduces letters between Ozeken, Campbell
and himself in his society’s 1978 book, Ataturk and the Anzacs),
Ozeken asked Igdemir to send the statement made by Ataturk “concerning
the foreign soldiers that had fallen dead in Gallipoli to Mr Campbell
after having it supported with some official confirmation as to the
accuracy of its date and the place of its deliverance”.

Igdemir drew a blank, writing that the guide book “has provided no
sources whatever” and that he could find “no information concerning
the visit of Ataturk to the battlefield in the Dardanelles and the
talks delivered by him in the area”.

But writing in Ataturk and the Anzacs, Igdemir recounts how he told
Campbell by letter that he had found a reference in a November 1953
newspaper article to an interview with Ataturk’s then ageing former
interior minister, Sukru Kaya. The special edition of Dunya newspaper
coincided with the 15th anniversary of Ataturk’s 1938 death.

Ozakinci has spent a decade researching the purported Ataturk speech
and concludes neither Ataturk nor Kaya publicly delivered the words
in 1934. He took up the story of the Campbell-Igdemir correspondence
in a two-part feature in Butun Dunya, a cultural periodical attached
to Baskent University, Ankara.

In his article, “The words ‘There is no difference between the Mehmets
and the Johnnies’ … do not belong to Ataturk,” Ozakinci writes:
“These words that were reported to belong to Ataturk in the Eceabat
Guide published in 1969 without any reference, are exactly those words
that Sukru Kaya in his interview of 1953 reports Ataturk himself to
have written and given to him [to speak in 1934].”

The 1953 Turkish newspaper interview with Sukru Kaya is therefore
critical. It appears to be the first time that the purported speech
(minus the Johnnies and the Mehmets together) that closely resembles
that which has so famously been attributed in English to Ataturk on
monuments (including references to “the Johnnies and the Mehmets”),
made it on to the public record, even though they were supposedly
spoken in 1934. Ozakinci says the words attributed to Ataturk in that
newspaper interview are the same as those the 1969 Eceabat guidebook
assigns to him. They are also similar to those Yeo heard spoken at
Gallipoli in 1960.

So how, then, did the line “There is no difference between the Johnnies
and the Mehmets to us where they lie side by side here in this country
of ours” make it first on to the brass plaque on the now obsolete
Gallipoli fountain memorial in Brisbane, arranged by Campbell and
dedicated by his friend the Queensland premier, Joh Bjelke-Petersen,
in 1978?

The answer, it seems, is a poetic addition Campbell apparently took
upon himself (and perhaps others) to insert.

According to Igdemir’s book, Igdemir wrote to Campbell on 10 March,
1978, with an English translation of Kaya’s purported 1934 speech for
Ataturk – the same Turkish words that appeared in the 1969 Eceabat
guide book without “the Johnnies and the Mehmets” together.

On 7 April, 1978, Campbell responded that the English translation of
the words supplied by Igdemir from Ataturk’s purported speech (supplied
by Igdemir and taken from Kaya’s newspaper interview) had now been
placed on a brass plaque at the Roma Street, Brisbane, memorial.

“It varies slightly with the advices you have sent me. But the
difference makes no difference in solemn meaning and inspiration,”
Campbell wrote, according to Igdemir.

FacebookTwitterPinterest Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, circa 1917. Photograph:
Popperfoto/Getty Images

On 18 April, 1978, Igdemir, evidently wondering what changes to
Ataturk’s purported speech Campbell had made, wrote: “I shall be
grateful should you send … a photograph taken at close range of the
metal plaque, upon which the statement of Ataturk has been inscribed.”

On 31 May Campbell replied with three photographs of the monument,
including a plaque close-up.

Ozakinci elaborates in his article: “These words that were reported
to belong to Ataturk in the Eceabat Guide published in 1969 … are
exactly those words that Şukru Kaya in his interview of 1953 reports
Ataturk himself to have written and given to him.”

Ozakinci goes on: “Igdemir sends an official letter to Alan J.

Campbell . . . translating into English these words, which he considers
to be ‘a very meaningful speech that Ataturk had Şukru Kaya read
out in Gallipoli in 1934’ … Campbell informs Igdemir that they
added these words to the monument made in Australia making slight
alterations and with Ataturk’s signature under them and sent Igdemir
a photograph of the monument together with a letter dated May 31, 1978.

“A look at the photo reveals that the slight changes made by the
Australians are (ı) adding the statement ‘there is no difference
between the Johnnies and Mehmets to us’; (ıı) changing the date
1934 sent by Igdemir into 1931; (ııı) changing Ataturk’s first
name Kemal into Kamel.

“In his response to Campbell on June 8, 1978, Igdemir points out that
the year 1931 should be changed into 1934, and Kamel into Kemal;
however, he did not ask for removal of the statement ‘there is no
difference between the Johnnies and Mehmets to us’ that the Australians
added to the monument as Ataturk’s words, and expresses that he likes
the addition to ‘Ataturk’s beautiful words’.”

In Ataturk and the Anzacs, Igdemir – whose state-sponsored official
history society Ataturk founded in 1931 – uses two versions of the
purported 1934 speech: one in Turkish with no mention of the Johnnies,
and the amended one with the addition of them that he had apparently
later accepted from Campbell.

Of the famous statement attributed to Ataturk in 1934 that adorns
Anzac monuments, the speeches of Australian prime ministers and
which stands as a cornerstone of the Anzac legend, Ozakinci writes:
“However, in 1934 Ataturk did not give such a speech.

“The words that appear with the signature ‘Ataturk 1934’ in the
English inscriptions on the monuments erected in Canberra (Australia),
Wellington (New Zealand), and Ariburnu (Turkey), that address . . .

‘The Johnnies’ (Anzac soldiers) and their mothers, and that include
the expression ‘There is no difference between the Johnnies and the
Mehmets’, which we have proven to belong to the Australian Alan J.

Campbell, do not belong to Ataturk.”

The only statement Ataturk did issue in relation to Australia in 1934
was his brief written statement to the Star newspaper around Anzac
Day, Ozakinci writes. Even then, he points out, those words were not
specific to Anzacs.

Ozakinci reveals Kaya did make a speech at Gallipoli for Ataturk. But
it was in 1931.

He reproduces an official news agency report of a speech Kaya made in
August 1931 that, while highly emotive and paying passing tribute to
foreign soldiers who died at Gallipoli, gives far greater emphasis to
the bravery of Turkish defenders and refers to the force in which the
Anzacs fought as “invaders”. The words demonstrably spoken in 1931 by
Kaya at Kemalyeri, Gallipoli, on his leader’s behalf carries little
of the tone of the contested 1934 Ataturk speech.

According to Ozakinci’s English interpretation of the speech, it reads
in part: “With honour and pride do we see that the great states who
fought with the greatest force and might against this place look with
respect and appreciation at Kemalyeri and the great Turk that it was
named after. At this point, I will content myself with one sentence
to express my whole emotionality: endless gratefulness to the Turkish
youth who shed their blood to save the fatherland.

“I see that for these big heroes no monument has yet been erected. I
would like not to be grieved by this. We know that the indestructible
Turkish state that these glorious heroes established and protected
is the highest monument of universal nature that will always make
them be remembered with love.

“Across we see the graves and monuments of the warriors that fought
us. We also appreciate those that rest there … The history of
civilisation will judge those lying opposite each other and determine
whose sacrifice was more just or humane and who to appreciate more: the
monuments of the invaders, or the untouched traces of the heroes left
here in the form of sacred stones and soil, these traces of heroes …

“If the nations that left graves opposite us, consider our sincere
and new viewpoint well, these graves that face each other will ensure
conversation and friendship between us instead of hatred, animosity,
and feelings of self-will … While the Turkish nation looks with
respect at these monuments and remember the dead of both sides, the
sincere wish that lives in their mind and conscience is for such death
monuments never to be erected again, on the contrary, to heighten
the human relations and human bonds between those who erected them.”

Ozakinci concludes his article: “While there are so many of Ataturk’s
writings, speeches and statements published during his lifetime that
contain his sayings related to his views on world peace, is there
any need to explain Ataturk’s pacifism and humanity by putting his
signature under others’ poetic words, instead of just using his
own words?”

FacebookTwitterPinterest Anzac Parade, Canberra, on 25 April,
2010. Photograph: Alan Porritt/AAP

The answer is almost certainly no. But the words supposedly spoken by
Kaya on Ataturk’s behalf in 1934 have long suited Australia and Turkey
since they first vaguely came into Australian consciousness via Bill
Yeo about 1960. Their evocation of sleeping brethren – the Johnnies
beside the Mehmets – distracts from the reality that British forces,
including the Australians and New Zealanders, were an invasion force.

The words have also become a convenient touchstone for the close
bilateral relationship between old foes and, not least, a symbol of
the commemorative cultural (and tourism) value of Anzac.

The myth of Ataturk’s uplifting, consoling, Johnnies and Mehmets speech
may well have begun as a Turkish whisper in a newspaper interview with
an ageing acolyte and devotee of the dead president in 1953. But it
has since become a commemorative roar in Australia and at Anzac Cove,
where tens of thousands of Anzac pilgrims visit and read the words
on the Ataturk memorial, unveiled in the mid 1980s.

The monument bearing the same words on Anzac Parade, Canberra –
the only one to an enemy commander – was dedicated simultaneously.

Was a version of the purported 1934 speech recounted in the Turkish
newspaper interview with Kaya in 1953 (minus the Johnnies and the
Mehmets together) given to Yeo’s delegation in 1960 by a Turkish
official? Was the version in the 1969 Ecebat guidebook (also
without Johnnies and the Mehmets) most likely based on that 1953
Kaya interview?

There is no evidence, beyond the 1953 interview with Kaya himself,
that what we know as Ataturk’s purported “Johnnies and the Mehmets”
words were ever written of spoken by the leader, Kaya or anyone
else in 1934, 1931 or, indeed, any other time up until the Turkish
president’s death in 1938. That hasn’t stopped countless other world
leaders and officials speaking them countless times since.

Was Kaya, an old man at the time of that interview and perhaps
sentimental at the 15th anniversary of the great leader’s death
(Ataturk’s remains were reinterred in a mausoleum that very highly
emotional, nationalistic day) confusing 1934 with the speech he
demonstrably made at Gallipoli for Ataturk in 1931?

Maybe. Even so, the 1931 speech hardly resembles the almost sanctified
words that have made their way on to Anzac monuments in three
continents – not to mention the lips of various Australian prime
ministers. And the odd British one, too.

It all comes back to 1953 and Kaya – who, as a public servant during
the first world war, was strongly implicated in the Armenian genocide
and later, as one of Ataturk’s ministers, in the massacre of Kurds
at Dursim in the late 1930s.

History is always open to interpretation and debate. But good history
is grounded in fact.

Until significant, non-circumstantial evidence to the contrary arises,
the consolation to Anzac mothers so widely attributed to Mustafa
Kemal Ataturk in 1934 can only remain historically dubious.

It is testimony to the potency of Anzac mythology that it hasn’t been
more fully tested until now.

From: A. Papazian

http://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/apr/20/ataturks-johnnies-and-mehmets-words-about-the-anzacs-are-shrouded-in-doubt

Cross-Stone Commemorating Armenian Genocide Centennial Unveiled In V

CROSS-STONE COMMEMORATING ARMENIAN GENOCIDE CENTENNIAL UNVEILED IN VALENCE, FRANCE

16:12, 20 Apr 2015
Siranush Ghazanchyan

A cross-stone in memory of the Armenian genocide victims was unveiled
in Valence, France, on April 19.

The monument is a copy of a cross stone erected in Jugha in 699-702.

The solemn ceremony was attended by the Mayor of Valance, Nicolas
Daragon, other officials, clergymen and representatives of the local
Armenian community.

The Mayor’s 2014 decision to install a cross-stone in Valence in
commemoration of the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide faced
protests by Turkey.

From: A. Papazian

http://www.armradio.am/en/2015/04/20/cross-stone-commemorating-armenian-genocide-centennial-unveiled-in-valence-france/

The Prevention Of Crimes Against Humanity Is Still Imperative: Edwar

THE PREVENTION OF CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY IS STILL IMPERATIVE: EDWARD NALBANDIAN

18:14, 20 Apr 2015
Siranush Ghazanchyan

Armenia’s Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian’s Article has been
published in a special issue of magazine

The prevention of crimes against humanity is still imperative

In the current world of drastic political changes, the international
community and individual States occasionally do not manage to address
issues, which at first glance do not seem urgent, even though there
is an understanding that addressing them is of high importance.

Genocide prevention is one of such issues. The Armenian nation, which
survived the first genocide of the 20th century, feels a strong moral
responsibility to bring its contribution to international efforts
in prevention of crimes against humanity. We have exerted our best
efforts and will continue to do so for that purpose.

The recurrence of genocide or its threat is not a turned page for
humanity. Genocide prevention always requires the constant attention
and best efforts of the civilized world, without subordinating that
noble humanitarian cause to any geopolitical calculations.

No single person can feel safe while there is an attempt to exterminate
a whole ethnic group somewhere in the world. Every measure should be
taken beforehand, first of all to prevent the genocidal environment
from maturing into irreversible acts of violence.

Testimonies of the Armenian Genocide can be found in any part of the
world, particularly where Armenians live. The Armenian people passed
through the horrors of that tragedy in the Ottoman Empire. There was
an attempt to strip millions of Armenians of their right to life, as
well as their past — thousands of cultural and religious monuments
were destroyed and the survivors were driven off the lands they had
inhabited for many centuries.

One of the aspects inherent to the case of the Armenian Genocide is
the presence of direct international obligations of the Ottoman Empire,
which adhered towards the great powers at the Berlin Conference in 1878
“to carry out, without further delay, the ameliorations and reforms,
which are called for by local needs in the provinces inhabited by
Armenians and to guarantee their security” (1).

Under the circumstances of continuous harassments of the Armenians
in the Ottoman Empire, instead of improvement of the plight of the
Armenians, the world witnessed Armenian massacres and pogroms. The
most large-scale massacres before the genocide were committed by the
Ottoman Sultan Abdul Hamid II between 1894 and 1896 when around 300,000
Armenians were killed, and in the 1909 Adana Massacres committed by
the Young Turks, when around 30,000 Armenians were massacred.

Back then no effective measures were taken to call the perpetrators
of these massacres to justice. The atmosphere of impunity largely
contributed to yet more horrendous massacres of around 1.5 million
Armenians, with World War I serving as a “suitable” cover for their
implementation. Thus, the genocidal policy of the Ottoman Empire
continued for more than a quarter of a century and culminated by what
the Armenians called “Mets Yeghern” (The Great Calamity).

The first time the great powers paid a concerted attention to the
massacres was on May 24, 1915, when the Allied Powers — Russia,
France and Great Britain, adopted a special declaration warning the
perpetrators of the atrocities against the Armenian people that they
would be held personally responsible for “these new crimes of Turkey
against humanity and civilization.” This was one of the first occasions
of the use of the term “crimes against humanity” on an international
level, leading to its elaboration as an inherent concept of the
contemporary international legal system. In 1929 Winston Churchill
characterized the Armenian massacres as a “holocaust” and added that
“this crime was planned and executed for political reasons.

The opportunity presented itself for clearing Turkish soil of a
Christian race.”

Nowadays some Turkish narratives are presenting their own perceptions
of history as the only true ones, a “just memory” into which other
peoples’ memories should fit. This is an exercise against memory
and history. The study of history suffers when memory is applied
selectively, when “the organized murder of the Armenian race” is
presented as imaginative memory of the descendants of the survivors.

In fact, the Armenian Genocide is a part of the memory and history of
the Armenian nation and of humanity as a whole, including the Muslim
world. One of the earliest references to the Armenian Genocide comes
from a Muslim witness, Fayez El Ghossein, who in 1916 published his
work entitled “The Massacres in Armenia.” Sharif of Mecca Hussein
ibn Ali al-Hashimi was one of the prominent Islamic leaders, who
acted against the annihilation of the Armenians and called on his
subjects to defend Armenians as they would defend themselves and
their children. In 1919-1921 Turkish public figures such as Refi
Cevat, Ahmet Refik Altinay and many others referred to the large
scale extermination of Armenians. Many Muslim historians refer to
the massacres of Armenians as genocide, while Arab historian Moussa
Prince used the term “Armenocide”, considering it as “the most
genocidal genocide.”

The Arab authors Fuad Hasan Hafiz, Samir Arbash and others defined
the Armenian Genocide as “the blood page in the history of mankind of
the 20th century.” It was the absence of the unequivocal condemnation
and elimination of consequences of the Armenian Genocide that made
the young philologist Rafael Lemkin in 1921 ask his professor why
the Armenians did not have the masterminds of the Armenian Calamity
prosecuted. To that question his professor replied that there was no
law under which they could be brought to justice. Afterwards Lemkin
decided to get immersed in international law dedicating his life to
the study of crimes against humanity, which, among others, paved the
way for the adoption of the 1948 Convention. Lemkin alluded that he
defined the term genocide also by referring to the very policy of mass
extermination perpetrated against Armenians. It was the Shoah that
pushed the international community to codify the crime of genocide
through the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the
Crime of Genocide. The following seven decades have demonstrated that
all good-will is not enough to exclude genocides and crimes against
humanity from happening again.

Close examination of the genocides of the 20th century demonstrates
that the perpetrators of genocides in different geographical areas and
different historical periods have been “skilled enough” to identify
the tactics of their murderous predecessors and learn from them. The
Young Turk’s Committee of Union and Progress in Turkey, the National
Socialist German Workers’ Party in Germany, and the Hutu National
Revolutionary Movement for Democracy in Rwanda all used special
paramilitary organizations as the main perpetrators of mass killings.

These were Teskilat Mahsusa, the Schutzstaffel, Interahamwe. These as
well as other crimes against humanity had many other similarities
in the genocidal practices, such as the treatment of victims,
expropriation of their properties and ways of extermination.

Oppressions, intolerance towards and demonization of the
representatives of ethnic, religious, minority and other groups and
their cultural heritage, and limited ethnic cleansings could indicate
the emergence of genocidal atmospheres, and require immediate,
unconditional and united preventive efforts from the international
community.

The failure to prevent genocide in one place provides a solid ground
for its recurrence in other places. In this context many refer to
Hitler’s quotation from August 1939 when he rhetorically asked “Who
still talks nowadays of the extermination of the Armenians?”

Genocides do not occur according to a single model and in order
to develop preventive mechanisms we should have an accurate
understanding of the history of genocides, their causes, the methods
of implementation and the subsequent developments. At the same time,
we must be ready to learn from past failures and be ready for new
challenges.

One of the main contemporary documents enclosing the main measures for
the prevention of the crime of genocide is the UN Human Rights Council
Resolution of 22nd March 2013, initiated by Armenia and co-sponsored
by 62 countries. It envisages the necessary international measures for
genocide prevention. Particularly, we can see the three main pillars
of genocide prevention: early warning, human rights protection, and
public campaign for education and awareness. These pillars include
a number of components.

First, the convention envisages that the international community must
be aware of the risk of genocide as early as possible in order to react
promptly, before it is too late. Usually perpetrators of genocides
try to hide their intentions as long as possible. However, it is
quite hard for them to cover up the preparation of such grave crimes
for a long time. Hence the international community and particularly
international organizations should evaluate the origins of genocidal
atmosphere leading to this heinous crime and effectively prevent it.

Over the course of the past decade both the United Nations and
the regional bodies, as well as some human rights NGO s, have made
much progress in improving early warning and assessment systems. We
should do our utmost to ensure that these advances continue in the
years ahead. Early identification and warning by themselves will
not be effective unless they are followed by concrete mechanisms of
deterrence and protection.

Second, prevention of genocide is a part of the complex international
mechanisms of the human rights protection. This is the basic and
most efficient way to exclude the possibility of the occurrence of a
genocidal atmosphere in a society. Strong legal traditions and moral
values stand on the most important defense line against these horrible
crimes. Genocide is an unthinkable crime for a society which is founded
on the protection of human rights, on the values of mutual respect,
tolerance and non-violence. In other words, genocide is dead before it
is born in a society with strong human rights protection traditions
and vice versa — human rights protection is basically non-existent
wherever genocide occurs.

The connecting chain of human rights protection and genocide
prevention is the protection of ethnic, religious and other
minorities’ rights. For most cases of genocide the main objective of
the perpetrators is the extermination of an ethnic minority. Reasons
for such a crime may be the wish to prevent a minority group from
implementing its right to self-determination. In order to rule out the
possibility of such developments the international community should
particularly assist the States that have a diverse ethnic population
to maintain proper human rights protection and particularly minority
rights protection.

Moreover wherever it is necessary, the international community
should support the peaceful implementation of the right to
self-determination of the peoples. As it was mentioned in a recent
report by an Independent Expert, Alfred-Maurice de Zayas for the UN ,
rather than perceiving self-determination as a source of conflict,
a better approach is to see armed conflict as a consequence of the
violation of self-determination.

Finally, the third pillar of goals envisaged in the UN Human Rights
Council Resolution is to raise public awareness through education
and remembrance. Generations should get accurate knowledge of the
history of past tragedies, past genocides. The full acknowledgement
and condemnation of committed genocides are one of the most effective
tools for the prevention of their reoccurrence in the future. This is
particularly an important condition for the possibility of an effective
reconciliation among peoples who directly encountered genocide. The
right of people to their memory, their right to knowledge of the
history of past tragedies through education and remembrance has
pivotal roles on preventing and condemning genocide.

Genocide scholars nowadays consider genocide denial as one of the
stages of genocide. According to the Genocide Watch following
classification, symbolization, discrimination, dehumanization,
organization, polarization, preparation, persecution and extermination,
the denial is classified as the final stage that lasts throughout and
always follows genocide. It is among the surest indicators of further
genocides, because along with impunity, denial paves the way for the
repetition of new crimes against humanity.

Independently of geopolitical or any other interests, all members of
the international community should stand together in the recognition,
condemnation and punishment of past genocides, especially in light of
the 1968 Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations,
in their efforts towards their prevention in the future. As it is
mentioned in the preamble of the abovementioned resolution, the
impunity for the crime of genocide, war crimes and crimes against
humanity encourages their occurrence and is a fundamental obstacle
to the furtherance of cooperation among peoples and the promotion of
international peace and security. Fighting impunity for such crimes
is an important factor in their prevention. Genocide remembrance
days should be days of mourning not only for the descendants of
victims, but for the descendants of the perpetrators. These days
should be approached with commitment to move towards recognition
and reconciliation. The true reconciliation cannot be achieved by
forgetting the past, feeding younger generations with tales of denial.

Moreover, in the current globalized world it is gradually becoming
impossible for a State to conceal from its own society all the facts
concerning the tragic events of the past. Hence, continuing the
policy of denial and falsification of facts simply widens the gap of
understanding between the very government and the society in a State
which or the predecessor of which perpetrated genocide.

The civilized world should resolutely reject the incitement to hatred,
racism, dissemination of intolerance, denial of genocide, and crimes
against humanity under the guise of freedom of expression. One of
the tools of denial nowadays is the minimization of the suffering of
the victims, trivialization of the scale of the losses and equation
of the sufferings of the victims and the perpetrators. Recently,
we have often witnessed this new tactic of “soft denial”.

These are the main measures that are envisaged for the prevention
of the reoccurrence of genocides. But whatever measures we take, we
cannot expect effective results unless there is a proper realization
of how important it is to prevent any occurrence of genocide and
without sufficient will by the members of the international community
to take practical steps whenever it is necessary. No matter how often
we take measures for the prevention of genocides, these efforts will
be rewarded if we observe and enforce all available prevention tools.

As exactly a century ago, nowadays too, witnessing new attempts at
genocides and new tactics of their denials, the issue of preventing
crimes against humanity is still imperative.

From: A. Papazian

http://www.armradio.am/en/2015/04/20/the-%E2%80%AA%E2%80%8Eprevention%E2%80%AC-of-%E2%80%AAcrimes%E2%80%AC-against-humanity-is-still-imperative-edward-nalbandian/

Iranian Service Of BBC TV Channel To Cover Armenian Genocide In Sepa

IRANIAN SERVICE OF BBC TV CHANNEL TO COVER ARMENIAN GENOCIDE IN SEPARATE PROGRAM

Iranian service of BBC TV channel will cover the Armenian Genocide in
a separate program, Hayeli.com, the website of the Iranian-Armenian
community, reports.

According to the report, the Iranian service of BBC TV channel will
cover the Armenian Genocide during the program Pargar on April 21.

Cartographer Rouben Galichian and expert on Azerbaijani history,
Mashallah Razmi, will answer the audience’s questions during the
program.

According to the website armeniangenocide100.org, the Armenian Genocide
has so far been recognized by the following countries: Uruguay (1965),
Cyprus (1975), Russia (1995), Canada (1996), Lebanon (1997), Belgium
(1998), France (1998), France (1998), Greece (1999), Vatican (2000),
Italy (2000), Switzerland (2003), Slovakia (2004), Argentina (2004),
the Netherlands (2004), Venezuela (2005), Poland (2005), Chile (2007),
Sweden (2010), Bolivia (2014).

20.04.15, 13:33

From: A. Papazian

http://www.aysor.am/en/news/2015/04/20/Iranian-service-of-BBC-TV-channel-to-cover-Armenian-Genocide-in-separate-program/938312

Georgian Leaders Not To Attend Armenian Genocide Commemoration In Ye

GEORGIAN LEADERS NOT TO ATTEND ARMENIAN GENOCIDE COMMEMORATION IN YEREVAN

YEREVAN, April 20. / ARKA /. President of Georgia Giorgi Margvelashvili
will not come to Armenia to commemorate the centenary of the Armenian
Genocide in the Ottoman Empire, Russian Interfax news agency said.

Interfax quoted Tengiz Pkhaladze, an aide to Margvelashvili, as saying
that Georgia had informed Armenian authorities through diplomatic
channels that president Margvelashvili will not be able to come to
Armenia on April 23-24 because he will be welcoming Byelorussian
president Alexander Lukashenko who will be visiting Georgia on the
same days with an official visit.

The Georgian government did not confirm earlier reports that Georgian
prime minister Irakli Gharibashvili will be present in Armenia on
April 23-24.

Last week Georgian parliament declined a motion to consider the
recognition of the Armenian Genocide presented by the ethnic Armenian
MP Samvel Petrosyan.

Independent experts say Georgia is reluctant to recognize the massacres
of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire as genocide not to worsen relations
with neighboring Turkey and Azerbaijan, its key economic partners.-0-

From: A. Papazian

http://arka.am/en/news/politics/georgian_leaders_not_to_attend_armenian_genocide_commemoration_in_yerevan/#sthash.2NJPo1tl.dpuf

Cross-Stone In Memory Of Armenian Genocide Victims Unveiled In Yerev

CROSS-STONE IN MEMORY OF ARMENIAN GENOCIDE VICTIMS UNVEILED IN YEREVAN

18:17 20/04/2015 ” SOCIETY

A cross-stone commemorating the victims of the Armenian Genocide has
been installed in the newly built park in Achapniak administrative
district of Yerevan.

The unveiling ceremony was attended by Yerevan Mayor Taron Margaryan,
head of the State Property Management Department under the Armenian
government Arman Sahakyan, heads of Achapniak and Malatia-Sebastia
districts, members of Yerevan City Council and residents, the press
service of Yerevan Municipality reports.

The consecration ceremony of the cross-stone was conducted by Armenian
Apostolic Church servants.

From: A. Papazian

http://www.panorama.am/en/current_topics/2015/04/20/khachqar/

Executive: Wolves In Armenia Increased, As No Reward Was Granted For

EXECUTIVE: WOLVES IN ARMENIA INCREASED, AS NO REWARD WAS GRANTED FOR WOLF ELIMINATION

14:19 April 17, 2015

EcoLur

On 16 April the executive adopted a decision to increase the reward set
for killed wolves making it 123,346 from 100,000 AMD. The procedure
of granting rewards has been made stricter. The reward won’t be
provided, if the wolf fur is submitted later than the deadline,
the hunter has a hunting license or it’s expired, the wolf won’t be
hunted in prohibited manners etc.

Such encouragement by the government is conditioned with the need to
protect the communities from wolf attacks and to regulate the number of
wolves in Armenia, while the increase in the wolf number is explained
as follows, “During the last thirty years no reward mechanisms were
applied for wolf elimination and the absence of such practice has
led to the increase in the wolf number. This circumstance caused
not only socio-economic, but also serious environmental problems,
which is, for example, recorded for a number of species in Khosrov
Forest and Shikahogh state reserves, including damage caused to
red-listed species.”

From: A. Papazian

http://ecolur.org/en/news/officials/executive-wolves-in-armenia-increased-as-no-reward-was-granted-for-wolf-elimination/7243/

ISTANBUL: Beyond the genocide debate

Hurriyet Daily News, Turkey
April 18 2015

Beyond the genocide debate

VERDA Ã-ZER

`Prime Minister ErdoÄ?an’s statement of condolence to the Armenians was
a milestone in Turkey’s history.’

This was the first sentence of my column in daily Hürriyet on April 26
last year.

The then Prime Minister ErdoÄ?an had made an unprecedented move in
Turkish history by issuing an official statement offering condolences
to Armenians on April 24, the 99th anniversary of the Armenian
massacres.

This year, however, April 24 arrives in Turkey in a totally different
atmosphere. The declaration of Pope Francis last Sunday that `the
Armenian Genocide is the first genocide of the 20th century’ and the
resolution adopted by the European Parliament last week urging Turkey
to recognize the genocide have rekindled the longstanding genocide
debate in the country.

In my piece last year, I described ErdoÄ?an’s message of condolence as follows:

`For the first time, Turkey has not denied and has accepted the grief
of Armenians. For the first time it has spoken with its conscience,
saying `mutual history’ and `mutual pain.’ For the first time Turkey
has eliminated third parties and addressed the Armenians directly. For
the first time it has not been defensive and it has taken
responsibility. For the first time Turkey has emphasized a mutual
future with the Armenians.’

Up until then, the official paradigm had been different. The
non-Muslim community in Turkey was eliminated through different ways
during the Republican era. The population exchanges between Turkey and
Greece, the Wealth Tax imposed by the state only on non-Muslims, and
the fact that the assassination of the Turkish-Armenian journalist
Hrant Dink in 2007 was overlooked by various state officials, are only
some of the illustrations of this mentality.

By ignoring the Armenian massacres of 1915 until last year, the state
kept that mentality alive. The message of condolence therefore
signaled the process of confrontation with the issue.

However this was only a phase of a long process. The organization of a
conference titled `Ottoman Armenians During the Decline of the Empire’
in Istanbul in 2006, the online campaign titled `I Apologize,’ which
was launched in 2008 and which collected over 30,000 signatures, and
the protocols signed by Turkey and Armenia in 2009 were the
cornerstones of this process.

But there has also been another process in progress – between the West
and the Armenian diaspora. The European Parliament had also issued a
resolution recognizing the genocide, like the recent one, in 1987.
Pope Francis’ recent message had also previously been issued in a
written statement by Pope John Paul II in 2001.

What we need to recognize is that these two processes are not
independent of each other. Turkey gets distressed and shaken by every
step taken by the West and the diaspora. And this, in turn, runs the
tape back and damages the process of confronting history. Vice versa,
every counter-attack of Ankara affects the diaspora negatively.

Alas, we have been stuck in this vicious circle for decades.

The only way to break this cycle is to continue the confrontation
process in Turkey no matter what, instead of reacting sharply and
reviving the pre-2014 mentality every time the issue arises.

The next step could be issuing an apology to the Armenians, whose pain
we shared last year, and offering to grant Turkish citizenship to the
descendants of Armenians who were displaced or killed.
Only such steps will be able to take us beyond the genocide debate.

What’s more, we should recognize that this has become a very
artificial and hypocritical discussion. Politicians everywhere refer
to the Armenian massacres according to the varying conditions of the
day.

Former U.S. President Ronald Reagan had described the massacres as
genocide in 1981, while President Obama gets through April 24 every
year by avoiding the term `genocide’ and instead using `Meds Yeghern’
(Great Catastrophe). At the same time, however, Obama states that his
personal view – that he recognizes the genocide – has not changed.

Last but not least, it is not enough to expect only the state to
confront the past. Ordinary people themselves also need to face the
traumas.

The public apology issued by the Lebanese artist Rabih Mroue regarding
the Civil War in Lebanon between 1975-90 could serve as a guiding
light:

`I apologize for having thought that my comrades and I were right and
always on the right track. I apologize for not knowing the reasons and
the roots of the civil war, which I claimed to understand.’

It is time to question ourselves: Do we know the reasons and roots of
the traumas of Armenians? Do we think that we are always right?

April/18/2015

From: A. Papazian

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/beyond-the-genocide-debate.aspx?pageID=449&nID=81218&NewsCatID=466